Comments greentiger has made

Finally!

I was waiting for a post on this ad... I saw it about a month ago. So awkwardly hilarious I love it. Most people don't even know high fructose corn syrup is unhealthy, I think they're just calling attention to it. For the better I suppose, plus we get to enjoy unintentionally funny commercialsOn Curt Ellis responds to the ads promoting corn syrup ... posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 2 Responses

sweet

as much as i hate taking on new debt when the state's already bankrupt... how could I turn down high speed rail?

Speaking as a northerner, here's hoping LA is ready for train commuters when this thing opens up and makes the city in the south a bit more non-car friendly.On A real path to energy independence posted 1 year ago 31 Responses

not good.

This is certainly troubling; I saw this headline earlier today... Joseph, any idea of what kind of releases are occurring (on like mass/molar per year rate, or scaled to atmospheric concentration)?  In other words, how bad is this given event, scaled over the region over which it appears to be occurring on a few-year time scale?  I've said it before, but I'll say it again: these nasty positive feedback loops which we really don't understand all that well makes me think it's foolish not to be at least researching geoengineering technologies...  The time to act may have passed; I hope not, but seeing stories like this doesn't encourage that thought.On Methane releases from under the Arctic seabed could jeopardize GHG stabilization posted 1 year, 2 months ago 31 Responses

High V Low Distance DC Lines

Hey Gar,

Do you know any data on the efficiency of these lines (as compared to your typical high tension lines we see all around at present)?  (I'm looking for a figure like x% power loss over 100 or 1000 miles)
On A purely local approach would double or triple costs posted 1 year, 2 months ago 23 Responses

re: I take your point, greentiger,

Whoops, didn't mean to gloss over that point Dave, I was thinking more of the on-top-of-infrastructure costs... I simply have no idea how much it costs to run a train/bus/light-rail vehicle, how long a rail car lasts, etc.  There's got to be many interesting tidbits... How similar are light rail cars in the NY metropolitan area vs. elsewhere for instance?--is it the same manufacturer, could cities get better deals by putting larger purchase orders together with other cities, and so-on.

Sometimes you wonder who makes the mass transit schedules (I'm looking at you, guy who decided the last train should leave San Francisco at midnight on weekends), what routes exactly they're willing to run at a loss, and what kind of economics it takes for mass transit authorities to add another time to the schedule.

I just meant to distinguish between the marginal operational costs for already-built services--I think this will vary a lot when going from areas with dense population and modern MT versus more sprawling areas with less-than-stellar MT. (and that should end my rambling).On Transportation stuff posted 1 year, 2 months ago 10 Responses

umm

Might have missed it, but how again is the federal response to Katrina the fault of a senator from Arizona?On Major hurricane tracks to New Orleans on eve of Republican Convention? posted 1 year, 3 months ago 3 Responses

on a related note...

Anyone know if any data is available on fuel economy of all vehicles sold this year thus far?  I'd be shocked if it this (half) year's fleet average wasn't a bit higher than last year, but I wonder by how much.On Drop in U.S. driving last eight months exceeds the 1970s' total decline posted 1 year, 3 months ago 6 Responses

Actually Wolverine,

Maybe you shoulda read the link.

Senator Conrad's synopsis of the bill includes:
 "Extending renewable energy, carbon mitigation and energy conservation and efficiency tax incentives, including the production tax credit, through 2012 to create greater certainty and spur greater investment"

I actually think the legislation is quite good in many respects, although I'm not a policy expert. The American people now want offshore drilling, I don't think you're going to see senators successfully oppose that wish in an election year, so you might as well accept it as a necessary compromise. Offshore drilling might not be great, but I think there are many worse things that may happen to the environment.

The bill is a bit pro-biofuels, but not inordinately so; rather it seems to favor batteries:

"$7.5 billion for R&D focused on the major technological barriers to alternative fuel vehicles, such as advanced batteries;
* $7.5 billion to help U.S. automakers and parts makers re-tool and re-equip to become the world leader in making alternative fuel vehicles;"

versus:

"* $2.5 billion in R,D&D on next generation biofuels and infrastructure;"

Feel free to keep holding out for something better, Wolverine, but I'd be pretty pleased to see something like this actually get passed before '09 rolls around.On Congress goes on recess without passing energy legislation posted 1 year, 3 months ago 4 Responses

tail effects

Joseph,

While I understand that many of the plausible tail-end scenarios effects are certainly in the worst-case category, aren't there plenty of plausible positive examples as well, i.e. of catastrophe's averted due to higher temperatures (e.g. different hurricane paths, increased ag production to offset famines elsewhere, stuff I can't really think of/predict)?

Of course most of the tail effects are negative--particularly the effects of higher sea levels (but even in that case, won't we in many instances get cooler ocean temperatures as a result of the melted ice?).

What I mean to say is that calculating the tail effects is a tricky business, and I don't think factoring in plausible 'best-case' scenarios would change the end result, but it certainly creates a more intellectually robust report.On Review of climate change impact economics posted 1 year, 4 months ago 9 Responses

re: butanol

Yeah more or less. I suppose you don't "require" 'hydrocarbon-dependent agricultural techniques'; but yeah. I forget the nitty gritty details about the biochemical pathways involved (somewhat more complicated than EtOH (4 carbons vs. 2)), but any alcohol biofuel that I am aware of essentially involves using a sugar feed to a microbial (e.g. yeast or e. coli).

Long story short, some people think it will be a more viable alternative fuel than ethanol.  I don't know a good way of getting alcohols without using a sugar feed from cellulose or simpler plant-produced sugars.  In the scope of 'biofuels', however, I suppose algae-produced biodiesel does not necessitate typical farming practices--just CO2, sunlight, water and some nutrients.On McCain calls for $300 million prize for the designer of a better electric-car battery posted 1 year, 5 months ago 18 Responses

interesting way to look at it...

definitely something very important to consider--makes a 'feebate' system potentially very advantageous where you could implement a non-linear response for vehicles below the desired fleet average to dissuade purchase of the worst offenders.

this reminded me of an article last week about a researcher at Georgia Tech who has a drag reduction mechanism for tractor trailors that could provide a 0.6 mpg boost, from 5 to 5.6.

Putting this small boost into the Larrick/Soll example above, we get a savings of 21,429 gallons!... yet when we consider putting that into the fleet average that 0.6 mpg looks pretty pitiful.

What's appealing about switching to this kind of system, is that it doesn't require the end user (or 'the dumb consumer') to have to think very differently, as the significance of this change is only applicable to a small minority of vehicles, while consumers would still make the same kinds of choices near the middle and high end of the mpg spectrum.On Gallons per mile: A better way to express fuel efficiency posted 1 year, 5 months ago 24 Responses

Couple of questions/comments...

Sorry I'm a bit short on time and unable to read the 'nuclear illusion' report word for word, but I hope I've extracted the most salient details.

-That said, it appears that much of the high capital costs for new plants are attributed to an inverse economies of scale as new plant construction has slowed dramatically in recent decades... isn't it therefore somewhat unfair to state that as a mature technology it is not prone to much cost reductions?  I understand there most likely won't be a quantum leap as is the potential in, say, solar, but the revitalization of the industry (which would probably require essentially some kind of executive enforcement/encouragement) should bring capital costs further down.

-In looking at just the US's electricity portfolio, a few things jump out at me.  Let's look at where we are now with ~20% nuclear, 50% coal, and the rest a medley of NG, hydro, renewables, etc.  So soon that 20% nuclear will go offline, as many plants are past their expiration date and others will be so shortly.  Let's say we swap in 20% wind (a reasonable ceiling for grid penetration, and even generous as we'll consider reducing that whole pie altogether via efficiency).

That leaves us with our original electricity pie, with a negligible CO2 emission reduction.  Then we factor in efficiency.  This is the most nebulous to me.  Basically I'm skeptical that reducing more than 20% of our current demand will be pretty difficult, and after that will only just keep up with natural energy demand growth (as brought about pop. growth and a more 'electrified' society--i.e. energy demand will plateau at a 20% reduction from current levels).

So let's say we just removed that 20% from the 50% coal pie; awesome. But then let's consider that we want an electrified transportation nation (plug in hybrids, electric light rail, etc.).  I think transport is about 1/3 of total energy usage--or about half as much as electricity production.  I think we can certainly improve efficiency here by a factor of 2, i'll even say 3 (with the combo of less driving, more pub transit, and more efficient vehicles).  But we need to add (0.33 * 0.50 * 100 = 16%) back to our 'electricity pie' that we reduced to 80%; so we're back to 96%.

-I've neglected solar.  I work in solar! I love it! I don't see why 10% will be too difficult; I'll hedge my bets at 10% due to my ignorance of what the combined effect of wind and solar intermittentcy (now we have a combined 30/96 wind/solar fraction) is.

-That leaves us at 86% of our current electricity pie.  I've left out cogen so far.  The two universities I've attended both have cogen plants.  I like it a lot.  But I remain kinda skeptical of how popular it'll ever be in the US.  Simply put, while people might like the idea putting PV panels on their roofs, I'm not sure how they feel about the neighborhood NG plant a mile away, in addition to all the upheaval caused by installation of steam lines, etc.  Furthermore, many geographic places don't need the excess heating. So I'm not gonna factor in much for cogen.  Maybe a few percent--i'll say 4.

-So after all that we have 82% of our current electricity demand; but this necessitates that 32/82 is still from coal power; we've reduced our coal usage by 2*(50-32)% = 36%.  Not bad, but not stellar.  In other words, to get rid of the rest we could use nuclear.  Given my rather thrown-together (but I think pretty reasonable; i think i erred more on the side of enviro-friendly advances) analysis, the next choice to get rid of those coal plants is nuclear (we've saturated wind, solar, etc. (sorry i neglected the always-left out geothermal)).

And so, I'm left to the conclusion that abandoning nuclear doesn't seem like such a good thing, given it could eliminate coal power altogether (with a less-than doubling of it's current energy production in the US).  If someone actually manages to read this, could they be so kind as to where they see my calculations as being far off the mark as to what we can easily achieve?

ThanksOn Lovins and Sheikh defend their work in 'The Nuclear Illusion' posted 1 year, 5 months ago 23 Responses

re: Who Cares?

I'm definitely with Jerome in that you shouldn't be expecting to find the greenest cutting edge in Wired... It's not a green magazine--at this point it's probably 'general interest'--and to disparage it because it goes for a concise, mass-targeted approach strikes me as ecoelitist.  Wired should be credited for writing a feature that is both interesting and not overwhelming in detail and length--many people not heavily interested in green issues (i.e. people not reading grist, for one) wouldn't read it otherwise.

That said, I understand criticisms of the particulars (e.g. the blithe nuclear endorsement that could use more nitty gritty (or IMO, at least a plug for pebble beds..)).  But on the whole, I believe the article is admirable in debunking widespread simplistic conceptions of 'carbon emissions'.  Two responses in the green laity (those not reading this post...) may come from this article: a 'contrarian' viewpoint that refuses to trust any conventional wisdom, or a more pragmatic approach that relies less on detailed analysis and a systems-based analytical approach to climate change.  I consider the latter response highly desirable... While the IPCC has only demonstrated increasing confidence in anthropogenic CC, I feel that recent years have shown that its causes are much more nuanced than we thought.On Wired magazine bursts a blood vessel doing its contrarian thing posted 1 year, 6 months ago 18 Responses

Light Bulb Feebates

re: Easterbunny, i think that's a fair-reasoned response, and I don't see any flaws with your energy balances.  I just think that's an exception not the rule--if you wanted to do some nitty-gritty number-crunching you'd probably find that people emit more CO2 per electricity kwh (i.e. lots of coal) than for heating (i.e. NG, oil, or at worst (if coal)/equivalently electric).  Also I'm not sure  how the total lifecycle costs work out for a CFL versus Inc.--don't forget CFLs last about ten times longer (hence one tenth as many trips to the store, one tenth as many shipped bulbs).

Now re: the original post, why can't we do a feebate system but with bulbs?  I.e. establish an efficiency setting (i.e. lumens/watt) and then tax/subsidize bulbs accordingly... That means for applications/settings where people just need (and i mean really really want) an incandescent, they'll be able to buy them (albeit at a surcharge). Under such a system you could definitely put the price advantage in CFL's hands.On Have you been naughty with your light bulbs? You need some good old command and control. posted 1 year, 9 months ago 33 Responses

good data repository sites?

Anyone know any good resources for finding some related data?.. specifically i'm interested in comparing (per nation) population growth--and i think more interestingly--net immigration levels, total birth/fertility rates, and something like native vs. immigrant birth rates versus CO2 emissions (per capita) (as a good metric of industrialization).  

Also, world population projections for 2050 or 2100 or whatever as a function of time would be of interest.  And is there an easy to derive what 1% population growth corresponds to in fertility rate?

Thanks in advance.  I have seen this nifty site, which even does a nice movie for you of things changing over time, but it doesnt have data as accessible/detailed as i'd like.
On Is it only OK to talk about limiting population after it's too late? posted 1 year, 11 months ago 117 Responses

Will Cutting CO2 Be Enough

The outright rejection of geo-engineering by the green community has always baffled me.  It seems to be predicated on the following:
1.) We can thwart climate change simply by an economically and physically achievable reduction in CO2 emissions.
2.) If putting CO2 into the atmosphere got us into this whole mess, there's no way putting something else into there will help. (or the risk simply isn't worth it). (Note: this does not apply to all geoengineering methods)

My dispute is primarily with the first: it is a blatant contradiction to the uncertainty green always express towards climate change: We don't know the tipping points! How do we know we'll be able to do enough by simply reducing CO2 emissions?!

This rejection of geoengineering research is sickening because it's argument is so reminiscent of the arguments we use to (rightfully) criticize climate change deniers and do-nothings.  15 or so years ago when climate change was not yet proven to nearly the degree it has been today, we advocated policy-makers to act on this in order to be cautious--to plan for the case that it turns out to be true.  Yet now we're rejecting a similar uncertainty--namely that we can thwart disastrous c.c. through CO2 reductions--which may also save us in the future?

If greens want to respect scientific uncertainty they better start taking into account reasonable contingency plans (i.e. geoengineering).  Somehow Al Gore can get away with preaching scientific uncertainties (e.g. hurricanes are strengthened by c.c.) yet we can't model research policy by taking similar uncertainties into account? C'mon people.

I understand that the psychology of such advocacy is potentially detrimental--it could lessen the move to reduce carbon emissions and give people a false sense of security that something else will save them.  But that should never be a reason to reject research into what is essentially insurance in the event we fail.

Could someone point out where I've gone astray here?  I mean, do we really know what will happen even if we significantly reduce CO2 emissions in the coming decades?  And if we try but fail?On Is geoengineering worth a second look? posted 2 years, 1 month ago 8 Responses

bridge technology, indeed

note, however, that soil depletion is quite variable as a function of which crop is planted.  Miscanthus, for example shows promise for its seasonal cycling of nutrients--before harvest time the plant actually cycles much of its nutrients into the roots, a very useful attribute (Wikipedia article which alludes to but unfortunately doesn't describe that process).

With that in mind, I believe the useful time frame of biocrops can be extended to a pretty decent length, but as also stated I don't think anyone really sees ethanol (or any related biofuel) as a permanent solution on the scale currently imagined, nor do I think this is a major concern given rapid advances in battery technology.  But personally, I think a smaller scale and (quasi-) sustainable niche market for biofuels may develop (e.g. for jet fuel).On Predicts rabbit out of hat in three years, too posted 2 years, 5 months ago 32 Responses

agreed, wiscidea

i've always found the instinctual aversion by so many environmentalists to GM products troubling. The possible benefits of GM products are enormous (indeed they have already provided many benefits, especially in biotech/pharma) particularly in the area of environmental issues.  

A sufficient number of smart people and people looking to market a successful product are quite aware of GM products' potential such that GM technology will not be stopped.  Some of these people, however, are not so willing to examine the risks as environmentalists, but too many enviros are wasting their time making blanket rejections of GM technology.  It would be much more productive if they could occupy a more reasonable position and move the debate towards the development of some kind of regulatory/approval process for GM product deployment.  

Rather than waste their time trying to reject all GM products they should focus on instilling more caution and consistency to GM product development.On The music video posted 2 years, 10 months ago 7 Responses