Comments GtoeOne has made

  • Billhook

    Take it easy.  I can only report on what I have seen.  

    We do need to think twice based on poor practices of the past. On We haven't quite figured it out yet posted 2 years, 6 months ago 35 Responses

  • PV costs

    Here is a site for calculating the cost of a PV system, I don't know if the default numbers are accurate.  I think the yearly maintenance cost will be high if you are using batteries.

    www.infinitepower.org/calc_pv.htmOn A hearing in the House shows promise posted 2 years, 6 months ago 13 Responses

  • PV costs

    David,

    Do you have a spread sheet showing the economic payback of the PV system you installed?On A hearing in the House shows promise posted 2 years, 6 months ago 13 Responses

  • Economics 101

    I am not against investment in sustainable energy, I think the government needs to make such investments despite the hardships it puts on taxpayers.  

    What I am tired of hearing about is how the `green economy' creates jobs, it does not, it is an economic loser.   At this point I was going to explain all this, but it will take too much time and effort.  Instead let me recommend an explanation, from you local library pick up the book called "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt, read chapter 2, called "The broken Window".   This chapter explains very clearly why government spending on green jobs will slow the economy.  It should only take 30 minutes to read.  

    If I can find something on-line that is as good I will post.
    On A hearing in the House shows promise posted 2 years, 6 months ago 13 Responses

  • Talk is cheap

    Here are some California stats from the EIA:

    Table R2. Energy Consumption by Source and Total Consumption per Capita, Ranked by State, 2003

    Rank among states for Natural gas consumption per capita: 2
    Rank among states for petroleum consumption per capita: 2
    Rank among states for retail electric consumption per capita: 2
    Rank among states for coal consumption per capita: 39

    Remember California does not like coal so they import coal fired electricity from adjacent states.
    On All green eyes turn to the West Coast posted 2 years, 6 months ago 2 Responses

  • Iron production with Charcoal

    In the northern part of Brazil Iron ore is reduced to pig iron using charcoal.  It is not a pretty business. Young boys are recruited to cut down large parts of the rainforest where they are burned in a low oxygen atmosphere to produce charcoal.  This is loaded into small blast furnaces with ore for reduction.  Anyone who has seen this operation would think twice before advocating charcoal production.On We haven't quite figured it out yet posted 2 years, 6 months ago 35 Responses

  • Some comments

    1.  Vehicles turn over after five years.  High gas prices will have a five year lag time on consumption.  The effects we see today are from gas going up during the 2005 hurricanes, not current pricing.
    2. There is a similar theoretical 15-year lag in home placement.  It will take 15 to see an effect on where people live now to moving closer to the city.
    3.  Gas price increase affects the poor first.
    On Do gas prices affect behavior or not? posted 2 years, 6 months ago 18 Responses

  • nucbuddy

    Your links did not go anywhere.

    These four are examples only, I understand where you are going, if your home is too small you would not want to spend any time in the house so you go out driving.  Maybe, maybe not.  I travel a lot and sometimes end up in a small hotel room in the middle of nowhere.  I don't hop in my car and drive somewhere.  Normally I go on a walk.  

    I think the logic is a bit weak.On A new study with intriguing conclusions posted 2 years, 6 months ago 10 Responses

  • Taxes, would, should, could

    I posted this before, but it was on an old topic:

    People have little tolerance for taxes.  In the near term I suspect some form of carbon taxes will make it through congress.  Best estimates are for an additional $8.00/MwHr in power cost will probably make it through.  At this level industry could justify more spending on energy efficiency without choking off manufacturing completely.  The effect on residential will be negligible.  (.938MwHr/month * $8 = $7.50/month)
    Above is most likely what will happen, the other half of the discussion is what should happen.  The biggest problem with a tax or cap and trade is the unintended consequence of driving up manufacturing costs, driving industry to areas of the world where manufacturing is not as efficient and having a net increase in energy used per unit.  The obvious way to avoid this is to add another tax on imported goods to increase the cost and try and maintain jobs.  But I don't think there will be any support for a double tax, one on energy and one on imported goods, because of the possibility of reducing the economy.  Also arguing against the tax is the regressive nature of the tax.  The poor spend a high percentage of their income on consumable goods not on stocks, bonds and real estate.

    So the next idea is to fund the poor so they can buy more stuff, but here we make a complete circle, we drive industry to un-regulated countries, tax the goods as they enter the country and use the tax to pay people so they can buy more things.

    Some of the ideas I like better are usage taxes, for example:
        1. A monthly tax on large houses, anything over 1000 ft2/person in the house
        2. Monthly tax on automobiles based on GVW
            3. Tax on marine fuels
            4.  Slowly increasing tax on gasolineOn A new study with intriguing conclusions posted 2 years, 6 months ago 10 Responses

  • 2005 EIA Stats

    Eneregy use by sector:
    Residential 22%
    Transportation  28%
    Commercial  18%
    Industrial  32%On New financial instruments may one day plug cities' building codes into global carbon market posted 2 years, 6 months ago 13 Responses

  • Iron Kilns

    Approximately 4% of the world's total energy production is used in iron kilns.  (Not often called Iron Kilns, most often called Blast Furnaces)

    - Source: International Iron and Steel Institute (IISI), "Energy Use in the Steel Industry"
    On New financial instruments may one day plug cities' building codes into global carbon market posted 2 years, 6 months ago 13 Responses

  • An optimist is someone who thinks this is the best

    I no longer play directly in the futures market but my time trading in the futures market was a great learning experience in trading to look at the murky future.   When you are trading you get hundreds of e-mails each hour from experts and their view of what will happen next month, next year, next ten years, you have to try and determine the best course of action from what you know today.   It gave me knots in my stomach every day.  The future is not ours to see, and the farther out you look the worse the fog gets.

    As far as peak oil and moving off oil to more sustainable technologies there have been many positive developments.  You just haven't recognized them because they don't seem positive.  Charlie Maxwell (an often quoted oil annalist) gave a speech a few years ago where he wished there would be a series of small events driving up the cost of oil and gas each year to stir people into motion and minimize a shock to the economy.   With Katrina, and political unrest in oil producing regions this is happening.  So we may be saved, not with political action in Washington, but by suicide bombers in Saudi Arabia.  There is something to put in your optimist hat.
    On Eyes wide shut toward global collapse? posted 2 years, 6 months ago 5 Responses

  • Cost data request

    Does anyone have good financial data from any PV project done in the last five years?   I have been looking to get total PV costs to see what it would take to finance a project.   All the projects I have looked into have very little good cost data.  

     The data I need are, $/kw installed for peak production (noon at peak declination), capacity factor (what do I multiply by to obtain average output given peak), cloud factor (what is power on cloudy days) and maintenance costs (costs for cleaning, repair and replacement).
    On Don't fight it posted 2 years, 6 months ago 44 Responses

  • Taxes, would, should, could

    People have little tolerance for taxes.  In the near term I suspect some form of carbon taxes will make it through congress.  Best estimates are for an additional $8.00/MwHr in power cost will probably make it through.  At this level industry could justify more spending on energy efficiency without choking off manufacturing completely.  The effect on residential will be negligible.  (.938MwHr/month * $8 = $7.50/month)

    Above is most likely what will happen, the other half of the discussion is what should happen.  The biggest problem with a tax or cap and trade is the unintended consequence of driving up manufacturing costs, driving industry to areas of the world where manufacturing is not as efficient and having a net increase in energy used per unit.  The obvious way to avoid this is to add another tax on imported goods to increase the cost and try and maintain jobs.  But I don't think there will be any support for a double tax, one on energy and one on imported goods, because of the possibility of reducing the economy.  Also arguing against the tax is the regressive nature of the tax.  The poor spend a high percentage of their income on consumable goods not on stocks, bonds and real estate.

    So the next idea is to fund the poor so they can buy more stuff, but here we make a complete circle, we drive industry to un-regulated countries, tax the goods as they enter the country and use the tax to pay people so they can buy more things.

    Some of the ideas I like better are usage taxes, for example:
        1. A monthly tax on large houses, anything over 1000 ft2/person in the house
        2. Monthly tax on automobiles based on GVW
            3. Tax on marine fuels
            4.  Slowly increasing tax on gasoline
    On And if not, why not? posted 2 years, 6 months ago 20 Responses

  • From the CBO on cap and trade

    Excerpts from the CBO report:

    "Regardless of how the allowances were
    distributed, most of the cost of meeting a cap on
    CO2 emissions would be borne by consumers, who would face persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. Those price increases would be regressive in that poorer households would bear a larger burden relative to their income than wealthier households would."

    The CBO noted that the proposed cap-and-trade allocation method "would increase producers'
    profits without lessening consumers' costs. In essence, such a strategy would transfer income from energy consumers, among whom lower income households would bear disproportionately large burdens to shareholders of energy companies, who are disproportionately higher-income households."On And if not, why not? posted 2 years, 6 months ago 20 Responses

  • Peak Oil

    I mis-typed, should have said 2040 is what I see most often.  Although when you start looking years into the future the crystal ball is pretty cloudy.

     On What if city hall had to disclose its assumptions like Wall Street does? posted 2 years, 6 months ago 5 Responses

  • I did not hear him say that

    Production-capacity limitations and geological limitations are not mutually exclusive.On Some guy on CNBC posted 2 years, 6 months ago 3 Responses

  • Project development

    JMG you have hit upon many of the pitfalls of government funded projects, they often do not make sense because often they are done out of desperation.  When I talk with government officials in the situation you outlined, low on funds decreasing population and increasing retirement obligations they are desperate to attract jobs.  How do you attract jobs?  You need some reason for industry to come to your part of the country, some advantage that other cities do not have.  One thing you can do is build an airport, this will produce a reason for industry to locate in your city, industry attracts people and people pay taxes and your city will survive.  

    Despite the emotional tirade against airline travel there is no indication in the mid-term (10 years) that scheduled airline traffic will diminish. As fuel prices increase airline ticket prices will increase, but will that significantly diminish air travel?  Most analysis I have seen says that air traffic will continue to increase.  Fortunately with all the competition for airports, few are built because there is a shortage of money, only the cities with the best plan (and political connections) will get funds.  I think the next new airport in the US will be in south of Chicago.  For the reasons you stated I would not bet on the Detroit area.

    I have seen no world peak-oil projections before 2060, at least not from professionals.  Where do you come up with 2015, or are you refering to North American oil production?
    On What if city hall had to disclose its assumptions like Wall Street does? posted 2 years, 6 months ago 5 Responses

  • Random points and questions

    1. Can the soil sustain 10 billion people for a long time?  Right now soil is enhanced with fertilizer from hydro-carbon sources.  In a situation with constraints on hydro-carbon could the soil continue with enhancements from other sources?

    2. The biggest constraint will be on kwHr/GDP per capita.  As both population and GDP/capita grow one other the other will have to give.  The fear of those of us that live in rich countries with high GDP is that prices will be forced so high that it will impact our life-style.  I think we may be seeing some of that now.

    3. The point that the amazing Dr. X is trying to make (I think) is that we don't want to approach resource constrained growth.  It will not be pleasant and I don't want my children to grow up in a world that is a struggle for survival where the bottom 5% is starving off and everyone is struggling to stay out of the bottom.

    4. We need as a planet to decide on what world population should be then start taking action to reduce family size in areas that are over the sustainability limit.  Actions would be similar to China's one baby law.   This is what we should do, but I see no possibility of this happening.  There is no political will to take action and there won't be until there are shortages.

    5. The costs of converting to wind/PV will be very large.  I need to estimate the amount of iron, aluminum, copper and silicon that will have to be melted to build this infrastructure.  To build a windmill takes 120 tons of steel at 19GJ/Ton (metric) multiply 120 tons* 19GJ/ton*3.7million windmills = 8.4x10^9 GJ to produce the steel to build the windmills.  I don't have similar numbers for any other technology handy.

    6. 350,000 people are born each day, 150,000 die, net there are 200,000 more people each day.
    On Population is not the short-term problem posted 2 years, 6 months ago 15 Responses

  • Climate Change and National Security

    There is no link between these two subjects.  National Security is protecting us from other armed forces; the generals have no business spouting off about climate change.On The hits keep on comin' posted 2 years, 6 months ago 7 Responses

  • Wal Mart Aurora Project

    I visited Wal-Mart's Aurora project and was very impressed.  The project is comprehensive in scope, from construction to water management. On Clean-up on aisle ... earth posted 2 years, 6 months ago 9 Responses

  • Problems with biking

    When I was young and living in the south I used to bike to work each day, and it was enjoyable for me.  I was strong enough that I could arrive without a sweat in the morning.

    Now I am older and I look on biking as a real challenge.  If I am riding a bike how do I stop by the grocery store to pick up some milk and whatever is for dinner tonight?  How do I stop by daycare to pick up the three-year old?  How do I get to the business lunch meeting? I now live in the north and winters are difficult in the car.  Our lives are so busy and we have to move so fast just to keep the family fed that I have no time for the bike commute any more.  

    Maybe after the kids go off to college.On People-powered transit makes you happy posted 2 years, 6 months ago 17 Responses

  • RGGI

    You can look at this program at WWW.RGGI.ORG  like all such programs the devil is in the details.

    I am not a participant in this program so I don't follow the sausage making that goes into it.  My reading of the program tells me that it is being drafted by the power companies for the benefit of the stockholders.   I see too many ways for the power companies to get very rich off this program for me not to suspect that the power companies are actively involved.  For example the chosen programs for offsets are all in the interest of the power transmission companies and their development subsidiaries
    On The RFFI way posted 2 years, 6 months ago 3 Responses

  • Pangolin

    You are confused.  I am always up against the thought that radiation spreads like a virus, something in contact with radiation becomes radioactive.  This is true in a reactor with a neutron flux, but not true with decay elements, which give off alpha, gamma and beta radiation.

    Your statement should have said anything in a neutron flux becomes radioactive.  My point is that items used to clean up radioactivity do not become radioactive.  You are correct that items used to clean up radioactivity can become contaminated.  In some cases the contamination can be cleaned in other cases, it is not so easy.
    On When it's the Bush administration talking about Hanford posted 2 years, 6 months ago 9 Responses

  • France

    France recycles nuclear waste; my understanding is that the program is very effective.On When it's the Bush administration talking about Hanford posted 2 years, 6 months ago 9 Responses

  • Pangolin

    You said:

    "Finally everything you use to handle nuclear waste becomes nuclear waste itself. It's a tarbaby you can't put down once picked up"

    This is not true.  Nuclear waste is not a virus and will not spread.   The number of radioactive atoms do not increase as they are handled.    On When it's the Bush administration talking about Hanford posted 2 years, 6 months ago 9 Responses

  • The need for the the Super-Fund

    The need for the super-fund is fading, this is a good thing and everyone should be proud that the country is cleaner and more responsible now than when the fund was started.

    The problem the super-fund was to fix was as industrial sites closed though bankruptcy they left sites in very poor condition with no money left for clean up. Besides setting up the super-fund the government required industrials to provide environmental reserve funds with superior rights in bankruptcy so that there would be money to clean up sites after a bankruptcy.

    As time moves on the better financial accountability has reduced the need for super-fund money.
    On Superfund broke thanks to bankrupt polluters posted 2 years, 6 months ago 1 Response

  • Maybe the need for the super fund is gone

    This would be a good thing.   On New report says federal cleanup program wasting away posted 2 years, 6 months ago 6 Responses

  • I understand the purpose

    We are over the sustainability limits of our resources now.  No laws or regulations are going to change the fact that we can not sustain the current population without fossil fuels and nuclear power.

    So here are our choices:

    1.  Enforce draconian measures to reduce the world population.  Set targets for a population/energy balance in line with fossil fuel and nuclear energy limits.  Then try to keep a stable population in line with sustainable practices.  

    2.  Use fossil fuels until they depleted then let the law of jungle determine who lives and who dies.

    The problem is that we won't do choice 1.  So we are stuck with choice 2, hence my story about raiding parties and the ugly future.  We can talk about sustainable practices and everyone sacrificing together to live a simple lifestyle thinking about future generation and sharing with each other and living in harmony with nature.  We can also talk about how the magic fairies will come and give us infinite energy resources.  Both discussions lead to the same end.

    That is why your thought experiment is meaningless to me.  It does not address the central issue, which is:  How do we get to a sustainable population and get there before non-renewable energy runs out?  Our asteroids need to bigger.On Your share of the world posted 2 years, 7 months ago 16 Responses

  • CFL often mis-applied

    In some cases they save no energy and no money, in other cases their energy savings in understated.  For people to use CFL's I think there should be an understanding of when CFL's should be used and when they should not be used.

    Applications for CFL:  High use areas in homes that do not have high heating demand.

    Applications for incandescent:

    1.  Low use areas, like the attic, some closets etc.
    2.  Homes with no A/C and located in the north.  

    I include category 2 because in this case you will get no savings.  If you are heating the house during the dark season (Nov-March) the heat from incandescent bulbs adds to the furnace heat.  For homes that air condition you need to double the savings from CFL since it takes energy to remove the extra heat.  I have not seen a study to determine which areas of the US need CFL's and which do not.  I am convinced there should be no CFL's in Canada.
    On Not tonight ... your CFLs give me a headache posted 2 years, 7 months ago 27 Responses

  • missing an important component

    Your thought experiment is missing an important component.  Here on planet earth everyone can interact with their neighbor, in your scenario there is no such interaction.   If the asteroids were such that a person could easily go from one to another I would think this would be a better simulation.  

    In the case where people can move from one asteroid to another and communicate with each other you could organize raiding parties, and take over and exploit other asteroids.   The strongest and best organized groups would take over many asteroids and have mighty kingdoms capturing all unfortunate asteroids that come near.  Resources from conquered asteroids would be used to enhance the asteroids of the strongest.  

    This is more realistic to what happens on planet earth.  I can't think of much interest in maintaining a sustainable asteroid in this case, you would be working away making a very nice asteroid when a raiding party from the asteroid empire of  Gruffendumb arrives throws you out into space takes all the fish from the small ocean, the crops from the land, all the oil, etc.  then casts your asteroid away in the trash.
    On Your share of the world posted 2 years, 7 months ago 16 Responses