Comments BruceMcF has made

'Reliability' is rhetoric, not reality

jeffgreen11 at 9:29 PM on 16 Feb 2009

Its time to show that renewable energy can do the job with a demonstration town. Preferably a small rural one that would have wind, solar, biomass, caes, (compressed air energy storage).

But that is playing into the Coal frame.

The fact is that for any given renewable energy resource, the supply over a wide area is more stable than the supply in a smaller area. A single wind turbine is extremely volatile, a wind farm less volatile, several wind farms in the same wind resource less volatile, and several wind resource regions spread across a thousand miles less volatile.

And the greater the diversity of volatile renewable energy sources, the less volatile ... wind plus solar is less volatile than wind alone, wind plus solar plus wave less volatile than wind alone, wind plus solar plus run-of-river hydro plus wavepower less volatile than wind plus solar alone, and so on.

Which means that solving the problem for a small town is overkill ... its easier to solve the problem for the country than to solve the problem for a state, and easier to solve the problem for a state than for a small town, because the greater the diversity of the power sources, the less problem there is to solve.

And, indeed, coal may be part of the answer -- not mineral coal, of course, but biocoal. Direct conversion of biomass into charcoal under pressure in sealed containers is far more thermodynamically efficient than any other means of producing a biofuel, especially since power can be co-generated from the exhaust, where liquid biofuel production processes are power consumers rather than power generators.

Given a national inter-grid network of HVDC transmission, the existing hydropower capacity as readily dispatchable energy, supply-following power demands, and some supplementary dispatchable renewable power source such as biocoal, and of course substantial mining of current gross power waste, the "problem" of reliability is revealed for what it is ... a rhetorical strategy to portray a collection of solvable technical problems as some kind of massive hurdle to be cleared.

It is a rhetorical strategy founded on people's difficulty to think in terms of system capabilities and system solutions, and not a serious critique.

Virtually Yours, BruceMcF Energize America 2020

An excellent example of cost to own ...

... versus cost to buy. Up front these look more expensive than hi-tech flash battery recharge or energy wasting hydrogen, but this approach eliminates the big question of "what do you do when your batteries wear out and the car has half its life left" ... the depreciation and replacement of the batteries are built into the financial model of the recharge stations. And it does without the wastefulness of hydrogen as an energy storage medium.On Electric-car infrastructure coming to California's Bay Area posted 1 year ago 3 Responses

Mostly agree on no bike lanes ...

... not entirely, but mostly.

Presently, in small town Northeast Ohio, I have zero bike lanes and bikeways on my route to work. When I was living in Newcastle, Australia, I had bike lanes and bikeways for most of the route.

And in almost every case, my ranking in terms of preference is:

1. bikeway
   
2. riding in the regular lane
   
3. riding in a bike lane

One bike lane that I did like in Newcastle was on a busy two-lane-each-way street that had a lane that ended in a right turn lane, where there was a bike lane between the curb lane and the middle lane. That was especially handy when cycling during rush hour.

Virtually Yours, BruceMcF Energize America 2020

The key assumption is in the ...

... due to the impact of plowing up new fields

This is why subsidies for development of cellulosic feedstocks should be in the form of soil rehabilitation payments, and focused on perennial crops replacing an annual rotation.

Given that we do not have a sustainable agriculture, it is basically automatic that simply converting the output of American agriculture into any biomass energy source will also be unsustainable.

And, further, the tariff on ethanol should be increased in line with increases in ethanol subsidies at the pump ... large, high income countries are not pursuing sustainable renewable power if they are importing it "from elsewhere". A sustainable technological base is one that can be replicated sustainably, and if a technology is to be a candidate for spreading sustainably across the globe, there is no "elsewhere" for imports to come from.
On Biofuels not helpful in climate-change fight, new studies say posted 1 year, 9 months ago 28 Responses

I believe that the question is, what happens next?

So the equation is
overproduction --> low prices --> subsidies

overproduction --> low prices --> ...
... --> subsidies --maintains--> overproduction

The argument on capping subsidy payments to a total ceiling amount is that if the feedback effect involves producers getting pushed to the edge, its better for that impact to fall on the big producers. On the argument of this entry, that would seem to fall in line with the investment in cost cutting argument ...

overproduction (supply/demand not clearing at a sustainable price)
... --> low prices
... --> investment in cost cutting technology
... --> overproduction (outward shift of supply schedule).

... however, the question I have regarding the investment in cost cutting argument is, when is it ever not in the interest of big agribusiness to invest in cost cutting? Is this a question of where the corporate strategic focus lies, or something along those lines?On Why gutting subsidies shouldn't be the focus of Farm Bill reform efforts posted 2 years ago 17 Responses

Since Bush will veto the bill, and it won't get ..

... a veto-proof majority, what is the point of dealing away the principle of tracking the IPCC recommendations?

Get as many Republicans as possible on the record as being against progress on climate change, by bringing the strongest possible bill that can make it to the floor.
On Green groups battle over climate bills in the Senate posted 2 years, 1 month ago 13 Responses

I think I see a gap in the logic here ...

If we build a bunch of coal plants -- whether they're IGCC or not -- we will be committing to sequestration (if we're to have any hope of slowing global warming). It's either that or shutting them down.

To date, I am still waiting for the policy statement or media spokesman statement that requires electric utilities to build IGCC plants.

That is, in the sense that they are required to meet a 25% portfolio standard for renewable power ... they have to build the IGCC plants.

Indeed, the policy statements quoted do not make clear whether sequestration equipment has to be included ... if it is possible to return to the un-named media spokesperson and have them provide a precise answer, that would clear up the ambiguity.

However, assuming the worst case (which would remain superior to the policies of Senator Clinton and Obama), if a utility chooses to build an IGCC plant, and then at a later date can neither sequester the CO2 nor obtain the carbon permit to operate the plant with mineral coal, shutting it down or operating it as a back-up power plant with biomass coal is precisely what they would have to do.

And, indeed, if we have established a solid national industry in renewable power generation, thanks to the 25% national RPS, by that time allowing the plant to shut down, or act as an emergency reserve, would not be politically controversial ... since there would be a substantial degree of economic/political clout wielded the renewable power industry.

Virtually Yours, BruceMcF Energize America 2020

The most direct way to stop mass clearing ...

... is to pay small farmers for tending the trees. This is being done on a smaller scale in Costa Rica, where farmers are paid watershed conservancy payments for protecting trees that help maintain the watersheds that urban Costa Rica depends on for its water supply.

Also of interest is shifting from the inefficient pit charcoal methods to something like flashcarb, that can generate power from the medium BTU gas emitted in the production chamber during charcoal generation ... and of course the charcoal itself can be buried to provide for a hefty increase in the productivity of tropical soils, allowing for the elimination of rotating slash and burn for cultivation (as opposed to buring for land clearing for cattle ranching).

Virtually Yours, BruceMcF Energize America 2020

As I understand it, sequestering all or much ...

... of the carbon emitted in production.

However, even 100% sequestration (which I personally find highly unlikely, but I'm an economist rather than an engineer) leaves us with a fuel with slightly more CO2 emissions as gasoline.

If we could get 50% sequestration or recycling of CO2 emitted from existing coal plants, and were using that electricity to power electric transport ... from electric bikes to NEV's to electric trains ... that would be a medium term improvement as we build up our renewable power sources and start the long, hard process of unwinding suburban sprawl.

But CTL is at best no better than gasoline, and at worst twice as bad. I don't see how it physically makes any sense at all. Its just pandering to the coal lobby.

Virtually Yours, BruceMcF Energize America 2020

Given the cars that we have ...

... we can certainly have cars with 90% fewer CO2 emissions. If 40% of cars are running on renewable, non-emitting electricity sources, and the remainder are running at five times the energy efficiency ... certainly not a massive task in 40 years, given the gross inefficiency of our current fleet ... that is 100% reduction on 2/5, and 80% reduction on 3/5, or an 88% reduction right there. Shift 15% of fuel to annually renewable biomass, and its 90%.

And even thought we can, we should still push for less reliance on cars, because the car-reliance transport system is close to a perfect mechanism for every increasing miles traveled per transport task ... getting to work, the supermarket, the kid's activities after school.

Virtually Yours, BruceMcF Energize America 2020

Where in the world is wind vs solar?

This is like high speed freight vs high speed passenger rail, or bike vs walk, or income growth for the majority of Americans vs balancing the books for Social Security ... when things are complementary, the "vs" meme is ...

... silly. Oh, I see, never mind.

Virtually Yours, BruceMcF Energize America 2020

Why would anyone want to drive ...

... a wimpy bicycle when they can drive an macho, muscular SUV?

Typically because the wimpy NEV's are more affordable ... indeed, there are a few retirement oriented cities in the US where golf cart paths have been put in place to allow getting from one place to another, and they are even wimpier than NEV's.

When gas prices get into the $5-$10 range, we will see far more people wanting to drive wimpy cars of all sorts as opposed to gas guzzling SUV's.

And remember that the cost of a used highway speed EV past a certain vintage will be higher than the cost of a used gasoline power car of the same vintage, even when they become available, because of the battery replacement cost.

However, the main enabling factor for NEV's is development of energy efficient longer distance travel, such as electric trains. See High Speed Rail: The Recruiters for more.

Virtually Yours, BruceMcF Energize America 2020

Broadening the Coalition ...

Of course, it is possible to cycle on the road ... but even cyclists who get over the mostly psychological hurdle of cycling on a 35mph street, and learn how to cycle as safely as possible with cars (which, on a 35mph street, is a lot safer than the sidewalk or a bike lane painted onto the side of the road) ... will balk at cycling on the 60mph highway.

However, there is another class of potential road users that, unlike bikes, are legally required to stick to 35mph or slower roads ... owners of Neighborhood Electric Vehicles.

Now, these are rarer than hens teeth now, in most parts of the country, but if gasoline prices spike, don't be surprised to see them start popping up.

And if they do, cyclists should grab the opportunity to make common cause with them for a usable grid of 35mph "share the road" streets.

Virtually Yours, BruceMcF Energize America 2020