Comments Millstone has made

  • What we need is more distortion . . .

    Good discussion, one thing I'm really wondering about ( and am going to look into ) is how the potential for efficiency varies across electricity consuming sectors.

    Generally I'm most familiar with the potential for residential improvement but have certainly read a good but about industrial consumers as well. Commercial improvements I'm less familiar with, but I know potential was there.

    Anyhow I see a number of problems with getting private capital involved in pursuing EE projects:

    1. As you mentioned earlier, the private company doesn't capture any of the long term benefits of their work. I can imagine a scenario in which the potential for profit seriously declines after taking care of the biggest players.

    2. Buildings have a much longer lifespan than cars, so thankfully they can be retro-fitted; however, there isn't much incentive to pursue serious EE imporvements if you can't wait out the long ROI. I'm not sure but I would bet there is an invserse relationship between amounts of energy consumed and average time spent in a building.

    3. Electricity still too cheap.

    For residential I imagine we could see demand for EE increase if building codes were strengthened and people could see the tangible benefits of improved EE around them. In particular I feel like many of the dwellings used as poster children for EE are simply not aesthetically pleasing to most people, which I suppose is a result of #3 whereby as cost increases concerns about aesthetics will fall.

    Really I think it boils down to cost and as you mention about the steel technology, the ROIs are getting shorter and shorter.

    As for the sexiness factor, I think it is inspired by all of the things mentioned so far. It has kind of school marm vibe going on, finger wagging, concerned looks and this on top of the sort of elitist attitude of "OMG you aren't using CFLs, you must use CFLs!"On Efficienciezzz ... posted 1 year, 3 months ago 23 Responses

  • Benefits

    I agree that people will most likely refrain from doing "more" to combat climate change until the threats from it become more tangible.

    I would also agree that there isn't a benefit from putting more GHGs into the atmosphere; however, there are a number of clear benefits to the combustion processes that put them there. To me that is kind of like saying "the smoke from this fire isn't good" when it is the only thing keeping you warm. Not exactly the same, I realize, but without ICEs and coal etc. we wouldn't be on the internet having this discussion.

    By the same coin, while burning fossil fuels costs money it also generates money.

    On the other hand I completely agree with you that the focus for the near terms needs to be on the profitable and easy solutions, the cliched low hanging fruit. I think the problem you run into there is a lot of the easy solutions are not at all "sexy", like grandiose visions of advanced solar, hyrdogen economies and others are.

    Energy efficiency (which I think you must be referencing as major part of your half) is decidedly square which is why I doubt you will see it used in greenwashing campaigns anytime soon. But we all know how much companies love touting their REC purchases.On Is tackling climate change contrary to human nature? posted 1 year, 3 months ago 6 Responses

  • Interesting discussion

    I spend a lot of my time trying to think of ways to keep things rolling without having to make people sacrifice much, so I think I'm on the other side of this but . . .

    So far I am being reminded of watching Soylent Green the other week, and not in a good way :) Which by the way made me curious about what kind of impact installing one of those electricity generating exercise bikes in every home/apartment would have.

    I appreciate the impact that conservation and sacrifice could have as tools to fight climate change but my belief is that they are not really going to be available until the stakes are much higher. Asking people to "turn back the clock" is difficult unless they feel that the wolf is at the door (eg WWII) or they are over a barrel (eg 70s OPEC).

    I think we are certainly approaching (if not there already) to having a general feeling of being over a barrel in regards to oil. So we're already seeing some people to turn to #1 in the sacrifice list. I think where you would run into trouble is getting the people who can afford to drive as much as they want to stop.

    With electricity I feel like we have a much longer time frame before, for example power outages, would really be acceptable to people in the U.S. I honestly feel if that was tried right now there would be riots in the streets. But we'll get there, hopefully not to power outages, but to sensible and responsible use.

    Now as far as the danger motivation goes, that to me is much farther off. But once the world has a taste of what the more severe consequences of climate change are going to be like, we'll likely see a lot of "climate gardens". On Low doses of radiation can cause harm; coal plants worse than nuclear plants posted 1 year, 3 months ago 67 Responses

  • It is losing jobs somewhat faster.

    A quick check of at the Bureau of Labor Statistics revealed that from 1990-2007 the manufacturing jobs sector looked like this (in thousands of jobs):

    US: 17,695 down to 13,884 or about 79% of 1990 jobs retained.

    CA: 1,937 down to 1,452 or about 75% of 1990 jobs retained.

    If the US as a whole retained the same percentage as California we would have lost another 411,000 manufacturing jobs.

    You make a good point about Silicon Valley but I would argue that it is more evidence of the uniqueness of CA's situation. Just like their fairly desirable renewable energy profile CA is now home to some unique industries like Hollywood and Silicon Valley.

    I am also left to wonder how much of an impact simply being subject to the brown-outs as a result of the Enron fiascoe had?

    I'm not sure this is quanitified but anyone who has a parent or grandparent who grew up either during the depression or one of the WWs knows them to typically be more frugal than the latter generations.

    But that doesn't mean I think we all need to experience a few years of brown-outs although if we don't build anymore coal, natural gas or nuclear power plants I bet thats what we'll get.On Energy efficiency, part 4 posted 1 year, 4 months ago 9 Responses

  • Well I think one thing is for sure . . .

    I suppose CA doesn't really need these natural gas plants after all. If supply is as tight as it is made out to be, it is no wonder people are using less, they are getting clubbed over the head with prices.

    You are likely justified in extolling the benefits of the energy efficiency programs specifically. But as David Bradish has posted above me and I have posted in your last few posts about CA, there is a lot more at work here than just effective EE policy.

    Following CA on EE might be a good idea, but unless you want to sell people on electricity price increases that will go far beyond what is already expected, I don't think their energy policy is on the whole that fantastic. Nor even feasible for many parts of the country, see renewable energy resource maps for a clue why.On Energy efficiency, part 4 posted 1 year, 4 months ago 9 Responses

  • Incentive

    I made this point in another recent post but I'll make it again.

    Residents and business owners in CA have a greater incentive to conserve energy due to high prices. I'm not sure though if the 40,000 Gwh figure you quote is supposed to be directly from EE programs or just in general.

    I do know that from 2000-2004 in CA revnues from the manufacturing sub-sector dropped off significantly as did demand for retail electricity from the larger industrial sector.

    Obviously getting rid of or otherwise driving out energy intensive industries makes the consumption numbers work great but not so good for the people who may have had to find lower paying work. Well, except for the fact that with less financial resources they will also probably start consuming less electricity.

    What I want to know is if people believe it is possible to create changes in demand similar to CA without their ridiculously high prices?On Energy efficiency, part 3 posted 1 year, 4 months ago 4 Responses

  • Demand Destruction

    An important we should be asking, in my opinion, is how much of these reductions in per capita are driven not by succesful implementation of energy efficiency projects but by good ole price signals?

    New York, California and Hawaii have among the highest average retail prices for electricity in the country. Prices are high in these places for a variety of reasons but they all have the obvious effect of reducing usage.

    Furthermore how well does this fact wash with the whole "this isn't going to cost us anything" message I keep seeing getting tossed around.

    I have different opinions on how we should reach our goals than many on this site, but I truly would hate to see people get on board thinking they won't feel any extra pain in the pocket book or quality of life, only to find out it isn't all wine and roses. And for many Americans, and perhaps the majority of the readers of this website, there might not be apprciable effects in either category but I think if we are all honest with ourselves we know that there a lot of folks out there for whom a rise in their electricity price to the level of CA, NY or HI would be hard to cope with.On Energy efficiency is the core climate solution, part 1 posted 1 year, 4 months ago 21 Responses

  • Jonesin'

    The ones I'm aware of who have announced expansion plans are countries that are already heavily powered by nuclear (mostly the U.K.).

    In actual comparison, most European countries plan to expand the total percentage that renewables contribute far more than the percentage gained from new nuclear.

    Following the link below to see all of the other countries and their plans:

    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf17.html

    Ah the classic point about percentage based growth in renewables.

    I'm in the business of generating electricity not percentage points, so that isn't very convincing to me. Nor am I trying to argue that we don't need renewables, I think we need lots more. And in terms of actual generation Europe has a long way to go, see:

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/RecentElectrici ...

    Countries will continue to build coal because it is the cheapest hands-down, nuclear becomes a more attractive option with a price on CO2 emissions and becomes more attractive as this price rises.

    Looking through those links the impression that I got was that the time frame you quoted in your post was perhapsreasonable if we are assuming the lowest quality ores possible were used and go worst case on a few others as well. The calculations from Storm and Smith may be accurate but even the Wikipedia page raised questions about inconsistencies between their assumptions about energy inputs in U mining and actual operations data.

    It can't be done forever, and thus it's still a non-renewable resource.

    Yes but reprocessing can provide us with fuel for thousands of years, which if we're going to believe in technology saving us in the next 50-100 years I'm pretty sure thousands will work out.

    Nuclear plants typically use more water than coal-fired plants do.

    Nuclear plants are also typically larger than coal fired power plants, so what we should be interested in is water used per unit of energy produced. Again you are retreating to the territority of name plate capacities, percentages and away from actually producing energy which is the fundamental point. Nuclear performs quite well on a per unit produced basis, which I would contend is what really matters.

    Please list examples of countries doin' this on a large scale, since "everyone else" is doin' it.

    I'm not really talking about reprocessing the fuel for other purposes, just to make more electricity. Although I've heard anecdotal evidence of there being further uses for it in the future.

    This link is a good starting point for reprocessing capacity:

    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.html

    In short, almost 90,000 of the 270,000 total T of U discharged by nuclear power has been reprocessed. Roughly one-third is not what I call very litte, reprocessing capacity stands at roughly 5,500 T/year and this number looks like it will increase in the near future.On Kentucky to build new coal-to-liquids plant posted 1 year, 4 months ago 7 Responses

  • Kammen, Kapadia and Fripp link isn't working.

    404 error for me.On It's the fossil fuel crowd that's against American jobs posted 1 year, 4 months ago 12 Responses

  • Another myth to tackle.

    I'm chomping at the bit to get to this question when my internship is over but I am personally very skeptical of there being a positive net benefit in terms of jobs if we were to try and move forward in a fashion similar to what was described by Mr. Gore.

    I know many bemoan incrementalism; however, moving forward in a rapid fashion could easily cause price increase in electricity so sharp that it could encourage firms in energy intensive areas to move elsewhere. I know, I know we can lower taxes, shift things around but with the speed of our government the factories will be mothballed by then.

    A slow transition would mean more time to prepare and implement energy efficiency projects in such industries and give people in general more time to adjust to what might seem like a new way of life.

    There is a much greater risk of unintended consequences if we rush things.On From fossil fuels to manufacturing for wind and solar energy posted 1 year, 4 months ago 19 Responses

  • If that's all we need . . .

    Why do I read a new article almost everyday about a European country moving towards new nuclear everyday?

    As to your points:

    A) Wondering where exactly you got this figure from, a ~1.4 GW NPP is producing a lot of CO2 free electricity every year. And while they use a lot of raw materials I find five years to be very hard to believe. A ballpark estimate of how much it might offset over 5 years would be 33 million metric tons of CO2.

    B) Reprocessing, thorium. Moving on.

    C) You have to mine to produce solar/wind also, we could debate which is worse but they all have some impact in this area. I have definitely seen some indications that solar can be particularly nasty in this regard.

    D) I'm sure some cooling water will be freed up once we close all those coal-fired plants.

    E) Again I see it as a resource, once we (the US, the rest of the world is alreadt doing it) can reprocess it will have some value.

    Without major breakthroughs in energy storage technology, there is just no way the big three and their distant cousins will be all we need.On Kentucky to build new coal-to-liquids plant posted 1 year, 4 months ago 7 Responses

  • Death to green.

    I was very happy about you not purposefully not using the word green and avoiding all the other buzz words as well.

    I think it is both admirable and neccesary to get away from such vague definitions. In my opinion green, renewable, sustainable etc. are becoming way too overexposed and are, if they haven't already, losing all real meaning.

    Sitting at the Al Gore speech here in D.C last week I couldn't help but wonder if the majority of people supporting the environmental movement need those words though.

    Most people don't want to learn the details behind cap-and-trade, electricity grids, PHEVs etc. Basically learning why something is "green" or whatever other similarly vague term you want to use. This is why the audience was overly impressed but many, many "experts" in the field were very skeptical.

    They just want to know that it is, and then to talk about how great it is and hold it over friends and neighbors.

    Perhaps I'm just being too cynical but it does seem like a lot of people are on board due to the status that comes with being associated "green" causes brings. Will people continue to be interested without buzz words and imagery?

    Frankly I don't think we want people who are only in it for the image, since if they outnumber the rational thinkers, the risk of making poor decisions might be expected to increase.

    Kudos on the plan!On Smart economic development policy for the 21st century posted 1 year, 4 months ago 4 Responses

  • I'm starting to see a trend here.

    So when someone tells me that nuclear power isn't a good tool for fighting climate change because electricity and transportation aren't linked, I'm typically puzzled.

    However; when the same person needs to find a reason (technically a substitute in this case) as to why we shouldn't build a coal-to-liquids plant, electricity generation from renewables is top of the list.

    I suppose there was a big new breakthrough today where solar panels and windmills are now producing sweet, sweet crude. Or could it be that there just might be a link between electricity and transport?

    According to this website one cannot call themselves an environmentalist if they support nuclear power among other things, but I always find myself wondering if one of the requirements for being an environmentalist is having a three word answer for every question:

    Solar/Wind/Efficiency

    Because that is all I hear from "the movement" and not at all the impression I get from outside.On Kentucky to build new coal-to-liquids plant posted 1 year, 4 months ago 7 Responses

  • Finally

    Don't see many articles on Grist that go this direction, but I'm glad to see another view besides energy efficiency, windmill in every backyard, solar panel on every roof, and what is the last bit, oh yeah a chicken in every pot. I guess I forgot the waste dervied biogas powered CHP turbine at the center of every town/suburb/city.

    I agree with all you guys we need more energy efficiency, more solar, more wind but look at the other article just posted on India. Do you all really and truly think they can meet their rising energy demand on the holy trinity of renewable energy alone?On The current oil shock posted 1 year, 4 months ago 18 Responses

  • Nice Story

    Did they provide you guys with any kinds of cost figures at all about these types of projects?

    I'm intrigued by biomass, mainly because as a resident of the SE US since it is perhaps our most abundant renewable resource, but I don't see utilities building it any time soon.

    I'm also curious as to whether or not this town was unique or if this is a model being pursued across the country(side)?On The human-scale, renewable, domestic power systems reviving rural Austrian economies posted 1 year, 4 months ago 13 Responses

  • Electricity and Oil

    While there may not be a big linkage between oil and electricity prices right now, this could certainly change in the future.

    There is some linkage between oil and electricity because natural gas markets and oil markets are linked and natural gas is linked to electricity.

    If we move towards an electricity generation like the ones advocated most freuqently by individuals on Grist and similar forums (renewables and natural gas) this linkage will become even more pronounced.

    This is not to knock PHEVs; however, efforts to deploy them in markets where electricity prices are increasing and volitale would likely be less succesful than if they were not. That is to say electricity markets not tightly tied to natural gas markets would be more favorable.On Plug-in hybrid offers practical solution to peak oil posted 1 year, 4 months ago 14 Responses

  • That has got to sting.

    The argument about electricity prices is suspect in my opinion. It appears that rates are going to be increasing nationwide for the forseeable future; however, I couldn't access the reference for those claims so I'm not certain of its quality.

    Although if the alternative was to burn more natural gas then my suspicion would be that rates would increase even further and lead to even more jobs lost.

    I was also amused by their prediction of commercial carbon and storage by 2012, only the most diehard CCS optimist would believe that now. 2020 is the number I hear getting kicked around more often, and even that is given the optimistic caveat.

    I don't think this plant is a great idea but it isn't clear what the alternatives were and the opposition didn't seem to be interested (able to?)in providing them. On State illegally approves new coal-fired power plant posted 1 year, 5 months ago 6 Responses

  • Bang for our buck.

    My main concern for this would be (besides its political infeasibility) the fact that while subsidies for wind and solar may not be at the desired levels, we do not appear to be getting much bang for our buck on them.

    According the EIA's "Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007" it appears that for the two renewable darlings, solar and wind, we spent roughly 25 dollars per megawatt hour of production. Granted these come from a very small base, so this isn't a reason to not fund them by any stretch, but it is a good reason not to try and push all of our funds in their direction.

    This report also indicates that renewables got the lion's share of subsidy money, at ~4.8 billion or 25% of the total or about 4x as much as everyone's favorite whipping boy nuclear.

    All things considered, it does seem like there could be a good case for moving some of those dollars away from the fuel sources that produce the most CO2 emissions. I would start with decreasing oils position first and move from there. I feel like there is a sweet spot for funding of these types of generation, but it most certainly isn't located at "give all the money from everything else to wind and solar-land".

     On Day two of the UN Dispatch-Grist collaboration posted 1 year, 5 months ago 2 Responses

  • Tariffs cont.

    I'll admit to not knowing much about the intentions of the feed in tariffs. I have only just recently read WSJ articles about the subject, in which they refer to solar subsidies in the same way the feed in tariff is being described. That is to say the power is fixed at an above market price. Solar producers in Germany had been fearful the "subsidy" would be lowered by as much as 25%, although in the end it only was reduced by 8%. As I understand the motivation for the bill was the notion that Germany would be saddled with unreasonably high electricity prices for some time if solar continued to grow at current rates.

    So perhaps it was understood that tariff reductions would occur but this reduction was unexpected? It seems at the very least that the motivation behind this cut was to protect consumers from high prices and not to encourage more efficient production.On A UN Dispatch-Grist collaboration posted 1 year, 5 months ago 13 Responses

  • Feed In Tariffs

    If I remember correctly Germany just reduced their solar subsidy due to concerns over long term electricity prices being raised too much.

    Perhaps this is an example of a subsidy program working too well, but to me it is an indication that their model might not be the one we should follow.

    I also have to agree with sindark about the terrorism issue. First of all I remain unconvinced that hardened targets like power plants (especially nuclear ones) are more appealing than softer ones like sporting events etc.

    And while it is sunny or windy somewhere, it is also not hard to image the T+D losses occuring from geographically distant areas being large enough to question not having generation that is "on" no matter what the weather is like. I'd also quibble over whether it is economically sunny or windy somewhere all the time, but thats another story altogether.On A UN Dispatch-Grist collaboration posted 1 year, 5 months ago 13 Responses