Comments drocto has made

  • Grist can do better than this kind of divisive, childish crap. What is the point of claiming that "everyone hates" certain people that were elected to Congress? Is the point to make yourself look like a fool?

    Meanwhile, perhaps you should look more deeply into the responses of the Obama administration to the financial crisis. Ask yourself how you would respond to these programs if Bush had put them in place. You would probably be outraged. And you should be. But since so many people are busy patting themselves on the back for his election, his handlers are creating by far the most massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to bank shareholders and bondholders that the world has ever seen. And there are much better alternatives. They're getting away with it because so many folks are smugly wagging their fingers at Republicans.On Quit arguing with douchebags that everyone hates, part two posted 7 months ago 12 Responses

  • Growth is great. It just depends on how one defines "growth". If it is simply producing more for more and more people, then it is ultimately unsustainable. If it is about producing higher and higher quality goods and services for a sustainable level of population, then this can be done sustainably, profitably, and with little need for coercion.On Quit arguing with douchebags that everyone hates posted 7 months ago 8 Responses
  • As long as you make sweeping negative statements about people with opposing views - especially using racial terms - you lose the respect of many thinking people. Perhaps the characterization of many Republicans as a "hardcore, angry-white-man demographic" says more about the anger and hatred of some so-called "progressives" than it does about the Republicans.

    Take your own advice and stay on message. Such venom may resonate with the ultra-orthodox left, but many of us find it unproductive.On Quit arguing with douchebags that everyone hates posted 7 months ago 8 Responses

  • Folly of Hydrogen

    jabailo,

    Hydrogen is not a fuel source, it's an energy storage medium.

    Fuel --> Transformation 1 --> Distribution --> Transformation 2

    For example, for solar:
    Fuel = sunlight
    Transformation 1 = solar PV or solar therm technolgy electricity generation
    Distribution = grid or on-site use
    Transformation 2 = utlimate usage such as lighting, motion, heating, etc.

    For hydrogen the Fuel is hydrocarbons or perhaps the combination of electricity + water. Transformation 1 converts the fuel to hydrogen, which is then distributed.On Tesla ousts second CEO in two years and plans to cut staff posted 1 year, 1 month ago 5 Responses

  • not worth saving

    It is true that natural systems should be reestablished to add protection.  However, even with these intact, New Orleans is low and sinking.  The U.S. is large and there are many competing funding needs.  It is unwise to spend hundreds of billions in an effort that could ultimately prove futile and lead to greater disasters.  (Sound familiar)  New Orleans will remain a very easy terrorist target when water levels are high.

    Most of the low parts of the city should not be rebuilt or protected.  Funds should be used to help dislocated folks instead.

    Side note:  Water topping over levies for a long period of time is not a disaster.  The problem is when the flow of water into the city exceeds pumping capabilities.  Then you get flooding if that condition lasts long enough.On How did so much water get into a New Orleans canal? posted 1 year, 2 months ago 1 Response

  • adverse selection

    Spence is right to note the potential for adverse selection.  However, this issue is mostly moot if the insurance regulators would stick to policing insurance fraud, preventing discrimination based on non-economic factors, and fostering competition instead of trying to set the prices of insurance products.  Why?  Because insurance companies could set prices to account for this adverse selection - setting higher prices for those who don't pay-per-mile, knowing they are driving more than they state.  

    One question I have regards rental cars.  Auto insurance usually covers liability for insurance cars.  Smart pay-per-mile drivers may rent a car for long road trips...On California to offer pay-as-you-drive insurance plan posted 1 year, 3 months ago 3 Responses

  • picking winners?

    "...I think the idea of the government trying to pick a winner... is not the right approach..."
    +
    "I would favor... at least a $5,000-a-year hybrid tax credit for next-generation hybrids and plug-in hybrids..."
    =
    ?

    He then falls into the trap of describing a (hybrid-)electric vehicle in MPG terms, which is a misleading metric (unless your only concern is liquid petroleum requirements)

    If you're interested in lowering GHG emissions, provide incentives for that.  If you're interested in reducing energy imports, provide incentives for that.  But do it in a technology-agnostic way that seemlessly allows for innovation instead of locking into the flavor of the day.  

    Why should somebody that drives 30,000 miles/year that buys a plug-in hybrid connected to a dirty grid get a subsidy while a carpooling family with a standard mini-van that drives 4,000 miles/year gets nothing?On Mark Warner talks to Grist about his energy vision and upcoming keynote address posted 1 year, 3 months ago 7 Responses

  • the price mechanism

    Thank you for pointing out important underlying IPCC text (in B1).  I read the Nature article and was struck by the absence of any reference to the most powerful force in resource allocation available:  price.  I am astounded how often price is ignored in environmental pieces.  When Grist quotes "conventional oil and gas resources decline" rising price is implied.

    As an example, in the U.S. we are already seeing habits change due to relatively small increases in gasoline prices.  These price changes have occurred within the timeframe of the auto replacement cycle, so we haven't even seen the major impact, which comes as old vehicles are retired and new ones purchased.

    Price works!

    As the "ex-external" prices of fossil fuels move (sharply) higher, the powerful influence of price will become apparent.

    This is no call for complacency, but rather a different way of supporting the Grist position on this paper.
    On Does the IPCC dangerously assume 'spontaneous' decarbonization? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 6 Responses

  • So what!

    Who cares?  "Zero emissions" is a feel good distraction.

    It's system-wide GHG emissions and local air quality that matter here.  On Fewer zero-emission vehicles will be required on California roads by 2014 posted 1 year, 8 months ago 7 Responses

  • polycarbonate is not the same thing as PET

    Tasermons Partner,

    Your response seems to suggest that disposable plastic bottles are related to this BPA issue effecting polycarbonate plastic bottles.  Most disposable plastic bottles are made from PET.  The cited information and other research on BPA does not apply to these PET bottles.On Hot liquid increases toxic leaching from plastic bottles, says study posted 1 year, 10 months ago 9 Responses

  • bad policy

    The MPG rating along doens't matter.  It's M/MPG = G that matters for GHG emissions.

    Why should someone buying a large SUV that drives it 2,000 miles/yr pay a de facto carbon tax higher than that paid by someone who buys a Prius and drives it 20,000 miles/yr?

    The gasoline tax is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to CO2 emissions and is the best device to tax those emissions.On California considers "feebate" bill to make polluting cars more expensive posted 1 year, 10 months ago 9 Responses

  • it's NOT a tax rebate!

    Grist,

    Don't fall for government / media doublespeak.  This consumer spending initiative is NOT a "tax rebate".  In fact, in the current version the less one paid in taxes the more money one gets.  Those who earned above a certain amount in 2007 get nothing.

    This is an issuance of debt by the governmnet in order to give money to people so that they will spend more.  The tab for this additional debt will be paid by taxpayers.

    It's a half baked version of "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability".

    Hopefully many recipients who are really 'needy' will take this windfall and spend it on healthcare or paying down credit card debt from past overconsumption...On Put your economic stimulus stipend to green use posted 1 year, 10 months ago 8 Responses

  • race baiting

    Wow, thanks "Baby Boomer" for race baiting here at Grist.  We wouldn't want to keep things too high brow.On Obama puts the 100 percent auction idea into the mainstream posted 1 year, 10 months ago 22 Responses

  • CFLs vs. the electric car

    I find it fascinating that we (see post from "cce") will compare the mercury in a CFL with that emitted from a coal plant, but when talking about an electric car will pretend that some or all the electricity will come from clean renewables.

    The grid doesn't know if we turn on a light or plug in an electric car!

    So which is it folks?  

    If you're going to say that an electric car "deserves" the grid average emissions then you have to give a CFL or any other electrical demand the same treatment.

    Alas, I think cce's CFL comment is closer to the reality w.r.t. the generating source for incremental load:  As long as the grid has meaningful non-renewable dispatchable sources, then incremental loads use those sources.  

    Note: RPF standards change the logic such that all incremental loads should receive around the grid average emissions factor.

    (Also, note that it is possible to remove a large proportion of mercury emissions from a coal plant.  This is mandated in at least one state - http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3310_4105-142890 ... )On Compact fluorescents can cause health problems, say groups posted 1 year, 10 months ago 11 Responses

  • don't add legislation

    The idea that Congress should mandate another specific technology (CHP) layered onto an existing mandated technology (corn-based ethanol) hints at just how wrong headed it is for government to mandate any technology.  We should Congress to encourage technology-agnostic, results-based incentives and penalties.  

    If we want energy independence, reduced net GHG emissions, and a cleaner environment lets take whatever set of solutions deliver results as they are developed.On Cogeneration and ethanol production posted 1 year, 11 months ago 11 Responses

  • tesla presentation misleading

    Related to this, please see my inquiry to Tesla Motors a month ago.  As of today they still have not updated their seriously but simply flawed analysis regarding biodiesel:

    ...I refer to the Flash preso slide 11 of "bconverted.swf" that is accessed from page http://www.teslamotors.com/blog2/?p=25

     This slide uses a value of "18.21 kWh per gal" and footnotes the reference as "Anguilla Electric Company, 2001 average".

    There are two problems with this value, a minor one and a larger one.  First the minor one:  If anyone checks the most recent annual report from Anguilla at http://www.anglec.com/Anglec__Report_2005.pdf
     they'll note that 2001 was an anomaly with respect to performance.  The performance in the four years from 2002 through 2005 ranged from 17.02 to 17.46.  This is 4% to 7% below the value Tesla uses.

    Second, and more importantly, Anguilla Electric Company presents their figures in imperial gallons (IG).  An IG is about 20% larger than our usual U.S. gallon (gal) - per Google 1 gal = 1.20095042 IG.  Thus, the kWh/gal is 16.7% lower than the kWh/IG.

    Note: If you use the average kWh/gal for Anguilla for several years and make the IG/gal correction you'll find that the diesel generator efficiency is about 3.8kWh/L, which is "normal" based on the research I've done.  My research includes data from several companies, including Anguilla.

    I should also mention that one should use delivered kWh rather than generated kWh for this analysis.  Some honest estimate for transformer and line losses is necessary.

    I think the right thing to do is to correct this error ASAP and notify any parties that may have quoted or relied on the figures impacted.  I'm sure you'll agree.

    It doesn't change your story, but it's a meaningful difference.

    Electric cars have great potential.  I assume Tesla wants to do the right thing and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  The conservative principle should guide us in this along with our humility in trying to distill such complex issues as full life cycle GHG emissions for various transportation fuels.

    Please let me know by the end of the week that Tesla has corrected the error and communicated the change.  On Giving up car-lessness for Rob Lowe's plug-in hybrid posted 1 year, 11 months ago 27 Responses

  • Don't choose technologies. Choose incentives!

    There are many reasons to be wary of government choosing specific technologies as winners. I won't get into the general discussion here, but remember that it's naive to think that "your folks" in power will make the "right" decisions, while the "bad folks" will sit by. Corruption (lobbying by a firm with a favored technology), incompetence, inadequate analysis, and inability to change with emerging knowledge and technology are just some things to consider.

    That said, many people have accepted, actively or implicitly, that government policy should support market rules that improve various dimensions of society. Most people agree that a mythical "free market" without well considered rules cannot adequately handle externalities. Environmental attributes are a classic externality.

    So what to do if not ban the classic bulb? Instead of choosing specific technologies, the government can help encourage the desired outcomes.

    For instance, the government could impose a tax on bulb manufacturers or sellers (per bulb sold) based on how a bulb model's efficiency (lumens out / watt input) differs from a base case (such as a current benchmark such as compact fluorescent). This tax could be adjusted for light quality, bulb life, and other environmental factors (such as materials of construction like mercury). (See there is something for technocrats to noodle over here!)

    This type of structure raises the price to consumers for ineficient bulbs (internalizing the lifetime cost and impact of extra energy used), while seamlessly allowing for new and better technologies and improvements to existing technologies for lighting.

    So perhaps instead of 25% of the price of compact fluorescents, traditional bulbs would cost the consumer 70%. A fairly straightforward analysis could provide a very good estimate of the impact of various tax schedules. At the same time, I'd be free to buy a (still) cheaper traditional bulb for a garage, closet, and other areas that I use very infrequently.

    Note that implicit in this entire discussion is that utilties' pricing structures do not adequately reflect environmental costs. If non-baseline tiers were taxed at a higher rate, consumers could more easily choose energy efficient products while the poor would continue to receive the implicit subsidy of the low baseline power costs. (To receive subsidies, the truly poor could then be provided with compact fluorescent bulbs directly as part of existing assistance programs.)

    Also, remember that a one size fits all policy applied over a strongly heterogeneous population is almost always bound to be mediocre. For instance, for a person living in a cold environment, the "ineficiency" of a traditional bulb provides incremental heat that offsets their demand for other forms of heating. However, in a hot environment, that same bulb increases the person's demand for air conditioning (cooling) by the same amount.  Perhaps Ireland should consider that last point:  Some of the calculated benefits will be eliminated by Irish heaters running just a bit longer to create heat otherwise created by inefficient incandescents...On They've Had Their Filament posted 1 year, 11 months ago 8 Responses

  • be careful with cost claims

    First, IMO an excellent article.  But it repeats a common misunderstanding about costs.  

    Maintaining transportation infrastructure requires funds.  Currently, most of those funds come from gasoline(1) taxes.  Electricity is lightly taxed and the taxes that do exist fund government activities related to electricity or general purposes.

    A meaningful shift to electricity away from gasoline would result in a shortfall in transportation funds.  Taxes would then need to be levied on electricity consumed for transportation purposes.

    As an example of the required magnitude, take California.  Current pump prices of around $3.35 per gallon include about $0.62 in taxes (federal and state excise of $0.36 and state sales of about $0.26) (2).  This represents 18% of the pump price (or a 23% increase on the pre-tax price).  Very roughly, we would expect that electricity used for transportation purposes would be taxed similarly, percentagewise.  (Oddly, the internal efficiency of the electric vehicle could result in an even higher percentage tax on the electricity!)

    Of course, a real economic analysis would include this.  But it would also include the reduction in health care expenses and other benefits of lower ground level pollution.

    (1) or diesel

    (2) See http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/gasolineprices ...
    or
    http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/gasoline_q-and-a.html
    On Giving up car-lessness for Rob Lowe's plug-in hybrid posted 1 year, 12 months ago 27 Responses

  • we are not alone

    Please remember that Japan, Germany, and other wealthy countries have for many years offered very generous subsidies and incentives specifically targeting solar power.  It's a particularly parochial perspective to suggest that clever financing by Berkeley and other cities in the United States would somehow bring forth a magical virtuous cycle of technical innovation.  In some cases government supports can help foster healthy innovation.  That is probably the case for solar to some extent.  (For corn-based ethanol it's a potential disaster on many levels.)

    "What will those hippies think of next?"  Perhaps being truly innovative - instead of picking a sexy technology to support (mimicking the behavior of others), why not auction off limited subsidy dollars in exchange for avoided greenhouse gas emissions regardless of technology?On What if there were more Berkeleys? posted 2 years, 1 month ago 4 Responses