Comments raphsperry has made

I'm with NHSolarGuy and Norcalplanner - it's just kind of wacky to create a mountain of maintenance problems with a scheme like this.  What if every pothole created an electric outage somewhere?  These panels would be covered a lot of the time.  Panels hundreds of miles from load will suffer distribution losses, and placing high-voltage distribution underground has its own lion's share of problems.  Placing them in cities means they'll be shaded by buildings and be over other underground infrastructure (pipes, sewers, telecom,etc.) that regularly dig up the streets for their own maintenance.  The idea of ignoring all these problems by just multiplying the square footage of road surface by the efficiency of solar panels is kind of cute but mostly a waste of time.  DOE gave this effort $100,000- that won't even pay one engineer for one year to work on this, let along get one square foot installed.

I am all for visionary thinking, but I'd like to see if have one foot in reality as well.  Otherwise how can we criticize equally hare-brained schemes like releasing oil shale with underground thermonuclear explosions with a straight face?

Nice thinking, Auden. I would just modify your focus on building codes to include existing buildings more explicitly. The 2% per year turnover you cite means it will take 20 years to get the majority of the benefit we should see from building retrofits. while energy codes for buildings are essential, building owners should also not wait until major renovation to make upgrades to their properties - many are simply unaware of the opportunities (or too cash-flow constrained) to make efficiency improvements that have an ROI of over 20%.  Cities can get engaged in providing incentives (and mandates) for energy efficiency improvements in existing buildings that will happen on much shorter timelines-- New York, Portland, Seattle, Chicago and San Francisco all have major efforts underway in this area, among others.  

Noons- I dispute the notion that the News Media are predominantly Liberal.  In fact, I think that they routinely give more space and more credence to conservative ideas and Republican politicians than the opposite.  But that's a larger discussion for a different forum.

I think Sean is right that people are missing a lot of opportunities for profitable investments in energy efficiency because of market and information failures.  I work in architecture, green building consulting, and real estate, and see all sorts of problems - only some of which I can successfully address.  For instance, for efficiency investments, the standard measure is "simple payback period," which is the cost of the measure divided by the dollars saved per year.  Very few people will pursue a project with a simple payback greater than five years, let alone ten. 

Now, readers interested in market economics will probably realize that simple payback is the reciprocal of return on investment (ROI).  So a ten year payback is an ROI of 10%, and a five year payback is an ROI of 20%.  Because these are typically avoided costs on utility bills, they do not seem to be positive cash flow, but they have most (if not all) of the predictability of many other investments.  So basically you have a large investor class (all American real estate developers and property owners) thumbing their noses at a 20% ROI.  I was assisting one client with a LEED building, and we had to state a policy for plumbing fixture upgrades.  I proposed stating that they would pursue all upgrades with a payback under three years (i.e. ROI of 33%), and the property owners insisted on two years.  For some reason, when they are investing their capital in building or purchasing property, they are satisfied (heck, lucky) with an ROI of 5-10%, but if the investment is in qater or energy consuming equipment, the rules are different. 

Sean's insight into "non-core" activities is part of the answer.  Another common problem is that developers may not own the subject property long enough to realize the returns, and potential buyers may not factor these costs into their thinking.  In buildings there are also split incentives between tenants and owners -- often, owners own the equipment but tenants pay the energy bills.  And of course many property owners of older, inefficient buildings are cash-flow dominated and not well informed about efficiency. And speaking of market economics, these are not people who like fancy new investment vehicles -- this is why they own real estate and not securities (outside of the whole recent problem with mortgage-backed securities, which probably reinforces the notion that old-fashioned real estate investing is the safe way to go for the people who continue to own real properties rather than securitized investment vehicles related to properties).  

I think it is appropriate to use policy tools to try to influence the thinking of this group (real estate owners and investors).  They certainly respond to changes in tax codes, ownership rules, lease procedures, and the like.  And frankly, many could use some help appreciating the benefits of what they have been missing.

How much does nuclear cost?

Rod Adams--

You ask, "how did those plants get paid off? How long did it take? How many years worth of operational time - at low operating costs - are left on the plant?" but don't answer it.  How much does it cost to pay off a nuclear power plant?  Unless it costs less than $0.14 per kWh, then when added to the $1.76 O&M cost per Kwh nuclear is higher than the $1.90 PTC you criticize renewable power for (which of course isn't the full costs of power form those sources either).

But let's dig a little deeper.  How about the costs of disposing of nuclear fuel and providing catastrophic accident insurance?  You don't mention these two key factors in accounting for the costs of nuclear power.   If nuclear power is used, these costs will be paid.  If plants are uninsured and an accident happens, then the catastrophe costs are paid by the residents and future generations (or, quite likely, by taxpayers, through FEMA, ex post facto).  In the case of nuclear waste disposal, it's already clear that taxpayers will foot the (ever increasing) bill for Yucca Mountain or, if it never happens, something else to replace it.  If the renewables have similar cost burdens, let's factor those in, too - although I am not aware of any.  But let's compare apples to apples.

As a reasonable person one of the things I like about the competitors to nuclear power is the absence of these hidden risks and costs.  Sure, something could go wrong with a wind or solar installation, but it won't pollute thousands of square miles for tens of thousands of years, or instantly convert a multi-billion dollar asset into a liability.  I think the nuclear industry owes the public an accounting of these risks, rather than hiding behind generic claims that their plants are now "safer" than older versions, or "safe" in general.  

Raphael Sperry

How can you tell the difference?

It's frustrating to read these responses side by side.  On their face, Obama's response is more detailed, but McCain hits all the same points.  Both of them seem to agree on the need to restore integrity to the federal use of science, but McCain takes no responsibility for the Bush administration's manipulaitons and lies.  And Obama doesn't point the finger at Bush either.  Obama might think this is campaign.

Raphael Sperry

farmers need help

I appreciate Stephanie's honesty in explaining her economic circumstances -- this is hard information for outsiders (I'm a city dweller) to get first hand.

I think it is fair to look at government policy as a major shaper of the market that market that maker small farmers non-competitive.  Government is typically seen as the appropriate actor to redress market failures from anti-trust to externalities.  Markets do not correct themselves from these failures, and do not function efficiently without appropriate regulation.

For instance, in terms of externalities, small-scale and organic farmers are protecting public resources such as genetic diversity , providing barriers to spread of pests (as opposed to mono-cropping), preventing pollution caused by CAFOs, and avoiding the fertilizer loading that leads to ocean dead zones from agricultural runoff.  In short, small-scale and organic farmers are good stewards of the environment.   Instead of finding ways to reward small-scale organic farmers for these public services, public subsidies flow to the largest conglomerates that cause these problems because they have more political influence.  I suspect that if the scales were balanced, then the cheapest way to obtain the level of stewardship needed to have a long-term sustainable landscape would be to have (small- and medium-scale) farmers on the land growing crops for food while also doing good maintenance.  

Also, organic farmers' products promote public health, while many of their competitors' products undermine public health, which ultimately leads to a very expensive health-case system (although private, for-profit management also contributes a lot) and the other public burdens of an overweight and unhealthy population.  It's not that large-scale, corporate-owned mega-farms can't provide healthy food and sustainable land management, but that, under their leadership, we have actually moved in the opposite direction.  So in the process of (hopefully) moving to sustainable farming and land management, it is not reasonable to trust large-scale operators to write the rules.   I can only assume it's people like Stephanie who would actually take not only their personal interest into account but the broader public interest when thinking about the issues of food and land.

Raphael Sperry

Another energy-saving option

One tech fix for this particular problem is the drainwater heat exchanger, or the gravity-flow exchanger (GFX). It will require a plumber, and tearing up some of the wall in the room below your bathroom (sorry about that).  The GFX replaces a stretch of pipe that is the shower drain, with a new drainpipe that includes a coil of copper tubing wrapped around it.  You connect the wrap-around coil to the cold-water line serving the shower, so that the heat from the drainwater per-heats the cold water.  Once the drain water is hot, you can adjust down the amount of hot water (from the water heater) by more than 50%.

Honestly, these are more common in new construction or major renovation projects, since the installation is a drag. I'd also recommend getting a thermostatic shower valve with one of these so you don't have to adjust the mix as the incoming cold line warms up.  But it's worth checking out for you energy-savers out there:
http://gfxtechnology.com

And even Bob Vila recommends it:
http://www.bobvila.com/HowTo_Library/Drainwater_Heat_Reco ...On Umbra on long, hot showers posted 1 year, 8 months ago 21 Responses

phantom emissions

If farmers get GHG reduction credits for not using fertilizer they could have used, shouldn't organic farmers in the U.S., who use less fertilizer and other inputs, be getting offsets already?  Can we get Arcadia Biosciences to fight for them?  Or what about poor farmers who just can't afford the nitrogen fertilizers -- will Arcadia give them offsets?  Or for that matter, I didn't apply any nitrogen fertilizer to my back yard, can I claim an offset, too?

In other words, this whole voluntary offset business is crazy.  When we have an enforceable GHG emissions cap, then farmers who buy the nitrogen will be charged for the resulting emissions (or at least the fertilizer extractors/manufacturers will be charged and will pass that along to their customers); farmers who don't use nitrogen will save avoided costs.  You won't have to worry about who could have been worse; each emission will be tagged and it will start to make financial sense not to emit in every case.

And yes, the GM angle is so yucky,On GM crops reduce emissions and could be used as carbon offsets, says biotech company posted 1 year, 10 months ago 15 Responses

No tax breaks for McMansions?

Just came across this:

When U.S. Congressman John Dingell (D-Mich.) in August suggested as part of a proposed "carbon tax" bill to punish owners of homes larger than 3,000 square feet, he certainly got the attention of homebuilders. Dingell, who chairs the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, said he would introduce legislation that would include, among other measures, a $100 per ton tax on carbon emissions, a 50-cent gasoline tax, and a "cap-and-trade" emissions program that would allow industries to trade pollution credits with low-polluting companies. The goal of the proposed legislation is to reduce carbon emissions by 60-80 percent by the year 2050.

Taxing McMansions?
But the loudest outcry came when Dingell targeted "McMansions" (he actually used that term) by eliminating the mortgage-interest income tax reduction for all homes that exceeded 3,000 square feet. Dingell said that he expected to "catch hell" for the idea, and homebuilders obliged. One in Dingell's own district called the idea "ill-informed and misguided." The National Association of Realtors calculated that the McMansion tax would lead to a 4-percent drop in housing prices nationally and would affect 15 percent of the nation's housing stock.

from http://www.aia.org/aiarchitect/thisweek07/0921/0921rc_fac ...

Guess that outside of vehicle fuel efficiency Dingell gets the picture?

Raphael Sperry

Go Farther!

"We'll use less oil," and switch to "clean coal," and "it is certainly arguable that all subsidies to oil companies should be eliminated."  While arguing that the paradigm has changed, these guys are fairly timid in proposing solutions.  It's not only arguable that all oil subsidies should be eliminated, but highly desirable.  We should aim to use no oil, not less.  And did nobody see the MIT paper on enhanced geothermal power for baseload uses?  This is the technology that needs development assistance, not clean coal.  For the same cost, we could get a free, endless, safe supply of energy that doesn't destroy whole counties.  Plus there's no guarantee that sequestered CO2 won't cause problems (or leak back out) in the future.

The proposed CO2 cap and trade scheme, reducing the cap 1% per year, "might need to be strengthened over time."  Actually, if you look at climate predictions, the proposal need to be srengthened right now.  Why not give energy the security they need to plan wisely based on both the ability to predict carbon costs and moving towards a goal that will actually stave off out-of-control climate change (unlike 1% per year reductions)?

As for utility companies as engines of efficiency, the best results have been from publicly owned utilties (Seattle City Light, Austin Energy, Sacramento Municiapl Utility Disctrict, etc.), not investor-owned utilities.  (The California efficiency programs are operated under contract by utilities but are state-funded and state-mandated, so the utilities are not demonstrating any leadership.)  How about changing the rules by municipalizing all electric utilities, so that they have the structural incentive to reduce internal operating costs instead of maximizing external profits?  Or instead of giving efficiency subsidies to private utilities, how about giving energy subsidies to end-users for improvements?  What a thought, returning tax dollars to energy consumers to improve our own quality of life and our own economic situations!  But we should probably leave it up to the big companies -- just like Henry Ford, they've always listened to good scientific advice and led the way out of our nation's biggest problems, right?On New energy rules could unleash an economic boom and help quash climate change posted 2 years, 6 months ago 18 Responses