Comments Rico has made

  • Go ask Alice

    A couple of things I found noteworthy in Hirsh's piece:
    The first is one Dave mentioned in his post but for somewhat different reasons. Hirsh said, "Now it's McCain who has laid out a clear -- if questionably feasible -- energy vision for the future." Uh... if it's questionable how is it a clear vision? Clearly questionable maybe. I seem to recall someone else mentioning "clear vision" a lot during the campaign four years ago -- one that was equally questionable at the time and proven profoundly myopic thereafter. Maybe we should call it the Mr. Magoo energy policy. Magoo was equally certain of himself for all the wrong reasons. The only problem with that idea is, only those around McCain's age are likely to understand the reference. Then again, maybe that's not such a bad thing.

    The other is this: Hirsh says, "True, Obama has called for an investment of $150 billion over 10 years, dwarfing McCain's incentive plan..." What incentive plan? Whatever it is, does it include nuclear power? Apparently not, because if that idea was included it wouldn't be McCain's plan that was "dwarfed".

    Despite the "Through the Lookingglass" tone of Hirsh's article though, unfortunately I think he gets one very important thing right: that's what campaigns are. Most people are as confused as Alice. And that, I think, is an important thing to keep in mind.On Newsweek political journalist transcribes McCain campaign spin on energy posted 1 year, 5 months ago 4 Responses

  • California already did.

    California got rid of their "old coal plants" long ago. However, CA currently does import a substantial portion of their utility power from coal-fired plants in neighboring states. But they're working to eliminate that as well.
    On California plans to cut 169 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent by 2020 posted 1 year, 5 months ago 7 Responses

  • Color me confused

    jromm: Confused commenters

    While I'm sure all of us commenters appreciate how busy your schedule is. And while I'm also sure that at least many of us, to one extent or another, defer to your superior knowledge and/or experience, I'm equally sure that calling all of us "confused" with no attempt at subtlety or distinction doesn't help your cause much.

    I'm trying hard to get in your camp, and probably will end up there (more or less), but you're not making it any easier. There's no sense in pissing people off for no reason, is there? I'm just saying.On Examining the IPCC's 'portfolio of technologies' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 19 Responses

  • Nuclear?

    bigTom, I'm ambivalent to nuclear. Other than the obvious (the waste and security issues) part of the reason is the cost and the availability of critical components, like containment vessels. Those variables have to be projected over very long construction times. Meanwhile, have you looked into the potential of geothermal? In particular I mean "hot rock" (EGS) geothermal, or variants on the theme more applicable to "traditional" sites. Granted, hot rock geothermal is one of those technologies that require more R&D. But the level of R&D funding has thus far been pretty pathetic, so it's hard to tell how well better funding would pay off. But according to this study, the potential bang for the buck could be enormous.

    I honestly don't understand why EGS is not more discussed and/or pushed more aggressively. Am I missing something? Can anyone help?On Examining the IPCC's 'portfolio of technologies' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 19 Responses

  • Capacity

    In addition to making distinctions between "nameplate capacity" and "capacity factor" (which I agree is an important distinction), there is also the need to consider how much of the "capacity factor" meaningfully contributes to the grid load at any point in time. For lack of a better term, that's what I would call "effective capacity". For example, though a nuclear (or hydroelectric) plant can operate at near capacity essentially all the time, load requirements are variable over time. So either you have another source of dispatchable power and use the nuclear or hydroelectric plant to satisfy base load only, or its "effective capacity" will be lower than its "capacity factor". On the other hand, since solar capacity follows load requirements pretty well (and in the case of solar thermal, even better if it has heat storage), its "effective capacity" remains close to its "capacity factor".

    Unfortunately, I don't know of any source of "effective capacity" statistics. But this paper discusses the issue with respect to solar thermal. Another point is that when (let's hope it's not "if") smart grid technology is meaningfully deployed, our current conceptions of "peak" and "off-peak" load distributions are likely to change dramatically. It seems to me that smart grid deployment is the very first rate-limiting step in our quest to make "unreliable" renewable power sources optimal.On Examining the IPCC's 'portfolio of technologies' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 19 Responses

  • Short term policy

    Do you have any idea of what sort of proposals the right wing would accept in getting us from fossil fuels to renewables?

    Well, like I said, I'm not a policy wonk. I try to work on understanding and then shifting attitudes. Attitudes have a lot to do with framing, so that's what I've tried to do. Caniscandida suggests my proposal is only a short term solution. Yes it is! It's a start, not an end-point. Even more to the point, it's a way to sell the start, to make it more palatable to the most people. There is an immediate resistance to renewable energy in this country, mostly because it's new -- and different. But people do understand that fossil fuels are getting expensive, and will likely continue to get more so. They feel it in their wallets, and they know a lot of the money is going to foreign countries. Jobs are declining. So there's an opening right here, right now, to stimulate the development and deployment of renewable fuels, and energy conservation technologies.

    Just on the most nitty gritty level, there are many policy shifts necessary. Most obviously, we need smart grids if we want to promote plug-in hybrids and EVs, or solar and wind power. Smart grids essentially pay for themselves in the here and now just by virtue of their load-leveling features, which increases the efficiency of even "traditional" energy sources. But they are essential for optimizing the efficiency of many forms of utility scale renewable energy, and hybrids, and distributed systems like roof-top solar, or backyard wind turbines (that, by the way, has a great deal of appeal on the right side of the aisle). You get over that little hump and all sorts of things become possible. But just that requires many municipalities to change their utility regulatory structures. They have to allow utilities to decouple sales from earnings. If that happens, it really could fundamentally change things. Then not only do smart grids make sense, but so does helping utilities partner up with smart appliance manufacturers, and efficiency engineers to retrofit energy-poor buildings, things like that.

    There is going to be resistance to just that, to be sure. And it won't be just from the right wing, either. Different politicians have different power bases which are likely to try to  impede progress. But I sincerely believe that once the transition starts, and people see that this stuff really is good for everyone involved, people are going to ask, "gee, why didn't we think of that before?" You get to that point, then even more becomes palatable that wasn't before.

    And there's another element to the story: I sincerely believe that a lot of the resistance we see to transitioning away from fossil fuels in developing countries is due to the resistance here in the US. We're the big energy pigs. If we can show we can change, the resistance in other places will fade as well. So concentrating on what is wrong right here in the USA! USA! USA! might sound nationalistic or isolationistic or chauvinistic (and frankly, I don't have a problem capitalizing on those sentiments in the short run), but in the long run the intent is just the opposite.

    So yes, it's only a start. But you have to start somewhere. And you can't hold the good hostage to the perfect. I think we're making too much of the "energy independence" meme all by itself. But I do think it works, along with others. Clean energy is not just about energy independence. It's also about domestic jobs, about reducing the trade deficit, about innovation, about getting our heads out of the sand and once again, finally at long last, leading by example rather than force.On The implicit assumption in Pielke Jr.'s Nature commentary posted 1 year, 7 months ago 38 Responses

  • How did they receive it?

    Some rather well, some not at all. It's not like all of them are equally reasonable -- just as it's not like everyone on the left is equally reasonable. But I think it's worth keeping in mind that the only people that truly understand the implications of climate science are, well... climate scientists. And climate scientists are human, not vulcan. So it's impossible for even them to be completely dispassionate about the subject. Given that, what hope do the rest of us have? At some point along the line we all have to engage our belief systems to some extent -- despite how much we think we're the only ones being logical.

    My point is that it's easy to reject the science if it is perceived that it's only the science that is motivating the policy. I'm not saying we should reject the science, I'm saying it's not the only motivator that can propel us in the interests of carbon mitigation. Energy issues provide a much more direct, more understandable motivator. Attempts to shape policy to mitigate carbon emissions merely under the guise of climate science will be seen by many as a sacrifice, and an attempt by "commie elitists" to control the masses. That might sound ridiculous, but I'm telling you, it would be a very hard sell on the other side of the aisle because that's exactly what they think. On the other hand, attempts to shape policy to mitigate carbon emissions in the name of health, trade imbalance, domestic employment and manufacturing, energy independence, and national security are much more easily (and properly, IMO) viewed as investments rather than sacrifices. And that, I would say, is true of a much broader spectrum of people. And with the right policies in place we can make tremendous inroads into carbon mitigation without ever referring to climate change. In that scenario, climate change becomes a feed-in variable, not the primary object of contention.

    GreyFlcn says, "Energy Independence" basically implies that we would create domestic liquid fuels." To which I say... re-read the three paragraphs of my first comment starting with "Drilling in ANWR..." You hit upon one of the major retorts I get when talking to my conservative buddies though. But I wouldn't make the argument if I thought it was easily rebutted. And when they try I don't dismiss them. I simply ask them to document for me how exploiting whatever oil and gas reserves we as a nation have left is likely NOT going to be more difficult, costly, time-consuming, energy-intensive, and worse for health and environment than cleaner alternatives. So far no one has been able to do that. To be sure, some continue to believe what they want to believe based upon obsolete data and the old "Club of Rome" argument. But you can't reach all the luddites.

    As for the contention that "energy Independence" focuses on increasing consumption of fuels, I don't see that. In fact, I don't see how it could be anything but the opposite. The more we burn fuels like drunken sailors -- ANY fuels (even renewable ones) -- the less likely we will be energy independent. Actually, that's true of any nation, as China is on the threshold of finding out.

    I'll tell you where I see my argument coming up short, though: CCS. I don't see where you can argue for CCS without resorting to climate change. But still, it's an easier sell if you convince people to stop building coal plants in the first place based on more of an economic, health and national security argument than merely on a climate change one.On The implicit assumption in Pielke Jr.'s Nature commentary posted 1 year, 8 months ago 38 Responses

  • Technology WITHOUT Policy

    Technology WITHOUT Policy will NOT lead to the change we want.

    I think that also goes without saying. But like technology is not one single thing, neither is policy. There are many individual facets to policy which differ in size not only in terms of the jurisdiction to which they apply (local through international), but also in terms of the amount of sociopolitical will required for implementation. And just as it is argued for technology that the "good enough" in the here and now should not be held hostage to some future "perfect", so too, IMO, should it apply to policy. And that, I think, is a point that's getting lost in the din.

    I'm not a policy wonk, but I think there's considerable truth to what the people at the Breakthrough Institute say in this passage: It is here that the We Campaign suffers a failure of imagination -- they insist upon framing the issue as an environmental one, rather than making it about something that Americans actually care about. The environment may not be high on Americans' policy priority list, but energy independence is.

    I didn't realize that was up there before I said what I said in my previous post. Apparently we came to the same conclusion independently. Be that as it may, I think it's abundantly clear that people really do care about energy -- people across the political spectrum. It's something they can understand directly, something that affects their pocketbook directly, right here, right now. I am thus convinced that there's very broad support for both technology solutions AND policy solutions that bear directly on the energy issue IF they are framed in that way. The fact that they also bear heavily on the climate change issue is as much irrelevant as it is an added bonus. But I would argue that a critical amount of support remains latent precisely because the energy issue has been presented mostly as a climate change issue, and thus hijacked by the emotions associated it. That, I think, is tantamount to shooting oneself in the foot. IMO, there is a lot of common ground to be had, provided the argument is framed appropriately.On The implicit assumption in Pielke Jr.'s Nature commentary posted 1 year, 8 months ago 38 Responses

  • Another way to reframe the debate

    The following is a comment I left on a right wing site, where many adherents faithfully ascribe to the "global warming is a hoax" meme. My intent was to reduce their resistance to all things new by decoupling global warming from energy alternatives. Keep in mind the audience for which my comment was crafted. But I think much of it applies equally well here. Anyway, see what you think...

    Let's assume the earth is getting cooler. And of course if you do assume that then you can't argue that emitting more GHGs are going to warm things up, right? That would be absurd. So if you assume the earth is getting cooler then you also have to assume GHGs don't matter. So let's a assume both... Does that make you any more fine about spending over $3/gal of gas? Does it make you any more fine about spending over $500 billion a year importing oil? Does that make you any more fine about supporting unstable regimes? Does that make you any happier about living next to an oil refinery or a coal mine?

    I read a study recently that indicated that the people living in the counties surrounding an open pit coal mine in WV were four times more likely to develop some form of cardiopulmonary disease, presumably from the toxic fumes that emanate from the mine. A recent study by the American Lung Assoc indicated that over 15 years a transition to electric vehicles (i.e., eliminating internal combustion engines) could save about $100 billion -- in CA alone. Another study indicated that by investing in what's needed to optimize energy efficiency around the world could recoup about $900 billion/yr over their investment. The US's share would be around $180 billion/yr. The bottom line: burning fossil fuels wastefully like we do is not only bad for the bottom line, it's unhealthy (which is also bad for the bottom line). The above assumes current prices, too. If energy prices or health care costs go up, the savings would be greater.

    Many people seem to think that because there appears to be a reasonable amount of oil left in the ground, and certainly gas and coal, that it will remain as inexpensive as it is now to recover in sufficient quantities to keep up with demand. Well if you think that, I challenge you to find a credible source to back you up. In particular, I challenge you to find such a source which doesn't rely on "possible future technology developments". If you do that it seems to me you also have to admit that "possible future technology developments" aren't limited to the oil industry. Broadly speaking, it is the thing that has made America great. And given that the oil industry has been a mature one for a long time, the likelihood is much greater that "possible future technology developments" will occur in emerging, alternative technologies.

    Drilling in ANWR, although arguably the most economical current option in terms of oil exploration, will cost billions in infrastructure (and take many years). Drilling deep off shore will cost even more billions of dollars (and take years). Harvesting tar sands or oil shale (assuming someone eventually figures out how to do the latter on a commercial scale) requires large amounts of water and natural gas, which puts a pinch on both of those resources. Converting coal to oil also requires lots of natural gas -- and coal, of course.

    I'm afraid there's no way around it -- fossil fuel prices will continue to go up. That alone is reason to consider other options. And really... are we that far away? Solar thermal is still more expensive than coal (at present prices), but not by much. And with new heat storage technology they can run all day (and night) long. Solar photovoltaics are still more expensive than coal (at present prices), but the prices there are dropping quickly too. Geothermal is already cheaper than coal (at present prices), though only in certain spots. But new advancements are making it economical in more and more regions. And in that regard it's important to keep in mind that if you drill deep enough anywhere you will find really hot rocks. So geothermal has huge potential. On shore wind is almost as cheap as coal (at present prices) in many locations. Nuclear is very expensive up front, but they're also cheap to run. So unless you assume coal prices won't go up over the next 40 years or so they are also worth a look (assuming you have no problem with radioactive waste). These are alternatives that require little to nothing in terms of "possible future technology developments". All they require are improvements in manufacturing and deployment efficiencies -- which invariably come with economy of scale. Future technology developments can't be ruled out. In fact, I'd say that's a very good bet. But they aren't dependent on them.

    There are those of the attitude, "well, when those sources get down below coal, then we'll talk". But it's really a chicken and egg sort of issue: economy of scale pressures which drive prices down significantly can't kick in until you reach ecomomy of scale. So basically, it boils down to a question of... do you want to pay more now and effectively lock in a price, or pay more (perhaps much more) later? That's the only risk involved in everything said above. Climate change or no climate change, the potential solutions regarding the future of energy remain largely the same. Either way, getting on the bandwagon of renewable fuels represents a huge economic opportunity -- assuming we aren't real stupid about it. Then again, we'd be stupid to do nothing as well. Unintended consequences cut both ways.

    Now let's assume global warming is real and humans are responsible... What changes fundamentally from what I described above? I would argue nothing changes at all. Said in another way, where you stand on global warming matters little in the above contexts, and thus should not be part of the global warming debate.

    The global warming debate should only change one's inclination to do even more -- like get the rest of the world involved, particularly developing nations like China and India. Obviously, that's exceedingly difficult. And as [a poster -- name omitted] pointed out, it can lead to some immense unintended consequences. Some people mistakenly point to those sorts of things and use them to insist we should do nothing about burning fossil fuels ourselves. But if you insist that you've just rejected everything I said above.

    I personally believe that developing nations would heartily welcome technologies that would allow them to forego the burning of fossil fuels. They understand that fossil fuels are going up in price, that they're unhealthy, and all that. But they don't have the expertise to do anything about it. And they sure aren't going to sacrifice their economic development for the sake of future promises. So unless and until we have something better yet equally cost-effective to offer them they will resist mightily.On The implicit assumption in Pielke Jr.'s Nature commentary posted 1 year, 8 months ago 38 Responses

  • Solar summary

    The Oil Drum blog recently posted a good summary of the current state of solar thermal power, including plants in operation, under construction, and being planned.On Solar's new mega-plants posted 1 year, 8 months ago 3 Responses