God will save us from climate change

[bush_cheney2004]

Yup. The tricky part is that the power itself has to be managed at the point of generation. Every single node on the network would need that "intelligence".

Its doable though, and I believe we will go in that direction.

These kinds of things are already installed by my power provider, from smart meters to peak power shut-off modules. I get a 15% discount from the power co-op to have such devices in place. The co-op benefits by not needing the excess generation capacity.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Why? There is no near or even medium term financial benefit to doing so, not to mention installing these systems involves time, effort, and periodic maintenance. A solar water heater on the other hand is a great investment that pays for itself very quickly. In fact, I built one myself for a tiny fraction of the commercial cost.

Why is it no one can think long term? Also those turbines are simple so maintenance will be minimal and all they really require is some wiring to install.

[bush_cheney2004]

Get ready for lots more of this from untested designs and modifications that are suppose to "save the planet":

http://www.mercurynews.com/san-mateo-county/ci_16624108?nclick_check=1

[TimG]

And you can simply listen and then search for the material. It's not that hard.

It takes time to listen to a video. With a written artical I can quickly scan to determine if it has new information or if it simply restating stuff I have looked at before. If it is new information I will spend more time on it. It is question of time managment.

The subsequence discussion on the topic confirmed what I already suspected: the capital costs far outstrip and energy savings.

Edited November 17, 2010 by TimG

[TimG]

while ignoring the significant direct subsidies to fossil-fuel producers and the even more significant subsidies to consumers intended to keep costs artificially lower.

A subsidy of 1 cent/liter of gasoline would have ZERO effect on consumption yet it would cost $50 billion/year in the US alone (I had the US stats handy).

That is why the subsidy per unit of energy is the only thing that matters. This is a basic concept. I am amazed that you cannot understand it.

That said, the huge scale of fossil fuel consumption means it is possible to add a small tax that generates a lot of revenue that could be used to support R&D into alternatives. This is something I do support provided the money is not used to prop energy sources which are economically unsustainable like wind and solar.

[TimG]

Indeed. Get better insulation, more efficient heating systems (or wear a sweater), go outside when its hot instead of using the AC, and you just cut about 90% off your power bill.

Our you could go live in a cave. It would save 100%. People are not going to give up their modern conviences if they can afford the power. If the price of power rises to the point where people cannot afford these conviences then we will be in the middle of a large scale economic collapse.

[waldo]

I draw the line at subsidies for production/consumption because such subsidies distort the economy and are not scalable.

If people build it without subsidies then it works. The only way to find out if it works is to take away the subsidies.

Take the tiny fossil fuel subsidies away and they still will be used widely.

that's quite the, uhhh... 'wrinkle' you used by quoting that WSJ article and playing off so-called "standardized costs" by emphasizing per unit of energy subsidization. Of course, that charade completely obfuscates the huge subsidies fossil-fuels receive, even today... what you call, "tiny". That same EIA report offers a breakout on Production Subsidies and Support - here: Tiny fossil fuel subsidies?

That is the ONLY measurement that matters. Quoting total subsidies without taking into account the amount of energy produced is nothing but propoganda designed to deceive the uninformed.

no – it allows you to play your own propaganda tune, labelling fossil-fuel subsidies as “tiny”… while ignoring the significant direct subsidies to fossil-fuel producers and the even more significant subsidies to consumers intended to keep costs artificially lower… notwithstanding how fossil-fuel subsidies counter sustainable development goals while leading to higher consumption/waste potentials.

tiny? The International Energy Agency, in its latest report for the G20:

subsidies provided to producers of fossil fuels may be on the order of US$ 100 billion per year. The total order of magnitude of subsidies to consumers and producers – almost US$ 700 billion a year - is roughly equivalent to 1% of world GDP

A rough estimate by the Global Subsidies Initiative (GSI) indicates around US$ 100 billion per year are spent to subsidize alternatives to fossil fuels.

so… there appears to be a "tiny" US$ 600 billion a year disparity in subsidies... favouring fossil-fuels over its alternatives. Clearly… by your own earlier admissions – you draw the line at your described “tiny” fossil-fuel subsidies and they should be removed, right? Get right on that – hey?

A subsidy of 1 cent/liter of gasoline would have ZERO effect on consumption yet it would cost $50 billion/year in the US alone (I had the US stats handy).

That is why the subsidy per unit of energy is the only thing that matters. This is a basic concept. I am amazed that you cannot understand it.

That said, the huge scale of fossil fuel consumption means it is possible to add a small tax that generates a lot of revenue that could be used to support R&D into alternatives. This is something I do support provided the money is not used to prop energy sources which are economically unsustainable like wind and solar.

so what - gibberish!

I understand completely your desire to negate/ignore the total subsidies amounts involved... care to rationalize the need for a yearly US$ 600 billion disparity in subsidies... favouring fossil-fuels over its alternatives. Why is it needed - other than to, for example, use against competing technologies by artificially lowering consumer costs? Why is that outrageous yearly (and ongoing) disparity in subsidies... favouring fossil-fuels over its alternatives, needed?

[bush_cheney2004]

Our you could go live in a cave. It would save 100%. People are not going to give up their modern conviences if they can afford the power. If the price of power rises to the point where people cannot afford these conviences then we will be in the middle of a large scale economic collapse.

In some cases, the opposite is true. If one can afford more efficient devices, they will consider them to be an even more "modern convenience".

[dre]

In some cases, the opposite is true. If one can afford more efficient devices, they will consider them to be an even more "modern convenience".

This is partially true with some consumers.

In any case though energy consumption is going to GROW over the next few decades and probably grow a LOT. Conservation has some value but its definately not a long term solution.

I would look at the internet as a model. 10 years ago 56k was fast, and a few megs per month was heavy usage. In the future energy needs to be cheaper and more available than it is now. Not the other way around.

I would build modern energy plants right now, and lots of them. Modern clean coal plants, nat gas plants, nuclear plants, and hyrdo electric plants, and invest hard on emerging technology at the same time.

For this to happen though we need to make this one of our highest priorities like we should have 20 years ago. But as soon as the price of oil is in a valley we just stop thinking about it. We have shitty short-term leadership on this issue, and our political system is ill equipped to address long term issues.

[TimG]

I would build modern energy plants right now, and lots of them. Modern clean coal plants, nat gas plants, nuclear plants, and hyrdo electric plants, and invest hard on emerging technology at the same time.

We agree on so much. Where we differ is how we get there. My feeling is the obsession with CO2 has hijacked the public policy discussion on energy and makes it impossible to move forward with sensible energy policies. We need a variation on the old slogan: It's the energy, stupid.

[Bonam]

Why is it no one can think long term? Also those turbines are simple so maintenance will be minimal and all they really require is some wiring to install.

Because long term enough to pay for these devices is too long term for the assumptions made in a payoff calculation to still be true throughout the system's lifetime. If you expect your system to pay for itself in 30 years, for example, but 20 years down the road technology has evolved to the point where you can buy a system that will pay for itself in 5 years, well, you've lost money.

Technological change is happening faster and faster, and investing in a power system for your home that will only make sense if nothing changes over the next 3+ decades is stupid, because EVERYTHING will change over the next 3+ decades, just as it did over the last 3.

[TimG]

I understand completely your desire to negate/ignore the total subsidies amounts involved... care to rationalize the need for a yearly US$ 600 billion disparity in subsidies... favouring fossil-fuels over its alternatives.

The vast majority of those subsidies are paid out by governments of Iran, China and other depots to curry favour with their population. That saidm those subsidies do have the effect of reducing poverty in the countries and getting rid of them will harm a lot of poor people who cannot pay the for the cost of alternatives.

To make matters worse, eliminating those subdidies will decrease demand for oil which will lower the cost and make renewables even less economic in places like Canada.

Edited November 17, 2010 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

.....My feeling is the obsession with CO2 has hijacked the public policy discussion on energy and makes it impossible to move forward with sensible energy policies. We need a variation on the old slogan: It's the energy, stupid.

Agreed....that is why the CO2 priests and their flock of sheep are best ignored.

[dre]

We agree on so much. Where we differ is how we get there. My feeling is the obsession with CO2 has hijacked the public policy discussion on energy and makes it impossible to move forward with sensible energy policies. We need a variation on the old slogan: It's the energy, stupid.

We need a variation on the old slogan: It's the energy, stupid.

That slogan loses all effectiveness as soon as the price of oil receeds a bit. And OPEC and groups like that know it. As soon as we start to get serious about moving off of oil, theyll increase production, bring down prices and politicians incapable of looking beyond the next year or two will move onto something else.

Theres no reason why those interests cant be merged. Modern nat-gas, next gen coal plants, and nuclear plants all produce less CO2. Thats a major selling point for them in this environment, and will probably go down as the only thing that saved the north american nuclear industry.

My feeling is the obsession with CO2 has hijacked the public policy discussion on energy and makes it impossible to move forward with sensible energy policies

We never moved forward with sensible energy policies BEFORE AGW, and theres no reason to think we would if it went away now.

Plus the bottom line is that policy makers dont get to flip a switch and control what the public is concerned about, so this whole line of thinking is a non-sensical waste of time anyways. The environment we have to operate in is what it is, so you just have to take the good with the bad, or just got out of the way.

And the good part is, this environment is way more friendly to energy r&d in general. Its helped to drive a new generation of coal technology, its caused policy makers to start taking a fresh look at the dead north american nuclear industry, and its an easier environment for companies working on energy innovation to get both public and private funds.

Your common refrain of "people should focus on X instead of Y" is irrelevant. Nothing you say will change what they think. Its beyond the ability of energy policy makers to macro-manage that perception.

Edited November 17, 2010 by dre

[dre]

Agreed....that is why the CO2 priests and their flock of sheep are best ignored.

People like you need to be ignored as well. The people at EITHER far end of that argument are both equally counter productive to progress.

[bush_cheney2004]

People like you need to be ignored as well. The people at EITHER far end of that argument are both equally counter productive to progress.

"Progress" will be determined by economics and thermodynamics....not tree huggers.

[dre]

"Progress" will be determined by economics and thermodynamics....not tree huggers.

You drastically misunderstand how this stuff works. Technological progress is driven by either the government allocating public funds, or the market allocating private funds. Both of those are driven by consumer sentiment even if that consumer sentiment is wrong-headed. Youre trying to disconnect the "economics" of it from consumer sentiment, which isnt possible. Thats not how the market works, nor is it how an elected government works.

So Tims argument essentially is that AGW is causing capital to be mis-allocated. I conceed that is true in part, by my position is even though capital is being misdirected, the ammount of capital being allocated constructively is still more than it was before AGW when nobody even talked about energy except for 2 weeks in the summer when prices spiked.

Edited November 17, 2010 by dre

[bush_cheney2004]

You drastically misunderstand how this stuff works. Technological progress is driven by either the government allocating public funds, or the market allocating private funds. Both of those are driven by consumer sentiment even if that consumer sentiment is wrong-headed. Youre trying to disconnect the "economics" of it from consumer sentiment, which isnt possible. Thats not how the market works, nor is it how an elected government works.

Your premise is hopelessly naive, especially coming from a nation with one of the world's highest "consumer" per capita energy consumption. So when is the next election?

[dre]

Your premise is hopelessly naive, especially coming from a nation with one of the world's highest "consumer" per capita energy consumption. So when is the next election?

Its your premise thats naive... in fact you dont even have a premise. The entire depth of your position is some stupid rant about priests and sheep.

What I told you is objectively true, and its happening all around you. Or do you deny that AGW has caused more capital to be allocated towards energy research? That would be hilarious... Go ahead and take that position!. Swallow your pride and say that out loud After that we can look at some numbers.

[bush_cheney2004]

Its your premise thats naive... in fact you dont even have a premise. The entire depth of your position is some stupid rant about priests and sheep.

Unlike you, I don't have to sell magic dust.

What I told you is objectively true, and its happening all around you. Or do you deny that AGW has caused more capital to be allocated towards energy research? That would be hilarious... Go ahead and take that position!. Swallow your pride and say that out loud After that we can look at some numbers.

"Energy research" had been a mainstay since long before your AGW circus. That would be the economics and thermodynamics I spoke of. Kids!

[dre]

Unlike you, I don't have to sell magic dust.

"Energy research" had been a mainstay since long before your AGW circus. That would be the economics and thermodynamics I spoke of. Kids!

Unlike you, I don't have to sell magic dust.

Im not selling anything. AGW isnt my product, and I normally dont even bother with the stupid threads where political hacks like you cherry -pick blog science to argue over AGW. Ill let people with real knowledge of that field keep working on figuring that out.

You really should just stick to dumbass platitudes about priests and sheep.

Edited November 17, 2010 by dre

[bush_cheney2004]

You really should just stick to dumbass platitudes about priests and sheep.

I know...you agreed with me. Just another evident observation...these things are not difficult.

[dre]

I know...you agreed with me. Just another evident observation...these things are not difficult.

Sweet. Follow it up with a strawman. I didnt agree with you on AGW. Im on the fence as far as that goes and I dont even really care either way, besides that it creates opportunity.

[GostHacked]

$17000? Considering my electricity expenditures, that'd take about 100 years to pay for itself. No thanks.

The cost is closer to 20,000$ Not 1/2 the price of your house. And if that company manages to really start setting, those costs would come down considerably. As it is now at about 20 Gs for 3 wind turbines, that's pretty good.

Usually most things work well beyond the time frame it takes to pay them off, and with a little maintenance, (that company provides all the free tech support and advice you can handle) this makes it easier for those who are willing to do it.

Ouch for the bigger units it seems to be close to 15Gs each ... but I guess for a farm or large building this would be good.

Edited November 17, 2010 by GostHacked

[jbg]

No way! Really??

God will save us from climate change: U.S. Representative

Well it's a damned good thing this Republican got in, now isn't it? Good thing it wasn't some crazy person.

I favored Republican control. I do not believe that man has much of anything to do with climate change. I don't think we should be taking ill-conceived or panicky actions to seek to control climate.

That being said, statemens like those of Representative John Shimkus are also ill-conceived, and make those that don't believe in being stampeded on climate change into statist solutions an object of ridicule.