David Suzuki versus Justin Trudeau

[TimG]

Wow, so your assertion is we're stuck with fossil fuels because you think battery technology will never improve?

You really do have a problem with nuance don't you? Batteries will improve but face real technical barriers that could mean they will never be competitive with fossil fuels. That said, some new technology could appear suddenly that changes all of these dynamics but we can't know when or even if such a technology will appear. This means that any government plan that depends on this tech appearing on pre-set time schedule is doomed to fail.

[Argus]

The plan is to raise fossil fuel prices to reflect their true costs. It's called artificial scarcity, and it's hardly a new thing in capitalist free market economies.

You think all countries of the world are going to be willing to do that?

[Argus]

Ever seen The Walking Dead? Picture the zombies stumbling through the field chanting "IT'LL NEEVVVEERRR WOOORRRKKKK!!!" That's an apt analogy for what we're up against debating this crowd.

The point you seem to be consistently missing is that nobody is saying alternative fuels will never be economical, just that they weren't NOW.

Are you willing to pay twice as much for electricity and fuel for your car? I can afford it. Can you? What about three times as much?

[ToadBrother]

The point you seem to be consistently missing is that nobody is saying alternative fuels will never be economical, just that they weren't NOW.

Are you willing to pay twice as much for electricity and fuel for your car? I can afford it. Can you? What about three times as much?

We're going to pay no matter what happens. Better to get the pain out of the way now, no?

[ToadBrother]

You think all countries of the world are going to be willing to do that?

Probably not, but if enough industrialized nations push ahead, and then create a tariff system to make sure nations that odn't cooperate can't dump cheaper products in our markets, they'll come around. If Europe, North America and Japan were to institute such a system, I think you would find the developing world coming along nicely.

[ReeferMadness]

All of these wonderful new ideas have nasty problems buried in the fine print that can often make the idea useless as a real world solution. So your assertion that it is a question of funding and political will is false. As it stands today anyone with a viable battery technology would make billions without government prodding. The fact that battery uptake is slow is because of the limitations of the technology and these limitations may never go away.

You didn't bother to understand it, did you? As usual.

It says you can drive 1,000 miles for $50 worth of aluminum plates. Then you pull out the old ones (which are now aluminum oxide) and put in new ones. $50 is a freaking awesome deal for driving 1,000 miles emissions free. Are you worried about the cost of recycling aluminum oxide back to aluminum? Well, it is energy intensive (which is only logical because the energy that drove your car 1,000 miles was obtained by oxidizing aluminum). But how much would it cost?

Well, it turns out that aluminum oxide is what you get after you remove the impurities from bauxite ore during the production of aluminum. So, logically, if if the aluminum can be produced for $50, it should cost less than that to turn the aluminum oxide back into aluminum. I don't know what the economics are like but potentially, you could get money back by turning in your oxidized aluminum plates.

Edited September 30, 2015 by ReeferMadness

[ReeferMadness]

No you can't. You just think this because you have confirmation bias and want to believe it. It's very easy to convince yourself that solar/wind is just as cheap as fossil fuels or nuclear if you arbitrarily add costs to fossil fuels / nuclear and/or arbitrarily hide costs from solar/wind.

Do a bit of basic research on the cost of solar and wind before you say that. I'm tired of posting links only to have the Walking Dead crowd pop up and repeat the same old tired claims over and over again. "IT'LL NEEEVVVERRR WOOOORRRRKKKKK"

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

[ReeferMadness]

The point you seem to be consistently missing is that nobody is saying alternative fuels will never be economical, just that they weren't NOW.

Are you willing to pay twice as much for electricity and fuel for your car? I can afford it. Can you? What about three times as much?

If necessary, yes. But I doubt very much that it is. Go and do a little research. I posted a link above that says you can drive an electric car 1,000 miles for $50 worth of aluminum.

[Smallc]

Do a bit of basic research on the cost of solar and wind before you say that. I'm tired of posting links only to have the Walking Dead crowd pop up and repeat the same old tired claims over and over again. "IT'LL NEEEVVVERRR WOOOORRRRKKKKK"

so...with such low prices, why the low uptake?

[Hydraboss]

I'm curious how many avowed members of the Green Party drive these $50/1000mile cars?

[ToadBrother]

I'm curious how many avowed members of the Green Party drive these $50/1000mile cars?

And that's important because...?

And are you suggesting that you have to be an "avowed member" of the Green Party to accept AGW?

[ReeferMadness]

so...with such low prices, why the low uptake?

I don't know but there are lots of possible answers.

The price of natural gas is artificially low due to a supply glut. There is a capital cost in building new plants to there will be some natural inertia that will slow uptake. Electricity producers are usually regulated monopolies so there isn't much incentive for them to aggressively adopt new technologies. Also solar and wind are interruptible and technologies for energy storage are still developing.

[ReeferMadness]

I'm curious how many avowed members of the Green Party drive these $50/1000mile cars?

If you read he article, it said they were due to be released in 2017. My calendar still says 2015, so maybe that's the reason.

And if we waited for it to be cheaper for companies to not emit SOx and NOx, you wouldn't be able to see your hand in front of your face in most cities. And if we waited for it to be cheaper to produce refrigerant without chlorofluorocarbons, you wouldn't be able to step outside without burning to a crisp.

Sometimes governments have to step up and make people do the right thing.

[-1=e^ipi]

Probably not, but if enough industrialized nations push ahead, and then create a tariff system to make sure nations that odn't cooperate can't dump cheaper products in our markets, they'll come around. If Europe, North America and Japan were to institute such a system, I think you would find the developing world coming along nicely.

I think you would need China and India on board as well. You might even need to threaten military action on non-compliant countries.

[ToadBrother]

I think you would need China and India on board as well. You might even need to threaten military action on non-compliant countries.

Why? Just raise the price of their exports.

Economic warfare is far more effective these days. Just ask Russia.

[ReeferMadness]

I have a better idea. Attain probability distributions for how the climate will evolve under different emission scenarios, for how economic output will change under different emission scenarios, etc. using empirical data. Use empirical data on risk averse behaviour in humans to define a social welfare function. Then perform Monte Carlo simulations and use Newton's method to determine the path of carbon dioxide emission taxation that maximizes expected social welfare.

I have an even better idea. As a condition of selling us toxic products that change the chemistry of our one and only atmosphere, the onus should be on oil companies to show that their products will not have negative impacts on us, now or in the future. (this might be particularly difficult for Exxon) The results will be peer reviewed by IPCC climate change.

And the same goes for the nuclear industry, the GMO people, and everyone else who wants to introduce new chemicals (or existing chemicals in significantly increased concentrations) or organisms into the environment.

[-1=e^ipi]

I posted a link above that says you can drive an electric car 1,000 miles for $50 worth of aluminum.

1. We don't know the mass of the car. One can exaggerate the mileage of this technology simply by using a super low weight car.

The best I can do is look at energy density.

The enthalpy of formation if aluminum oxide is 1669.8 kJ/mol. Atmoic mass of aluminum is 27 g/mol. So the 25 kg of aluminum contains 1.55 * 10^9 J.

By comparison, gasoline has an energy density of 32.4 MJ/L. If we assume gasoline has a cost of $1/L then $50 of gasoline contains 1.62 * 10^9 J.

2. Assuming market prices remain constant is partial equilibrium analysis not full equilibrium analysis. If the entire world goes to aluminum batteries, then the demand for aluminum will skyrocket, which means that prices will increase.

Do a bit of basic research on the cost of solar and wind before you say that. I'm tired of posting links only to have the Walking Dead crowd pop up and repeat the same old tired claims over and over again. "IT'LL NEEEVVVERRR WOOOORRRRKKKKK"

1. Let's be super generous and say that you can indefinitely store 1.55 * 10^9 J of energy for $50. A kWh is 3.6 * 10^6 J. So the storage cost suggests you should add 11.6 cents per kWh to solar and wind.

2. These are 'best case costs', as opposed to average costs. Let alone the fact that this is being done in regions with abundant wind and solar. In places with less abundant wind and solar, costs of production will be higher.

[-1=e^ipi]

Why? Just raise the price of their exports.

Because US + EU + Japan simply won't have sufficient economic weight to cause most of the other countries to be compliant.

[ToadBrother]

Because US + EU + Japan simply won't have sufficient economic weight to cause most of the other countries to be compliant.

Of course they will, because they constitute the most significant bloc of First World consumers. If the EU, the US and Japan started placing carbon tariffs on China and India, it would mean either complying or seeing their economies nose dive.

The US has already demonstrated it has the power to bring an errant second tier power to its knees by using low energy prices to smash the Russian economy.

[-1=e^ipi]

I have an even better idea. As a condition of selling us toxic products that change the chemistry of our one and only atmosphere, the onus should be on oil companies to show that their products will not have negative impacts on us, now or in the future. (this might be particularly difficult for Exxon) The results will be peer reviewed by IPCC climate change.

Appeal to ignorance fallacy.

By occam's razor, preference should be given to the null hypothesis until demonstrated otherwise.

But regardless, how is this post a response to what I wrote? I didn't mention oil companies. All I said was that one should use empirical evidence to determine the optimal level of CO2 emission taxation, and alluded to a methodology to determine that optimal level.

[ToadBrother]

Appeal to ignorance fallacy.

By occam's razor, preference should be given to the null hypothesis until demonstrated otherwise.

But regardless, how is this post a response to what I wrote? I didn't mention oil companies. All I said was that one should use empirical evidence to determine the optimal level of CO2 emission taxation, and alluded to a methodology to determine that optimal level.

Since insurance companies are already taking climate change into account, why don't we ask their actuaries to do the math? Who would be better placed to sort out the actual costs of AGW than an actuary?

[-1=e^ipi]

Of course they will, because they constitute the most significant bloc of First World consumers. If the EU, the US and Japan started placing carbon tariffs on China and India, it would mean either complying or seeing their economies nose dive.

Somehow I don't see China simply going along with whatever CO2 reduction plans the developed countries decide upon.

You fail to take into account that most people (especially outside the multicultural west) are not to fond of foreigners coming along, imposing sanctions and dictating policy. Also, some regimes care more about staying in power than about the well being of its people, let alone the world. The communist party of China certainly wants to stay in power, and ensuring that economic growth is not slowed down due to emission reductions is one way in which they can increase their chances of staying in power.

[ToadBrother]

Somehow I don't see China simply going along with whatever CO2 reduction plans the developed countries decide upon.

What choice would China have? They cannot force us to buy their goods at the prices they desire. Besides, lower price manufacturers like India are already taking a bite out of their ailing economy.

You fail to take into account that most people (especially outside the multicultural west) are not to fond of foreigners coming along, imposing sanctions and dictating policy. Also, some regimes care more about staying in power than about the well being of its people, let alone the world. The communist party of China certainly wants to stay in power, and ensuring that economic growth is not slowed down due to emission reductions is one way in which they can increase their chances of staying in power.

Tariffs take effect at our borders, not theirs. And the PRC will kick and scream, but they already know that climate change has a good deal of unpleasantness in store, so it's not as if they aren't trying to figure out how to get past coal-burning power plants.

[-1=e^ipi]

Since insurance companies are already taking climate change into account, why don't we ask their actuaries to do the math?

They can try, but determining optimal level of taxation is far more complicated then simply trying to determine the risk of an event occurring for an individual (and without expertise in modelling climate, how are they even determining this?).

Who would be better placed to sort out the actual costs of AGW than an actuary?

An economist like William Nordhaus, Richard Tol or Kenneth Arrow.

Edit: also, it's not just costs of AGW you need, since current costs of CO2 emissions will depend on future CO2 emission levels as the marginal cost of warming becomes higher as more warming occurs and additional atmospheric CO2 has a lifetime of ~100 years. So you need to project changes in population growth, economic development, technological change and many other things.

Edited September 30, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[TimG]

So, logically, if if the aluminum can be produced for $50, it should cost less than that to turn the aluminum oxide back into aluminum.

The cost is not the point (and estimates based on today's energy prices with today's aluminum demand are largely irrelevant). The issue is EROI. i.e. how much energy needs to be produced to fill these aluminum fuel tanks and where does this energy come from? If the process needs 10 times the energy stored to "fill" a tank then that process is likely not going to be economic at a large scale. This is true no matter what the price of fossil fuels but the need for efficient energy sources increases as energy prices increase. IOW, your desire to make electricity a lot more expensive will have the effect of making these batteries even less economic. Edited September 30, 2015 by TimG