Phillip Warburg was on our NPR station this morning. Since I listen to it at work, I usually email my questions in. Today, there were so many questions, that the host didn't get the opportunity to ask any of the emailed questions so he forwarded them on to the guest.
These are my questions and the author's responses:
QuoteWere you heartened or disheartened by the answers of Romney and Obama during the Presidential debate? Given your choice, what combination – percentage-wise - of energy options would you recommend to either of them were you their advisor?
What is the role of alternative energy for the urban individual? Would strong individual sales create more of a market for a national response?
Kindly,
Meri
Dear Ms. Merithyn,
Many thanks for listening to the show, and for your interest in the topic. As for last night's debate, I frankly thought Obama let Romney get away with some categorical assertions about "green energy," including his oft-repeated reference to the Solyndra loan guarantee debacle, without offering evidence of the crucial role that production tax credits and other forms of federal support have played in getting renewable energy off the ground. Here is a link to an op-ed I recently wrote, examining some of Romney's misguided energy priorities. http://blogs.providencejournal.com/ri-talks/this-new-england/2012/08/philip-warburg-mitt-romneys-energy-myopia.html (http://blogs.providencejournal.com/ri-talks/this-new-england/2012/08/philip-warburg-mitt-romneys-energy-myopia.html) And attached is an op-ed that ran in the Des Moines Register in early August, comparing the two candidates' energy platforms.
In response to your hypothetical question about my sense of a reasonable and attainable energy mix, I think the Department of Energy's stated goal of 20% wind by 2030 is actually quite modest, though we will need to find a way to attach an environmentally appropriate price carbon emissions if wind is to compete effectively with natural gas in the coming years. (Natural gas-generated power creates about 40 times as much CO2 as wind, taking all stages of building and operating those two types of facilities into account.) Looking beyond 2030, I think the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's projection that wind and solar combined could meet half our power needs by 2050 is realistic and should be a goal that we vigorously pursue. Looking at a broader array of renewable resources, NREL projects that we could be getting 80% of our power from renewables by 2050. That, too, is a target we should take seriously. Here is a link to the NREL study. http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/re_futures/ (http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/re_futures/)
I would further urge that no new nuclear or coal facilities be built, and that relicensing of older nuclear plants be authorized with extreme caution and be limited in time. Realistically, natural gas is going to be a major part of our power mix in the coming decades, but I believe that the degree to which we are able to turn to renewables as opposed to gas, or coal, or nuclear, depends on our political will, not technological limitations. Denmark has set as its goal 100% independence from fossil fuels for ALL uses by 2050; it already is 100% nuclear-free. If a small country with limited land resources can responsibly pursue that goal, certainly America, with its much vaster open spaces and available renewable resources, can pursue a more modest mid-century goal of 80% reliance on renewables for power generation.
As for urban energy options, household-scale photovoltaics and solar hot water heating are great options for those who have access to exposed roof surfaces, and a vast array of smart-metered, energy-efficient appliances and building retrofit options are available. State and federal tax incentives and favorable loan options will be essential if we are to introduce these measures on a scale that can make a real difference.
I hope this is helpful and responsive.
Best wishes,
Philip Warburg
I love the idea of renewable energy, but understand that there are serious concerns financially with moving forward. Mr. Warburg offers some suggestions on how best to move in that direction, but not really how to pay for it.
Should free market be allowed to drive this? Or should the government have a stronger hand in it?
I don't like the term because if we were to harness them heavily enough they wouldn't be renewable. :P Like, if we had forests of huge ass windmills, that would be sure to modify local weather patterns right?
Quote from: Tamas on October 04, 2012, 01:36:14 PM
I don't like the term because if we were to harness them heavily enough they wouldn't be renewable. :P Like, if we had forests of huge ass windmills, that would be sure to modify local weather patterns right?
It hasn't seemed to do so in our area, despite the numerous wind fields all around us.
We need more green jobs.
I priced solar for my home a few years back and it just wasn't worth the expense.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 04, 2012, 01:39:05 PM
I priced solar for my home a few years back and it just wasn't worth the expense.
Solyndra has proven that the cost of solar panels have dropped dramatically. Dunno about the rest of the package, but I wonder if it would be worth it now.
Most of this solar panel and "bio mass" (:bleeding:) BS has just been a great way to corrupt away a lot of government money. The ROI rate on them is shitty enough even with subsidies, AFAIK
The cost of the panels has collapsed in the past few years. If you install them yourself and have a good aspect they might be worth it :hmm:
Probably the best way to achieve the same end is to have no energy subsidies at all but impose a carbon tax. That requires zero government spending or guarantee exposure, no "picking winners," no risks the companies can grease the system with lobbyists, and it actually raises money for the government. It forces fossil fuels to bear something closer to their true full costs (internalizing externalities) and thus effectively makes the economics of all alternatives -- wind, solar, and nuclear among others -- more attractive. And it increases the marginal return to using energy more efficiently.
See: The Pigou Club
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigou_Club
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 04, 2012, 02:29:09 PM
Probably the best way to achieve the same end is to have no energy subsidies at all but impose a carbon tax. That requires zero government spending or guarantee exposure, no "picking winners," no risks the companies can grease the system with lobbyists, and it actually raises money for the government. It forces fossil fuels to bear something closer to their true full costs (internalizing externalities) and thus effectively makes the economics of all alternatives -- wind, solar, and nuclear among others -- more attractive. And it increases the marginal return to using energy more efficiently.
See: The Pigou Club
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigou_Club
How would this eliminate lobbyists? It seems to me that wherever there's a tax one will find a lobbyist, most especially with carbon useage.
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2012, 02:35:16 PM
How would this eliminate lobbyists? It seems to me that wherever there's a tax one will find a lobbyist, most especially with carbon useage.
it won't eliminate all lobbyists; it will reduce the return on using lobbyists to try to steer special subsidy money to Alternaive Company X as opposed to Alternative Company Y
Quote from: Tamas on October 04, 2012, 01:36:14 PM
I don't like the term because if we were to harness them heavily enough they wouldn't be renewable. :P Like, if we had forests of huge ass windmills, that would be sure to modify local weather patterns right?
Burning the peat from your home swamp is not "green energy" by the way.
I think Mr. Warburg is making a mistake not including natgas in the mix. The economics of it is just too good. Eliminating fossil fuels entirely by 2050...or ever really, is a pipe dream.
Quote from: Martinus on October 04, 2012, 02:41:34 PM
Quote from: Tamas on October 04, 2012, 01:36:14 PM
I don't like the term because if we were to harness them heavily enough they wouldn't be renewable. :P Like, if we had forests of huge ass windmills, that would be sure to modify local weather patterns right?
Burning the peat from your home swamp is not "green energy" by the way.
Beet ethanol is where it's at.
Carbon taxes are problematic for a couple of reasons:
1) Unless you live in a jurisdiction that has hydro power (like the paradise which is British Columbia) you will probably always need to rely on some form of carbon based generation. The problem is that the power needs to be generated when it is required. If you have a wind farm that generates power in off peak periods that is not going to help you very much. As a result a carbon tax will simply make energy more expensive without solving the problem.
2) Because of the lack of certainty of supply associated with many alternative energy sources they need to be subsidized in some manner in order to make them economically feasible. I have heard carbon tax advocates argue that the money generated by the tax should pay for such a subsidy which of course raises the concern JR wants to avoid by just putting the revenue into general revenue. But then who is going to invest in an uncertain power supply?
Nuclear is an answer to the problem of certainty of power generation. But the resistance to it has little to do with the cost and so a carbon tax wont help that side of the debate.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2012, 02:49:10 PM
Carbon taxes are problematic for a couple of reasons:
1) Unless you live in a jurisdiction that has hydro power (like the paradise which is British Columbia) you will probably always need to rely on some form of carbon based generation. The problem is that the power needs to be generated when it is required. If you have a wind farm that generates power in off peak periods that is not going to help you very much. As a result a carbon tax will simply make energy more expensive without solving the problem.
easy. You import electricity from places wich produces clean energy. BC would make millions. Quebec would see millions in the streets protesting about neo-liberalism and destruction of our rivers.
Quote
2) Because of the lack of certainty of supply associated with many alternative energy sources they need to be subsidized in some manner in order to make them economically feasible. I have heard carbon tax advocates argue that the money generated by the tax should pay for such a subsidy which of course raises the concern JR wants to avoid by just putting the revenue into general revenue. But then who is going to invest in an uncertain power supply?
the problem of many renewable energy sources is that they are misused. Wind mills (sorry, turbines ;) )are a good example. They are great as a complementary energy source, bas as main source of power. Green lobby pushes for wind turbines, so we build wind turbines as main source and sell electricity at loss.
But, if you build wind turbines as complementary to a river dam, you'll reduce the cost of your projects. Without subsidies.
Quote from: viper37 on October 04, 2012, 03:10:37 PM
But, if you build wind turbines as complementary to a river dam, you'll reduce the cost of your projects. Without subsidies.
I was thinking that a 30/30/30/10 wind/solar/nuclear/fossil fuels split would work well.
Agree with Joan.
QuoteRenewable energy - Thoughts?
I'm in favor. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2012, 03:26:31 PM
Agree with Joan.
How do you calculate an appropriate carbon tax?
Quote from: derspiess on October 04, 2012, 03:31:40 PM
How do you calculate an appropriate carbon tax?
You could either hire some egghead from MIT to model electricity supply and demand or you could ask Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to do it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2012, 03:43:49 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 04, 2012, 03:31:40 PM
How do you calculate an appropriate carbon tax?
You could either hire some egghead from MIT to model electricity supply and demand or you could ask Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to do it.
Okay.
Quote from: Tamas on October 04, 2012, 01:57:11 PM
Most of this solar panel and "bio mass" (:bleeding:) BS has just been a great way to corrupt away a lot of government money. The ROI rate on them is shitty enough even with subsidies, AFAIK
Solar is great for certain applications....but mostly for off-grid needs. Sure beats storing tons of Deisel fuel or whatever.
I like natural gas supplemented by wind and hydro to be the mainstay of our energy use in the short term along with energy efficiency. Fuel is a huge yoke the economy has to bear so continuing to try to get electricity to supplement fuel use is good as well.
So I guess for the Feds we are talking about incentives for hydro and wind farms when reasonably applicable and regulations and incentives for fuel efficient transportation. Also R&D money for alternative fuels and energy and so forth.
Solar should be left to local communities and States to supplement and develop as it stands now...except for applications where the Feds actually are using it themselves like for the military or whatever.
Drill for more natural gas and oil. Build the pipelines. Allow the exportation of American liquefied natural gas. Build nuclear power plants again.
Remove tariffs on Chinese wind and solar products.
Quote from: Phillip V on October 04, 2012, 03:47:59 PM
Remove tariffs on Chinese wind and solar products.
Do we even have a good industry for these? It seemed like the Germans, Japanese, and Chinese dominate in these products.
Quote from: Phillip V on October 04, 2012, 03:47:59 PM
Drill for more natural gas and oil. Build the pipelines. Allow the exportation of American liquefied natural gas. Build nuclear power plants again.
Remove tariffs on Chinese wind and solar products.
Now we're talking.
Quote from: derspiess on October 04, 2012, 03:49:09 PM
Now we're talking.
Yeah natural gas is the key. I think Nukes are dead though, at least for awhile.
Quote from: Valmy on October 04, 2012, 03:49:54 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 04, 2012, 03:49:09 PM
Now we're talking.
Yeah natural gas is the key. I think Nukes are dead though, at least for awhile.
Sexy ad campaign, positive speeches from leaders, and ban on nuclear shit-talking from schoolteachers.
Quote from: Phillip V on October 04, 2012, 03:47:59 PM
Drill for more natural gas and oil. Build the pipelines. Allow the exportation of American liquefied natural gas. Build nuclear power plants again.
Remove tariffs on Chinese wind and solar products.
None of that is actually renewable. :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on October 04, 2012, 03:48:46 PM
Do we even have a good industry for these? It seemed like the Germans, Japanese, and Chinese dominate in these products.
Seems to me wind turbines get built in the US by subsidiaries of foreign companies. One up the road from me is Spanish owned.
I imagine it's cost-prohibitive to ship wind turbines because the parts are so fucking gigantor.
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2012, 03:52:10 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on October 04, 2012, 03:47:59 PM
Drill for more natural gas and oil. Build the pipelines. Allow the exportation of American liquefied natural gas. Build nuclear power plants again.
Remove tariffs on Chinese wind and solar products.
None of that is actually renewable. :hmm:
Stepping stones. Cheap non-renewable energy will keep our economy running cheaply and richly in the medium-term until scientists figure out cheap, renewable energy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2012, 03:52:38 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 04, 2012, 03:48:46 PM
Do we even have a good industry for these? It seemed like the Germans, Japanese, and Chinese dominate in these products.
Seems to me wind turbines get built in the US by subsidiaries of foreign companies. One up the road from me is Spanish owned.
I imagine it's cost-prohibitive to ship wind turbines because the parts are so fucking gigantor.
I had seen them from a distance quite a while ago, but never realized how monstrous those are until seeing a semi hauling one gigantic propeller blade on I-275 a couple years ago.
Quote from: derspiess on October 04, 2012, 03:56:31 PM
I had seen them from a distance quite a while ago, but never realized how monstrous those are until seeing a semi hauling one gigantic propeller blade on I-275 a couple years ago.
Same here. On I-80.
Each blade is ~50 yards long.
I absolutely love driving through the wind farms around here. There's an indescribable beauty and grace to them. I've never understood the oposition's argument that they're ugly.
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2012, 04:09:44 PM
Each blade is ~50 yards long.
I absolutely love driving through the wind farms around here. There's an indescribable beauty and grace to them. I've never understood the oposition's argument that they're ugly.
Once the 'wow' factor wears off I do think they are a bit on the ugly side. I'd rather see plain old farmland.
I think the first few times you see them they are quite striking.
But after driving past a few thousand I can see how they'd lose their appeal.
The only wind turbines I've seen are the five turbines near the entrance to Atlantic City. I think they make the place look better. Then again, to one side of them, you have a swamp, and to the other side of them, you have Atlantic City, so the bar is set fairly low.
Quote from: viper37 on October 04, 2012, 03:10:37 PM
easy. You import electricity from places wich produces clean energy. BC would make millions. Quebec would see millions in the streets protesting about neo-liberalism and destruction of our rivers.
Not quite so easy. Take BC as an example - during high use periods we actually have to import energy if our hydro generators cant keep up with production. Granted we also export into the American grid but it is not the panacea you make it out to be. Again going back to the problem of having energy generation at the same time as peak usage.
QuoteBut, if you build wind turbines as complementary to a river dam, you'll reduce the cost of your projects. Without subsidies.
Which goes back to the premise of my point. If you do not live in a jurisdiction that has hydro then the thing that is being supplmented is carbon based generation so all a carbon tax does is make energy consumption more expensive without solving the problem.
Actually, you can make oil out of trash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization). Two birds with one stone.
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2012, 03:13:50 PM
Quote from: viper37 on October 04, 2012, 03:10:37 PM
But, if you build wind turbines as complementary to a river dam, you'll reduce the cost of your projects. Without subsidies.
I was thinking that a 30/30/30/10 wind/solar/nuclear/fossil fuels split would work well.
Get used to a lot of times when you dont have power - especially at night when there is no wind.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2012, 04:38:22 PM
Get used to a lot of times when you dont have power - especially at night when there is no wind.
I think you mean there is no sun.
Quote from: Valmy on October 04, 2012, 04:39:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2012, 04:38:22 PM
Get used to a lot of times when you dont have power - especially at night when there is no wind.
I think you mean there is no sun.
Yeah, that generally happens at night..... :P
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 04, 2012, 01:39:05 PM
I priced solar for my home a few years back and it just wasn't worth the expense.
Don't participate in the process in order to drive down costs or anything.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2012, 02:49:10 PM
Nuclear is an answer to the problem of certainty of power generation. But the resistance to it has little to do with the cost
Resistance to it has everything to do with cost.
See: Constellation Energy, Calvert Cliffs #3, and Exelon Corp, Zion Station, IL and Victoria, TX.
Quote from: derspiess on October 04, 2012, 04:21:39 PM
Once the 'wow' factor wears off I do think they are a bit on the ugly side. I'd rather see plain old farmland.
Quote from: Barrister on October 04, 2012, 04:23:08 PM
I think the first few times you see them they are quite striking.
But after driving past a few thousand I can see how they'd lose their appeal.
I've driven through them hundreds of times, and it hasn't yet, but sure, I could see that being a problem for some.
There are certain technical hurdles that preclude renewable-based grids except in extreme cases (sparsely populated mountainous regions like BC or Norway).
For one, you can't transport energy that far without incurring in great costs.
Wind, which is otherwise promising, tends to introduce artifacts in the grid. It works well while piggybacking on a robust system, but as wind gains share it gets more and more difficult to clean things up. Think of this phenomenon as bad singers in a chorus. A few might get drowned by the rest. But as there are more and more bad singers and less good ones, things get ugly. Denmark can rely on its neigbours, and last I heard HVDC links were being built to isolate offshore farms.
Solar is largely uneconomical except for remote applications.
A nice mix would be nuclear to cover baseload, 20-30% wind, and hydro (where irrigation doesn't have priority over generation) and gas for peak/backup.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2012, 02:49:10 PM
2) Because of the lack of certainty of supply associated with many alternative energy sources they need to be subsidized in some manner in order to make them economically feasible.
Yes, and no. The main problem is that we are, in fact, already subsidizing fossil fuel generation by not taking into account the effects of pollution on agribussiness, healthcare and such (in Spain also coal subsidies). The alternatives cannot compete with that. They shouldn't have to. If coal/gas had to pay their full cost (via tax since there's no other way) we'd find that other sources would be competitive all of a sudden.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2012, 03:52:38 PM
One up the road from me is Spanish owned.
Gamesa?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2012, 02:49:10 PM
1) Unless you live in a jurisdiction that has hydro power (like the paradise which is British Columbia) you will probably always need to rely on some form of carbon based generation. The problem is that the power needs to be generated when it is required. If you have a wind farm that generates power in off peak periods that is not going to help you very much. As a result a carbon tax will simply make energy more expensive without solving the problem.
Making energy more expensive (and reflect its real costs) is a good thing. For starters, it increases the return on efforts to use energy more efficiently and conserve use. And Canada does have alternatives to fossil fuels, including nuclear and wind. The peak power problem could be solved in part by improvements in energy storage technology, or you could simply have a situation where usage in peak periods is more expensive, which (again) seems to me good policy and good economics.
QuoteNuclear is an answer to the problem of certainty of power generation. But the resistance to it has little to do with the cost and so a carbon tax wont help that side of the debate.
It will clarify the costs of opposition, but you are probably right.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 04, 2012, 04:40:44 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 04, 2012, 01:39:05 PM
I priced solar for my home a few years back and it just wasn't worth the expense.
Don't participate in the process in order to drive down costs or anything.
I'm not made of money.
Quote from: derspiess on October 04, 2012, 03:31:40 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2012, 03:26:31 PM
Agree with Joan.
How do you calculate an appropriate carbon tax?
In theory, you measure the negative externalities and set a tax rate sufficient to internalize those costs on a per unit basis.
Even if you overshoot high, it isn't a huge problem because:
(a) the carbon taxes are substitutes for other forms of taxation that are econimically distorting in some way, and
(b) we are already imposing economic equivalents of partial carbon taxes in regulatory form, for example through the automobile fuel economy standards, and carbon taxes are far more efficient ways of achieving similar ends.
Wind energy is evil. The mass slaughter of entire group of living things is unacceptable.
Quote from: Neil on October 04, 2012, 05:34:47 PM
Wind energy is evil. The mass slaughter of entire group of living things is unacceptable.
I'm sure the termites in your house agree with you.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 04, 2012, 06:14:27 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 04, 2012, 05:34:47 PM
Wind energy is evil. The mass slaughter of entire group of living things is unacceptable.
I'm sure the termites in your house agree with you.
My house is made out of concrete, and I live too far north for your insectoid bullshit.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 04, 2012, 06:14:27 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 04, 2012, 05:34:47 PM
Wind energy is evil. The mass slaughter of entire group of living things is unacceptable.
I'm sure the termites in your house agree with you.
Except for Southern Ontario, we don't have that plague.
Quote from: Neil on October 04, 2012, 07:48:31 PM
My house is made out of concrete, and I live too far north for your insectoid bullshit.
Superior creatures kill off hostile ones instead of running from them. You're getting soft.
When the Americans tried to invade, we killed them. LOL.
I don't recall an American invasion of Alberta, unless you're talking about that one guy who brought his gun to the stampede.
Quote from: Neil on October 04, 2012, 05:34:47 PM
Wind energy is evil. The mass slaughter of entire group of living things is unacceptable.
Except that I don't think that's much of a problem anymore. I know it was a major concern with the early wind turbines, but they've since made adjustments. At least, the wind fields around here rarely kill any birds anymore despite the huge number that fly through still.
Quote from: merithyn on October 04, 2012, 10:13:03 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 04, 2012, 05:34:47 PM
Wind energy is evil. The mass slaughter of entire group of living things is unacceptable.
Except that I don't think that's much of a problem anymore. I know it was a major concern with the early wind turbines, but they've since made adjustments. At least, the wind fields around here rarely kill any birds anymore despite the huge number that fly through still.
Changing the blades and turbines don't really change migratory patterns. Bless your little heart. :hug:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 04, 2012, 10:14:53 PM
Changing the blades and turbines don't really change migratory patterns. Bless your little heart. :hug:
Migratory birds have never been at risk. They fly far too high. It's the local birds that are at the greatest risk, but for the last four to five years the local ornithologists at UIUC haven't found many deaths around the wind fields. One of them (on NPR, of course) said that there are still the occasional corpses, but no more than are found on the highway or near electrical grids.
Because the bird population has been crushed.
They kill bats. Bats are good.
Oh for fuck's sake. Read a bit of the recent stuff there, grandpas, before you go spouting off. Your facts are outdated.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/wind-turbine-kill-birds.htm (http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/wind-turbine-kill-birds.htm)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/27/wind-energy-myths-turbines-bats
Yeah, bats can still be a problem, which is why wind fields are not allowed to be placed near any bat habitats in the UK and the US.
The blades can kill people, too.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-T6JFZFjmrVA%2FTi5_azQwReI%2FAAAAAAAAD1I%2FfY1uRglmXBM%2Fs400%2Fraiders%2Bplane%2Bfight.jpg&hash=60809172ecd1e8884eb639be4f78f5de280020d6)
Do they still explode bird lungs though?
The whole bird bullshit is why environmentalists suck ass as political allies. There are the renewable energy guys trying to save the planet with their global warming curing stuff and they are being ignorantly picketed by their own crazy side.
I hate when people care about animals. Fetch me my mink and some foie gras.
Also kindle tried make that four bras. :D
Quote from: Valmy on October 04, 2012, 10:39:22 PM
The whole bird bullshit is why environmentalists suck ass as political allies. There are the renewable energy guys trying to save the planet with their global warming curing stuff and they are being ignorantly picketed by their own crazy side.
Please don't lump all environmentalists into the same pot. We're not all like Seedy.
My problem is with Urban Greens. Not everyone can stop using a car on a regular basis. Stop trying to make our governments design our roads as anti-cars.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 05, 2012, 08:17:28 AM
My problem is with Urban Greens. Not everyone can stop using a car on a regular basis. Stop trying to make our governments design our roads as anti-cars.
I wish that everyone COULD stop using a car on a regular basis, though. It would be nice to see public transportation be that effective. That, to me, is really where our time and money should be.
Quote from: merithyn on October 05, 2012, 08:19:50 AM
I wish that everyone COULD stop using a car on a regular basis, though. It would be nice to see public transportation be that effective. That, to me, is really where our time and money should be.
A bus will use roads too. This is the problem with urban greens, they seem to think that somehow, just by making it harder to get in the city with a car, buses and trains will fly over everything. Even better, they want to install a tramway in Quebec city now, when we know full well they stop all trains as soon as there is 4-6 inches of snow.
Roads should be designed to increase the fluidity of traffic, not make it worst like Montreal (Le Plateau :yucky: :yuk: )
Needs more fracking, because getting fire instead of water from your taps is cool!
Quote from: viper37 on October 05, 2012, 08:50:23 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 05, 2012, 08:19:50 AM
I wish that everyone COULD stop using a car on a regular basis, though. It would be nice to see public transportation be that effective. That, to me, is really where our time and money should be.
A bus will use roads too. This is the problem with urban greens, they seem to think that somehow, just by making it harder to get in the city with a car, buses and trains will fly over everything. Even better, they want to install a tramway in Quebec city now, when we know full well they stop all trains as soon as there is 4-6 inches of snow.
Roads should be designed to increase the fluidity of traffic, not make it worst like Montreal (Le Plateau :yucky: :yuk: )
Cincinnati is getting streetcars. Apparently that will trigger a surge in tourism :mellow:
Quote from: derspiess on October 05, 2012, 10:50:20 AM
Cincinnati is getting streetcars. Apparently that will trigger a surge in tourism :mellow:
Cities seem to have short memories. Just a few decades ago everybody was removing their street cars. They may want to try to remember why.
Quote from: Valmy on October 05, 2012, 11:05:30 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 05, 2012, 10:50:20 AM
Cincinnati is getting streetcars. Apparently that will trigger a surge in tourism :mellow:
Cities seem to have short memories. Just a few decades ago everybody was removing their street cars. They may want to try to remember why.
Cincy did away with them in 1951. I think it would have been cool if they had kept them, but I don't see how it's worth the expense to bring them back now. The mayor & other city leaders are trying to replicate the apparent success Portland had with them.
It will be a nice little novelty and I'll probably ride them for the hell of it, but I just don't see it living up to the hype. Funny sidenote is that the NAACP and a local right-leaning libertarian group joined together in opposition to the project.
In Jersey City, we have Hudson Bergen Light Rail. By all accounts it's been a great success at spurring economic growth. However, there was some grumbling inside my yuppie enclave that the light rail made it too easy for the Jersey City part of Jersey City to get to the fancy parts. :ph34r:
Quote from: DGuller on October 05, 2012, 11:20:45 AM
In Jersey City, we have Hudson Bergen Light Rail. By all accounts it's been a great success at spurring economic growth. However, there was some grumbling inside my yuppie enclave that the light rail made it too easy for the Jersey City part of Jersey City to get to the fancy parts. :ph34r:
About 8 years ago there was a billion dollar light rail proposal in Cincinnati that got voted down. It would have sunk us more than the subway we tried to build in the 1920s. I voted for it because it would have gone right by the apartment I lived in at the time :Embarrass:
Quote from: Valmy on October 05, 2012, 11:05:30 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 05, 2012, 10:50:20 AM
Cincinnati is getting streetcars. Apparently that will trigger a surge in tourism :mellow:
Cities seem to have short memories. Just a few decades ago everybody was removing their street cars. They may want to try to remember why.
Antitrust conspiracy?
Quote from: derspiess on October 05, 2012, 11:30:46 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 05, 2012, 11:20:45 AM
In Jersey City, we have Hudson Bergen Light Rail. By all accounts it's been a great success at spurring economic growth. However, there was some grumbling inside my yuppie enclave that the light rail made it too easy for the Jersey City part of Jersey City to get to the fancy parts. :ph34r:
About 8 years ago there was a billion dollar light rail proposal in Cincinnati that got voted down. It would have sunk us more than the subway we tried to build in the 1920s. I voted for it because it would have gone right by the apartment I lived in at the time :Embarrass:
Light rails by themselves aren't a cure-all. You need a city planned for pedestrians to take advantage of them.
Quote from: derspiess on October 05, 2012, 11:15:36 AM
Funny sidenote is that the NAACP and a local right-leaning libertarian group joined together in opposition to the project.
How did the left-leaning libertarian group stand on the issue?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 05, 2012, 12:16:29 PM
How did the left-leaning libertarian group stand on the issue?
Crunch is for it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 05, 2012, 12:16:29 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 05, 2012, 11:15:36 AM
Funny sidenote is that the NAACP and a local right-leaning libertarian group joined together in opposition to the project.
How did the left-leaning libertarian group stand on the issue?
The ACLU?
Wind is retarded and fugly. Hydro is reasonable, but still makes large areas completely uninhabitable and brings the risk of major disasters (that unlike say nuclear disasters kill tens of thousands of people). Fossil is dangerous and stupid, bio just plain stupid. Nuclear uses plentiful fuel that we don't need for much else, and is safer than the alternatives (deaths/kWh) while taking care of its own waste.
Quote from: The Brain on October 05, 2012, 12:52:27 PM
Wind is retarded and fugly. Hydro is reasonable, but still makes large areas completely uninhabitable and brings the risk of major disasters (that unlike say nuclear disasters kill tens of thousands of people). Fossil is dangerous and stupid, bio just plain stupid. Nuclear uses plentiful fuel that we don't need for much else, and is safer than the alternatives (deaths/kWh) while taking care of its own waste.
Took you long enough to come in on the side of nuclear energy. :P
It's nucular, Brain. Nucular.
Quote from: merithyn on October 05, 2012, 12:55:08 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 05, 2012, 12:52:27 PM
Wind is retarded and fugly. Hydro is reasonable, but still makes large areas completely uninhabitable and brings the risk of major disasters (that unlike say nuclear disasters kill tens of thousands of people). Fossil is dangerous and stupid, bio just plain stupid. Nuclear uses plentiful fuel that we don't need for much else, and is safer than the alternatives (deaths/kWh) while taking care of its own waste.
Took you long enough to come in on the side of nuclear energy. :P
I was busy working in the nuclear sector.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 05, 2012, 12:16:29 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 05, 2012, 11:15:36 AM
Funny sidenote is that the NAACP and a local right-leaning libertarian group joined together in opposition to the project.
How did the left-leaning libertarian group stand on the issue?
Dunno.
edit: IIRC, far lefties were opposed. The bulk of the support was from the moderate left and business sectors. And probably a few old people who still remembered the old streetcars.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 05, 2012, 12:51:16 PM
The ACLU?
As far as lefties go they are alright. But libertarians they are not.
Quote from: derspiess on October 05, 2012, 01:08:40 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 05, 2012, 12:16:29 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 05, 2012, 11:15:36 AM
Funny sidenote is that the NAACP and a local right-leaning libertarian group joined together in opposition to the project.
How did the left-leaning libertarian group stand on the issue?
Dunno.
edit: IIRC, far lefties were opposed. The bulk of the support was from the moderate left and business sectors. And probably a few old people who still remembered the old streetcars.
Having streetcars would make making left turns a real bitch in traffic.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444032404578008183300454400.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsi.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FBI-AA629G_SUBSI_G_20121005103907.jpg&hash=3bfe06a6933582663aaa425bcf7c66e076daeaea)
Quote from: Brazen on October 05, 2012, 10:45:27 AM
Needs more fracking, because getting fire instead of water from your taps is cool!
Didn't the US managed decent emission-reduction according to the latest stats?
Why don't we just build big fields of solar panels out in desert?
Theres quite a lot of turbines around my place back home and I agree they look rather good.
And they are of course a good thing.
Meanwhile in my city here I notice that both the new government offices and new library being built have solar panals as standard. Seems increasingly the done thing in Japan. Which seems quite sensible.
Quote
Cities seem to have short memories. Just a few decades ago everybody was removing their street cars. They may want to try to remember why.
Dodgy dealings by the automotive industry. And idiocy.
Quote from: Tamas on October 08, 2012, 01:54:12 AM
Quote from: Brazen on October 05, 2012, 10:45:27 AM
Needs more fracking, because getting fire instead of water from your taps is cool!
Didn't the US managed decent emission-reduction according to the latest stats?
IIRC, carbon emissions are at their lowest level since the 1990s due to recently switching from coal/oil to cheap, abundant natural gas (even adjusting for economy, population, etc).
Quote from: Phillip V on October 08, 2012, 02:08:44 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 08, 2012, 01:54:12 AM
Quote from: Brazen on October 05, 2012, 10:45:27 AM
Needs more fracking, because getting fire instead of water from your taps is cool!
Didn't the US managed decent emission-reduction according to the latest stats?
IIRC, carbon emissions are at their lowest level since the 1990s due to recently switching from coal/oil to cheap, abundant natural gas (even adjusting for economy, population, etc).
yeah but the greens hate on shale gas as well don't they? And nuclear. And some on wind. And once they would do some reading and realize that producing solar panels is an industrial process, they would hate on solar too.
I think a lot of the vocal greens would only be happy with medieval levels.
Until their iPhones run out of power.
Quote from: Tamas on October 08, 2012, 06:23:50 AM
yeah but the greens hate on shale gas as well don't they? And nuclear. And some on wind. And once they would do some reading and realize that producing solar panels is an industrial process, they would hate on solar too.
I think a lot of the vocal greens would only be happy with medieval levels.
Until their iPhones run out of power.
Nuclear is iffy.
Mainstream greens got over disliking that years ago and were pretty for it. Then Fukushima came which bred a tonne of ignorance and really set many folks, many non-greens too, against it.
Quote from: Brazen on October 05, 2012, 10:45:27 AM
Needs more fracking, because getting fire instead of water from your taps is cool!
This is the most annoying of the untrue tropes that are circling around fracking.
Brian Dunning from the podcase skeptoid has an excellent discussion of the issue
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4275
QuoteHowever, the burning water is an undisputed fact. So where is this methane coming from, if not from fracking? As it happens, it's natural, worldwide, for anyone who has a well in a natural gas area. Natural gas is not found only in the deep shale beds, it's in shallower layers as well; so we always expect some gas to make it into well water in particular regions. But the mining of natural gas also has a few consequences that can force methane into aquifers. First, the underground changes in pressure can prompt methane to migrate from areas of high pressure to areas of low pressure. Second, poorly sealed natural gas wells can (and do) leak methane into adjacent strata. These poorly sealed wells are human errors that it's the responsibility of the driller to repair. Third, old abandoned wells do the same thing, but often without anyone repairing them. None of these problems are related to fracking, per se.
burning water is natural and sometimes badly operated and maintained and poorly plugged abandoned wells can contribute, but this has nothing to do with fracking.
Quote from: Tamas on October 08, 2012, 06:23:50 AM
yeah but the greens hate on shale gas as well don't they? And nuclear. And some on wind. And once they would do some reading and realize that producing solar panels is an industrial process, they would hate on solar too.
I think a lot of the vocal greens would only be happy with medieval levels.
Until their iPhones run out of power.
I don't consider myself very green but I do think that the issue is not how do we produce more energy but rather how can we be more energy efficient. I think renewable energy could be enough but it would have to be a whole spectrum of solutions. Windmills won't be a solution for all. As a species we've always harnessed whatever benefits our particular habitat had to offer.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 08, 2012, 02:02:21 AM
Why don't we just build big fields of solar panels out in desert?
Because it is expensive. Heck we would have to work just to keep dust and crap off it.
QuoteNuclear is iffy.
Mainstream greens got over disliking that years ago and were pretty for it. Then Fukushima came which bred a tonne of ignorance and really set many folks, many non-greens too, against it.
Yep. All the pro-Nuke momentum we had been building for years was lost with Fukushima. Now Nukes are dead again. Pity as they really are a great energy source.
Quote from: Valmy on October 08, 2012, 09:08:37 AM
Yep. All the pro-Nuke momentum we had been building for years was lost with Fukushima. Now Nukes are dead again. Pity as they really are a great energy source.
Companies don't want to pay for them anymore. Granted, they pay for themselves when they're finally done, but none of the big energy companies except Southern want to have anything to do with them.
Constellation scrapped their deal with EDF for a third reactor to feed into the DC metro area because the investors didn't want to pony up the $150 million marker for the billions in Federal loan guarantees; Exelon scrapped their plan for one in Texas because of natural gas prices, and they decided that decommissioning Zion Station at 3 times the cost of refitting its turbines would be more profitable in the long run, since removing its available megawatts from the grid would drive up the conventional prices.
The mid-range projections for natural gas are too profitable right now; so why bother with a 50 year energy solution when you can make so much more money in the next 5?
I liked the solution in Transmetropolitan: cover the planet Mercury in solar panels and beam the energy back to Earth. Though it never explained how that energy was transmitted . . . :hmm:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 08, 2012, 09:17:03 AM
The mid-range projections for natural gas are too profitable right now; so why bother with a 50 year energy solution when you can make so much more money in the next 5?
That's my biggest beef with corporate thinking in general in the modern era. It used to be that long-term thinking (like 50-75 years out) was the norm. Now "long-term" for corporations is 5 years max. I honestly believe that that's a huge part of why we're such a throw-away economy anymore, and why we use so much more in natural resources than we need.
Quote from: Syt on October 08, 2012, 09:22:06 AM
I liked the solution in Transmetropolitan: cover the planet Mercury in solar panels and beam the energy back to Earth. Though it never explained how that energy was transmitted . . . :hmm:
Really long extension cord.
Quote from: merithyn on October 08, 2012, 09:22:57 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 08, 2012, 09:17:03 AM
The mid-range projections for natural gas are too profitable right now; so why bother with a 50 year energy solution when you can make so much more money in the next 5?
That's my biggest beef with corporate thinking in general in the modern era. It used to be that long-term thinking (like 50-75 years out) was the norm. Now "long-term" for corporations is 5 years max. I honestly believe that that's a huge part of why we're such a throw-away economy anymore, and why we use so much more in natural resources than we need.
Hey, it's the American Way. Shareholder Value = Freedomism and Libertyness. God Bless America.
Yeah that was what I was thinking...a really long cable :lol:
Of course it would have to pass through the sun a few times a year.
Quote from: Valmy on October 08, 2012, 09:26:59 AM
Yeah that was what I was thinking...a really long cable :lol:
Of course it would have to pass through the sun a few times a year.
You could build a giant space-hand to raise it up those times, like when the vacuum goes under the line.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 08, 2012, 09:17:03 AM
The mid-range projections for natural gas are too profitable right now; so why bother with a 50 year energy solution when you can make so much more money in the next 5?
Natural gas is a 50 year energy solution. :huh:
Quote from: PDH on October 08, 2012, 09:34:21 AM
You could build a giant space-hand to raise it up those times, like when the vacuum goes under the line.
I was trying to think a way of using Mars as a couch leg to keep it out of the way, but I don't think that would work. :lol:
Big giant hamster wheels, have the unemployed fatties lose weight on them or lose their welfare; and keep our prison populations healthy. That combined with wind, solar, hydro, gas, nuke, coal, etc.
Quote from: Phillip V on October 08, 2012, 09:40:50 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 08, 2012, 09:17:03 AM
The mid-range projections for natural gas are too profitable right now; so why bother with a 50 year energy solution when you can make so much more money in the next 5?
Natural gas is a 50 year energy solution. :huh:
If wind/solar become cheaper than gas it is. Or if we all get Mr. Fusions next to the water heater in the garage.
Quote from: Phillip V on October 08, 2012, 09:40:50 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 08, 2012, 09:17:03 AM
The mid-range projections for natural gas are too profitable right now; so why bother with a 50 year energy solution when you can make so much more money in the next 5?
Natural gas is a 50 year energy solution. :huh:
Natural gas is a nonrenewable fuel source. Nuclear power is not.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 08, 2012, 11:19:29 AM
Natural gas is a nonrenewable fuel source. Nuclear power is not.
Is that really true? Do we really have an unlimited (or practically unlimited) source of nuclear fuel?
Quote from: DGuller on October 08, 2012, 11:31:13 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 08, 2012, 11:19:29 AM
Natural gas is a nonrenewable fuel source. Nuclear power is not.
Is that really true? Do we really have an unlimited (or practically unlimited) source of nuclear fuel?
It is certainly much more renewable, and on a substantially much longer timeline, than fossil fuels that are subject to immediate depletion.
The elephant in the room for solar and wind is cheap, effective and efficient mass energy storage. Right now there isn't a good way to smooth out the surges in production from wind and solar, or at least coordinate them with demand surges. One of the reasons hydro is so much better for the electrical grid is that dams are a cheap and easy (once the dam is built) way to store energy for specific times.
Batteries are way too expensive at this scale, and most other mechanical or chemical mass storage methods suffer in efficiency.
Quote from: frunk on October 08, 2012, 12:01:48 PM
The elephant in the room for solar and wind is cheap, effective and efficient mass energy storage.
It is not really an elephant in the room. I think anybody who knows anything about energy knows about this problem. Though usually in connection to things like electric cars than solar and wind. With regards to solar and wind people talk about 'Smart Grids' instead.
Quote from: Valmy on October 08, 2012, 12:07:35 PM
It is not really an elephant in the room. I think anybody who knows anything about energy knows about this problem. Though usually in connection to things like electric cars than solar and wind. With regards to solar and wind people talk about 'Smart Grids' instead.
It is when people blindly say we need more renewable energy without considering the additional infrastructure costs that are going to have to be expended.
Quote from: merithyn on October 08, 2012, 09:22:57 AM
That's my biggest beef with corporate thinking in general in the modern era. It used to be that long-term thinking (like 50-75 years out) was the norm. Now "long-term" for corporations is 5 years max. I honestly believe that that's a huge part of why we're such a throw-away economy anymore, and why we use so much more in natural resources than we need.
:huh: Can you give me one or two examples of corporations thinking 50-75 years out?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2012, 01:10:41 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 08, 2012, 09:22:57 AM
That's my biggest beef with corporate thinking in general in the modern era. It used to be that long-term thinking (like 50-75 years out) was the norm. Now "long-term" for corporations is 5 years max. I honestly believe that that's a huge part of why we're such a throw-away economy anymore, and why we use so much more in natural resources than we need.
:huh: Can you give me one or two examples of corporations thinking 50-75 years out?
Last year conoco-phillips announced a 5 billion dollar program to extend the life of the Ekofisk field
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foilrig-photos.com.s3.amazonaws.com%2F254.jpg&hash=d46cabb7717c2da4db8ca05d55fa45053c601790)
til 2050. While this was 39 years when it was announced, but they have been projecting the plans for 10 years now.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsi.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FP1-BI748_Natgas_G_20121023184208.jpg&hash=cf61d716d34fec7c591162858c7450591337b778)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444549204578020602281237088.html
A rising tide? Are we gonna drown in it?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 24, 2012, 02:28:19 AM
A rising tide? Are we gonna drown in it?
That's another possible energy source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power