Big Coal Fires Back Over James Hansen’s Criminal Complaint

[kgrandia]

Big Coal is firing back at James Hansen, NASA’s top climate expert, who on Monday told a House committee on energy and climate that he thought top executives of coal and oil companies should be tried for “crimes against humanity and nature.”

Below is a note sent to me by Vic Svec, who you heard from here earlier in the year in relation to efforts by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, a rising star in the Democratic Party, to deny permits for two proposed coal-burning power plants because of their potential contribution to global warming. Mr. Svec is a senior vice president for Peabody, which is the largest private coal producer in the world (to get an idea of their volume, and mission, visit peabodyenergy.com and watch the amazing coal-sales “ticker” at the bottom reel off tons of coal sold per second.

More: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/big-coal-fires-back-over-james-hansens-criminal-complaint/?ex=1215057600&en=cfd587b8d0495a00&ei=5070&emc=eta1

[defendandprotect]

1. Burning Fossil Fuels is OVER . . . it's already suicidal ---

but we can probably make things even worse ---

[kgrandia]

2. And Peabody

Is going to try their darndest

[tom_paine]

5. Oh, we can make things worse.

After all, "Monkey need 500-channel cable," so to speak.

[kristopher]

3. People are wondering about Obama's intent

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I was struck at how he did in the states producing the most coal. The more the state relies on coal (it seems from a glance) the worse he did.

Link to table of coal production by state:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/table1.html

[razors edge]

4. Maybe if the money

to produce the new tech needed was spent in, and able to offset the loss of income to the people living in those states, they would fear the transition less.

[defendandprotect]

7. How about making Electric Cars . . .!!!

[razors edge]

8. I like that idea.

But the people I was referring to are the coal dependent underclass of the Appalachian areas who supply around half the electric power we now use.

Many of these people no longer actually work in the mines, but the retirement checks and the memories of their relatives working them proudly, leave them in great support of this energy source regardless of the pollution aspects.

If its solar and wind, then start producing the panels and mills there, that is the only way to gain their support and show them they are not being chucked away for something new after all they have done for the country.

[Howzit]

9. If burning fossil fuel is suicidal, how will electric cars help?

Electric cars use electric power, they do not generate it. Running more electric cars means more electricity is required off the grid. Most of the grid is powered by burning coal. If CO2 reduction is your goal, electric cars are worse than cars burning gasoline.

If you had asked; "how about nuclear power stations to charge electric cars?", that may be a different kettle of fish. Building enough nuclear power stations will take decades. That will happen just before hell freezes over.

How about we stop driving to the gym?

[kristopher]

10. I applaud your suggestion that we walk more...

But your understanding of the impact electric vehicles (EV) represent is pretty badly skewed. Do you mind if I ask how you formed the conclusions you expressed?

Here is a decent introduction to the topic by Tesla Motors. After starting with batteries, scroll down and work off the menu on the left side under 'categories' where the associated material is very comprehensive. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

http://www.teslamotors.com/blog2/?p=39

However, if you could, first I'd be interested in hearing how you arrived at the conclusions you wrote.

Another website for interesting information over time is: http://www.greencarcongress.com/

Happy reading...

[Howzit]

14. The Tesla is interesting and if they find many buyers, more power to them

The power used to charge the Tesla's batteries has to come from somewhere. If I buy a Tesla tomorrow, over 50% of that power is going to be from burning coal. The same applies to any other electric car. That is, until you find other sources for that power; and it is going to take a long time before green power is available on a large enough scale to make much difference. That is, unless the power is nuclear.

What I haven't stated clearly was that while coal is almost pure carbon, gasoline is mostly hydrogen. Burning coal produces mainly CO2, while burning gasoline emits 40% CO2 and 60% water. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane the average gasoline molecule CH3(CH2)6CH3 has 8 carbon atoms and 23 hydrogen atoms. Each molecule of water has two hydrogen atoms, so burning two molecules of octane produces 23 water molecules and 16 molecules of carbon dioxide.

Yes, there are different efficiencies for gasoline engines and they all suck when you stand and idle at a red light. Hybrids help, but so does driving style to minimize using the brakes - charging away from one light, only to slam on the brakes for the next red is the worst.

My point is, if you are counting CO2 emissions, electric cars don't pollute, but the power stations needed to run them do.


See also my reply to post #11.

[wtmusic]

17. Electric cars are cleaner even when powered by coal

Sulfur emissions and particulates, when the electricity is generated in older plants, are higher.

NOX, CO2, hydrocarbons are lower across the board.

http://www.evadc.org/pwrplnt.pdf

The exhaust coming out of your car is not just CO2 and water, but also sulfuric oxides, nitric oxides, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and trace amounts of organic acids and ammonia.

[kristopher]

18. I see you prefer to ignorance to having your beliefs challenged

http://www.teslamotors.com/efficiency/well_to_wheel.php

Your Fox News analysis obtained from the Heritage Foundation omits important information:




Well-to-Wheel

How can you know, with certainty, how efficient one car is versus another? We conducted a “well-to-wheel” accounting for all fuel efficiency and emissions of several types of high-efficiency cars, including an estimate for the Tesla Roadster, based upon performance prototypes.

Here‘s what we found: the Tesla Roadster offers double the efficiency of popular hybrid cars, while generating one-third of the carbon dioxide. Compare the Tesla Roadster against other sports cars and the results get better still: it is six times as efficient and produces one-tenth the pollution, all while achieving the same performance and acceleration.

[Howzit]

22. I am responsible for my own ignorance

My simple analysis was "back of the envelope" and did not take into account that good IC engines achieve 30% efficiency, while good electric motors achieve over 80%. I don't understand why the "well to station" efficiency for natural gas varies from 52.5 to 86% for the three vehicles listed using it on Tesla's table http://www.teslamotors.com/efficiency/well_to_wheel.php. The largest factor is Tesla's claimed vehicle efficiency. Can you supply independent confirmation for the Tesla's efficiency?

My point was that the electricity has to come from somewhere and that the infrastructure for it doesn't exist yet - not for all vehicles to be electric overnight. California barely has enough electrical power for existing uses, add cars and the grid will collapse. Sure one could survive without a grid, but not tomorrow. In post #11 I am beaten with a list of car motivation types, including compressed air. Again, that energy to compress the air has to come from somewhere.

Some people are full of idealism - they think you can force invention by making laws. At least you show substance. The only laws governing invention are the laws of nature. That said, calling people agents of the opposition is not the best way to influence them or the silent majority reading the exchange.

PS Tesla list the fuel source used to generate electricity as natural gas in the above table. The average user is going to charge their Tesla with electricity that is 50% coal powered. My previous statement questions the CO2 advantage of electric cars charged off the grid, compared to a hybrid or gasoline car driven responsibly. You can make true statements about how clean electric cars are when driven off renewable energy; I am asking where this renewable energy will come from at a scale and in a form that the unwashed masses can afford?

[wtmusic]

23. Los Angeles' current capacity can accept 2 million electric cars

Electric cars are charged primarily overnight (off peak) so there is plenty of capacity available.

See #17 re: environmental advantages and how they relate to power mix.

[kristopher]

24. There is enough excess capacity in the grid

as it now exists to meet the needs of transportation. The plug in electric acts as a storage medium allowing both much more efficient use of the existing grid infrastructure and the replacement of that existing infrastructure by more intermittent sources like wind and solar.
The real point is that there is no need of greater innovation. Existing technologies in wind, solar and energy storage have the capability to cost effectively replace the existing fossil fuel infrastructure in both the personal transportation and electrical generation sectors. The only obstacle to price reduction is a failure on the part of policy makers to commit to a new infrastructure; a move that would ensure demand that leads to investment that leads to mass production and economy of scale price reductions.

For someone that is responsible for their own ignorance, you sure like to parrot the Republican talking points. If you were actually interested in the facts, you'd have pursued the information from the Tesla site on your own instead of coming here demanding "independent" verification. I mean, come on, the site obviously undermines the talking points you were initially pushing, yet instead of questioning the totally false picture you are painting your reaction is to try and defend that picture while giving me advice on how to win friends and influence people. Screw that ploy; do your own homework. It is pretty clear you are here to push a point of view favored by the political opposition. All I need to do is provide those really interested with the truth to your BS and the rest will take care of itself.

[Howzit]

26. Is the Tesla the right vehicle to promote electric cars?

Perhaps not if its claimed efficiency will cost me $109,000: http://www.teslamotors.com/buy/resyourcar.php.

Democrats who are concerned with poverty and the cost of "going green" might see the Tesla as a toy for the elite that has no relevance to the lives of average people: See post #80 at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2836690#2838760 and its parent thread.

I asked for confirmation of the Tesla's claimed efficiency for two reasons: Their figures for the the "well to station" efficiency of natural gas varies significantly from one application to the next for no apparent reason, and this makes me suspicious of all other claims. Secondly, there is the matter of ENRON accounting; that you simply don't accept an entity's financial claims about themselves without independent verification, especially if they stand to profit from it.

I have searched for numbers rather than adjectives and found an interesting paper on the real sustainability of alternative energy:
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/book/tex/cft.pdf

I don't know if this author has been blessed by the correct sect, or if by posting this link, I have just killed any credibility he had, because I have none? Be that as it may. I still want to know how everyone can benefit from any given scheme without just another group of greedy industrialist getting fat off a different group of saps. In other words, the numbers have to add up.

Your strategy for those that don't think like you do is "label and dismiss". It seems you can't tolerate anyone questioning any aspect of your favorite solution. If the scope of the problem and the best measures for correction were agreed on by everyone, why would you even need to discuss it on boards such as this one?

Your presumption that I wish stand in the way of progress is false, so here is an idea:

The hydrogen car is finding traction because it can be refueled in 5 minutes, just like the gasoline car. This while charging an electric car's batteries takes several hours: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x157904 How about making car batteries in packs that can be dropped and swapped in 2 minutes at "gas stations"? These stations would have all day and all night to re-charge them, and would have a stock of fully charged batteries ready to go. This way the "short range" argument against electric cars also goes away. In other words, you buy an electric car but don't own the battery. You just pay for the fresh charge on the battery. You would still be able to charge at home, but without the other limitations.

If you want to promote electric cars, find verifiable numbers for cars that the average person can afford.

[kristopher]

28. Tesla is 'proof of concept'

Tesla is 'proof of concept' for the capabilities of a current generation electric car technologies. As you note, the problem is price. There is no more reason for an electric car to cost $110K than there is for a 51in flat panel HD LCD TV to cost $13,000 as they did as little as 10 years ago. What brought the price down? No big secret, mass production. We need mass production infrastructure established for both batteries and solar panels. Capitalists are right about that, mass production and the market system do work when they are properly harnessed by a government willing to set bold goals.

Your suggestion regarding the battery pack is good and it is one consideration. I'd prefer to let things like that sort themselves out as the government concentrates on guarantees causing investment in manufacturing that would flood the market with product over a 15 year timeline. I think production should be of two standardized and linked systems (home and trans) with a guaranteed run of, like I said, 15 years, with competition restricted in that time. It would a period of basic infrastructure development with built up technology uncorked after 15 years of tight government direction. Better batteries, bring them on. Better solar panels, bring them on; that is where the normal market process takes over and polishes the system that a "free market" controlled by fossil fuels could never have built.

I sorry, ididn't read your inference link, I'm on dialup and it is 14mb. If you'd like to summarize, I'd be happy to discuss it with you.

As far as you asking for confirmation of tesla's numbers my point was somewhat different - I suggested that the Tesla site contained information that was so contradictory to your original assertions that were it me, I would have gone off to reconcile the beliefs I had with the information that I had been presented. You didn't do what I would have done. We are obviously different, but there are many sources of independent verification (although they can sometimes require a fair time spent looking). I can't and don't try to address your motives; I'm just saying that the perspective you are arguing was the perspective of the right, and I also point out here that it extends into beliefs about how to control nuclear proliferation that are terrifying. I think the grover norquist/karl rove conservatives have been spectacularly effective at controlling the message, so it doesn't surprise me if a progressive, liberal Democratic voter has incorporated a slew of inaccurate information on this particular topic - I mean, that has been their specific goal, right? It isn't "label and dismiss" as you put it, it is recognition of the fact that this message control is out there; having an understanding the components of that message; and having previously explored the validity of the arguments included in the message. Did you read the UCS paper on ExxonMobile?

You'll think what you want to think with the information you get over time. My hope is that you'll go forward with a slightly altered perspective that causes you to ask the questions that will verify or disprove the mental model of energy you currently possess. Where you come out after honestly performing that process is going to depend largely on your values. A person with a highly anthropocentric view will tend to see the solutions offered in one way, while a person who has a view assigning intrinsic value to nature outside of its utility to man is probably going to come down a little differently when deciding what is best.

[Howzit]

30. The paper on sustainable energy can be read in small chunks from

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/book/tex/ps/Welcome.html

I just googled the UCS paper on ExxonMobil. I don't trust anyone; and I don't mean just the oil companies. The longer the story is, the less I believe it. Frankly, the best information on global temperature is raw weather station data. Anyone can interpret trends without the help of biased scientists and politicians or their computer models.

[kristopher]

31. Now you are going into another area you clearly know little about

"...Frankly, the best information on global temperature is raw weather station data.Frankly, the best information on global temperature is raw weather station data...."
Fascinating that you feel yourself qualified to make that determination. What do you base such a assertion on? Please, I really, really want to know HOW you arrived at that conclusion.

"...Anyone can interpret trends without the help of biased scientists and politicians or their computer models...."

Sure 'anyone' can interpret trends without help. Does that mean they have a shot of really understanding events? No, it doesn't. Anyone can also attempt to diagnose a problem with their home wiring or the home HVAC system, or their car's transmission, but it is highly unlikely they are going to do a good job of it. And compared to climate science, those tasks are child's play.

[Howzit]

34. If studies on climate change are not founded on raw weather station data

then they are meaningless. You don't use an MRI to measure body temperature; you use a thermometer. If my leg is amputated in an accident I don't need an X-ray to know the bone is broken.

I am very suspicious of anyone who says I am not qualified to do my own thinking. I may be wrong about many things, but I own my opinion and it is not for sale. It almost sounds as if you are concerned I might encourage others to think for themselves and start questioning everything. The fact is, nothing is sound unless it stands up to questioning.

Why do I hold this view of things? It is as you said: there are entities out there spreading miss-information. I may agree with you on some things, but that does not mean I have to accept everything you or anyone else says. The idea that Democrats believe a certain list of truth, are for or and against another list of ideals; and that any deviation from these party ideals means one is a Republican, is silly and divisive. Democrats don't have to be against everything that Republicans are for, and vice versa.

I am an individualist, not a gang member. The gang mentality of "if you are not for us, you are against us" only slows down progress and may tear this country apart. You cannot shame Republicans into voting for Democrats, nor does insulting people who don't agree on every aspect of climate change win you any support. People need to see the truth and believe it for themselves. The rest will follow naturally.

Human thinking is not binary - we are not machines. A person may be wrong about many things, but that does not mean they are stupid.

[kristopher]

35. You are over simplifying the climate issue

You are over simplifying the climate issue when you claim that everything one needs to know is to be found in raw met data. In fact it is simplification to the point of absurdity.
You're churning out a list of strawman arguments instead of actually addressing the points I've made. I didn't label you as a Republican, I explicitly separated what you might believe from what you say. I can speak specifically to what you say, and I have limited myself to that. It isn't me calling you a Republican; the association of your positions and beliefs (regarding energy policy and climate change) with the positions and beliefs of the Republicans on that topic are self apparent. I have no idea what you believe on other matters so it is reasonable to presume that in some other area more important to you than energy or climate change, you identify with the positions and beliefs of the Democrats.

So, no one is calling you anything except what you yourself throw out there. However, the fact is that your statements on energy and climate policy are founded on a concerted misinformation campaign. Your argument against that seems to be that even though it is perpetuated by a misinformation campaign, it may be correct, nonetheless. That is certainly true in the abstract sense when the arguments haven't been subjected to scrutiny for their accuracy. Fortunately, that isn't the case in this matter, the arguments you are offering have been closely examined. For the most part, they are a weave of cherry picked facts designed to produce a predetermined conclusion - they are advocacy argument in other words, not impartial analysis.

Let's use your latest offering as an example. You are declaring that your insight into climate matters is as good as anyones. That is an argument designed to appeal to that "anti-elitist" sentiment that the right is constantly fostering. The fact is that you haven't a hope in hell of making an informed judgment about the validity of the body of science related to climate change if you limit yourself to raw meteorological data. On its face that is a hard position to support since climate is long term expression of the earth's conditions that goes well beyond the range of all recorded met data. How could anyone hope to have a grasp of what is happening if they ignore the massive quantities of perfectly valid data and theory outside of those narrow weather readings?

So ignoring that obvious weakness, you condemn criticism as being designed to create an either/or atmosphere meant to exclude you based on your 'differing viewpoint', all the while playing to the 'anti-elitism' theme.

I'm not doing it, your viewpoint is speaking for itself.

I'm sure we probably agree on other things. I also don't embrace the Democratic position on a few issues (such as gun control), but I do share, with most Dems I know, a similar set of values about the human condition. I'm sure if we keep looking we'll find places where there will be a meeting of minds.

[kristopher]

37. OK I read the executive summary

I tried to download the chapter on energy twice, but for some reason it won't open; I get an error msg.

Going by what I see in the summary, I have a number of questions as to methodology; perhaps you could answer two for me. When calculating the potential of solar, the author limited the potential input from solar to a figure derived by using the surface area of south facing roofs in UK. Why? Is there some reason to ignore all the other potential placement options? The more normal manner of making such a calculation would be to approach it from the challenge of producing X number of m^2 of PV surface. If you want Z power you just calculate how many panels it will take and what resources you would need to dedicate to the effort to achieve your goal. Where they are finally placed is really a very negotiable proposition.

Now that is a pretty basic error for the author to have made, in my opinion. Why do you suppose that error occurred? Is it consistent with a person who is trying to make an accurate assessment of the options available; or is it consistent with a person trying to lead an argument in a predetermined direction?


The second thought I'd like your input on is the way various energy sectors are lumped together and assigned in toto to the individual. If we look at the structure of a grid based on renewables, the responsibility for power production devolves in large part to the individual. For example, a solar based grid might have each home basically self sufficient for the resident's energy needs - including EV transportation. If we use the authors model however, he presents all industrial, social services, all of the basic infrastructure energy needs and assigns their portion to the individual. That is unusual, because it is usually looked at by sector since each sector (commercial, heavy transport, personal transport, agriculture, construction etc) has distinct needs and thus distinct solutions. The problem isn't lumping the needs into an individual profile, the problem arises when those solutions for the other sectors are ignored while the question is addressed as if it were the same as a normal residential sector analysis.

Why is it preferable to do it that way instead of by sector, and what do you think these two points say about the insight the analysis offers us into understanding our options for reaching our goals?

[Howzit]

38. I think the reason south facing PV roof placements were used in the author's analysis

is because the most intense sunlight with the longest duration is available by doing that. Pointing the panels anywhere else short of tracking the sun will reduce energy capture for the northern hemisphere - it is reversed in the southern hemisphere.

I think the assumption is that because solar panels are so expensive you should place them south facing (in the UK) to get the best bang for the buck. Once all south facing roof space is utilized you could use the rest of the roof. Obviously not everyone has a south facing roof, but the author is trying to make the best case for viability of solar.

Remember that England is far north and the sun light comes in at a steep angle, especially in winter. Combine this with steep roof slopes to reduce snow build-up and you have a huge difference in light intensity, angle of incidence and periods of shade between south and north facing roof slopes. If solar panels were free you could apply them to all roof and wall areas without considering cost efficiency. I don't know about you, but I don't have $80,000 to spend on solar panels to power my home. If I bought a few panels for a fraction of that I would want them to return the best efficiency and would make them face south. Wouldn't you? So, what you read is not an "error"; it is realistic optimization.

Not having written the paper myself, or read much of it I can only speculate that since the average individual consumes products and services that were created by applying energy, the author burdens the average consumer with what it takes to support a given average life style. All costs are eventually passed on to consumers or tax payers - it is more realistic to tally all costs up front than to pretend they don't exist because the government or corporations will foot the bill for some of them.

I suggest you at least scan more of the paper - it may be self-explanatory.

[kristopher]

39. That much is self evident.

But the author's conclusions are based on an analysis that is unreasonably restricted. Why was that restriction placed there?

You bring up the subject of costs, but that isn't a factor in the analysis - which is what we are discussing. Pricing of any commodity is a different exercise in evaluation than is an assessment of the 'available to be harnessed' raw resource. He claimed he is looking for numbers, remember, the real hard numbers of what can be done. Then, first thing out of the gate, he sabotages the numbers for solar. No other word fits as the gentleman certainly is competent enough to know what he did, and any peer review would have picked the problem up immediately.

You suggest I scan the paper; but you recommended it repeatedly with the implication that it formed the basis of your thinking on this topic. I'd expect that you would be able to either directly respond to such a question with a satisfactory explanation or that you'd acknowledge that the analysis is fundamentally flawed.

That is what open discourse is like.

[Howzit]

42. "you recommended it repeatedly with the implication that it formed the basis of your thinking "

Actually, that synopsis isn't accurate. I don't endorse the paper at all. I merely site it as an example of an analysis that seems to contain numbers rather than adjectives. This was in response to you turning me down on providing independent verification for the Tesla's claimed efficiencies. I found it that same day and have not even read the whole thing. I was hoping you could point me to an equivalent paper that is considered accurate.

As far as the roof panel area analysis being sabotaged: What area would you assume in your model? All roof area of all buildings plus 10% of all land area? Why not 100% of land area - this will generate plenty of power, won't it? Come on mate; somebody has to pay for those panels and this means the area is limited - it must also be assumed that the user of the panel will pay for it. Why not start with how much power is required per person and see how much panel area it takes to generate it like this author has?

[kristopher]

43. Determine the requirenement based on what it is you expect to accomplish

Determine the requirement based on what it is you expect to accomplish with the panels and then see if that is an achievable goal. For example, two different analysis would emerge depending on whether batteries are used for storage or if the grid is going to serve as the storage medium. Different analyses would emerge as we set different levels of desired grid penetration for a given renewable.

You wrote: "Why not start with how much power is required per person and see how much panel area it takes to generate it like this author has?"

That question goes back to the second question I asked you regarding the article: "...The second thought I'd like your input on is the way various energy sectors are lumped together and assigned in toto to the individual. If we look at the structure of a grid based on renewables, the responsibility for power production devolves in large part to the individual. For example, a solar based grid might have each home basically self sufficient for the resident's energy needs - including EV transportation. If we use the authors model however, he presents all industrial, social services, all of the basic infrastructure energy needs and assigns their portion to the individual. That is unusual, because it is usually looked at by sector since each sector (commercial, heavy transport, personal transport, agriculture, construction etc) has distinct needs and thus distinct solutions. The problem isn't lumping the needs into an individual profile, the problem arises when those solutions for the other sectors are ignored while the question is addressed as if it were the same as a normal residential sector analysis.

Why is it preferable to do it that way instead of by sector, and what do you think these two points say about the insight the analysis offers us into understanding our options for reaching our goals?"

I'd add to that the question of why you take it as a given that the individual should be responsible for paying for the panels. It isn't. The goal is to effect a large-scale change in infrastructure. If you are familiar with the various options for such policy you know that market based solutions sometimes are not the most effective way to achieve a goal of that sort. For example - the lunar program wouldn't have been possible using a market based approach. Given the total costs of energy (including externalities) and the ramification of energy security, it seems reasonable to propose that a national program to ensure every home is configured to maximize energy production would be warranted. I'll not get into specific programs that might be used because the point is to challenge the unjustified limitation you are placing on policy options.

[Howzit]

44. "why you take it as a given that the individual should be responsible for paying for the panels. "

Many people like the idea that the government will pay for the solar panel on their roof, and this can be done on a small scale. Government can pay for sufficient solar panels to power every private dwelling by raising taxes. If my taxes pay for my panels then I am footing the bill. If you don't pay for yours, I may be paying for yours and mine.

Another alternative is for the government to print money to pay for the panels and connecting infrastructure, but that steals value out of the pockets of responsible people who actually have money saved up for the future. If you want the government to mandate the implementation of solar power for everyone, cost be damned, Barack Obama is your man. He would do well to wait until he is elected before making such policy statements as the middle class is not going to like it - the poor have nothing to loose and the rich can afford more taxes and higher inflation.

Perhaps government bonds could raise the money required; otherwise it will be up to private investment.

[kristopher]

45. OK

Actually it does nothing of the sort. Have you ever heard of a thing called avoided costs?
Take for example the tax on gasoline. If the government ensures everyone has enough solar on their home to meet average household demand plus an extra allocation for capacity to run one average EV for 15000 miles per year, how much would the public avoid paying in taxes currently levied on gasoline and electricity? How much would they save in gasoline by getting that mileage for the price of the solar panel? How much would they avoid paying in electricity? How much will they save in carbon taxes?

So just off the top of my head we have several pools of money that are available to be diverted to pay for the panels. So it isn't a matter of "costs be damned" it is a matter of diverting the moneys now laid out into the direction of the infrastructure the nation has selected. Don't forget that the government has the ability to create financial instruments that can effectively include the future price reductions into todays prices, a sort of lease to own (using some of the funds I described) where the government is the lessor and the homeowners are lessees.

There are ways to make it happen, but using the ideological litmus test you are employing to guide your thinking, you will not be able to work them out. It wont be because you aren't intelligent enough to get it, don't get me wrong; it is because the solutions aren't to be found in blindly adhering to an ideology. Doing that you filter out at least half the solutions that might solve the problem. Governments are there because the do something that needs to be done; otherwise they simply wouldn't exist universally. Business is there because it is doing something that needs to be done, otherwise, it would exist universally.

Think of them as different software programs you need to run a link between to produce an output that you select. What you select to be created is a matter of your values and beliefs about what is right and wrong. But no matter what you select as output, you need to effectively use the potential of those two programs in order to get it done.

[Howzit]

46. "Never forget the Law of Unintended Consequences"

I think your signature line contains much wisdom and a warning to be careful what you wish for. The best of motives don't always produce the ideal set-up once the genie is out of the bottle.

My response to the idea that government would provide me free ev panels to meet all my energy needs AND reduce my taxes is, "where do I sign up"? I would love it if it were possible, but governments are more inclined to increase taxes to fund pet projects through pet industries and waste money though unnecessary regulation than to put more money in the pocket of the collective public. Until those in government acknowledge that they work for us, they will continue to act like we work for them. Politicians seem to be motivated mainly to increase their own power and the wealth of their friends. Government does not create wealth, it taps into wealth created by the people.

I agree that government can step out of the way by removing taxes that act as a disincentive to progress, but it needs an ever increasing amount of tax money just for politicians to show up in office, even if they achieve nothing. I wish the government had an incentive to reduce taxes, but they don't. The more money they have to work with the sloppier they can be at their jobs. Budgets tend to increase, not decrease. To give you a computing analogy, compare the size of Windows applications now and 15 years ago. Programs used to be small and efficient when processing speeds were low and memory was expensive. Current software is bulky and inefficient such that today's PC is not 50 time faster because most of the gains have already been used up before you even use an application.

When it comes to the real cost of solar panels you need to factor in the energy used in their manufacture and their limited life before replacement. Nothing is free except the sun shine itself.

If the US hadn't gone barging into Iraq, costs be damned, the money spent there could have gone a long way toward funding the future infrastructure you envision. I think we are paying for Bush's mistake already in the form of inflation with the dropping dollar buying less and less every day.

[kristopher]

48. That's the problem with ideology

Your entire post (excepting one sentence I've addressed below) is irrelevant to the point at hand. Instead of looking objectively at the benefits and costs of available solutions you resort to an inane rant centered on beliefs you have about the nature of government. Those beliefs may or may not be generally true, however they say absolutely nothing about the effectiveness of any given solution. What we do know is that the past 28 years has seen the right employ that framework over valid analysis and in the process they have screwed the pooch in every single policy area they've attacked.

Producing electricity with photovoltaics (PV) emits no pollution, produces no greenhouse gases,
and uses no finite fossil fuel resources. These are great environmental benefits, but just as we say
that it takes money to make money, it also takes energy to save energy. This concept is captured by
the term “energy payback,” or how long a PV system must operate to recover the energy—and
associated generation of pollution and CO2—that went into making the system in the first place.
Energy payback estimates for rooftop PV systems boil down to 4, 3, 2, and 1 years: 4 years for
systems using current multicrystalline-silicon PV modules, 3 years for current thin-film modules,
2 years for future multicrystalline modules, and 1 year for future thin-film modules. With energy
paybacks of 1–4 years and assumed life expectancies of 30 years, 87% to 97% of the energy that
PV systems generate will be free of pollution, greenhouse gases, and depletion of resources. Let’s
take a look at how the 4-3-2-1 paybacks were estimated for current and future PV systems. - NREL Report No. NREL/FS-520-24619

[Howzit]

50. A heck of a good return on investment

With a payback period of one year and a 30 year panel life, private investors are sure to rush in on this. Won't even take a government mandate or state funding.

[kristopher]

51. The dollars don't correlete to the energy. nt

[Howzit]

52. Isn't the energy worth a certain number of dollars per kW hour?

If you are only looking at the break even point for the energy used in manufature of pv panels, how many years to the break even point in dollar cost based on the value of the power produced?

[kristopher]

53. That can be a complex question.

Remember, *you* specified energy payback.

A simple answer is to compare it to the cost off electricity bought of the grid. With that scenario the investment plus capital costs versus the amount of production might achieve payback anywhere between a few years and never.

But, that's because the grid and our manufacturing infrastructure to support the grid is configured around fossil fuels and the solar panels can't get a toehold to boost manufacturing and create supply side competition. If the government takes the lead and reconfigures the grid around renewable resources then there is no reason in the technological sense that solar panels wouldn't benefit from the same cost reductions every other electric gadget experiences when mass production gets into full swing. So the first generation that the government ensures deployment of would produce a country where you enjoy the benefits I mentioned, and replacement or expansion costs could be expected to be similar to any other common appliance by the time a generation passes.

And another point is that the energy returned on energy invested for both solar (20:1 - 30:1) and wind (30:1 - 50:1) are already considerably better than conventional sources, and is steadily improving. The best estimate I've seen for nuclear is a return of 5 units of energy for each 1 unit invested and it is expected to decline as fuel reprocessing becomes part of the system. Petroleum was originally (way back when they were pulling it out of the ground in Pennsylvania) 100:1. It is now at about 15:1 and declining. Coal is about the same and declining.

[Howzit]

47. Some people communicate more clearly than others

I found a post in another thread that expresses my concerns about government funding better than I could:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=158542&mesg_id=158630

[Howzit]

49. Tax reductions on all forms of energy for everyone!

"Have you ever heard of a thing called avoided costs? Take for example the tax on gasoline. If the government ensures everyone has enough solar on their home to meet average household demand plus an extra allocation for capacity to run one average EV for 15000 miles per year, how much would the public avoid paying in taxes currently levied on gasoline and electricity?"

Nice in theory, but what evidence is there for such tax reductions for everybody (yes, tax incentives exist for early adopter)? The fact that people who are running their diesel cars off used vegetable oil are being forced to pay their share of fuel taxes supports my view. For instance: http://www.dor.state.wi.us/pubs/mf-109.pdf and many links such as http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-vegoil6-2008may06,0,6562739.story?track=rss

I just don't see the government reducing our tax burden on energy and transport, even if sunshine is free. Once we are paying carbon taxes the government won't want to give that up either, even if we find carbon neutral energy.

[bobbolink]

33. "O" For the "P"

As Dr. Paul Farmer calls it, the "O" For the "P" means the Preferential Option For The Poor.

In other words, whenever the discussion is about how to solve problems, the first thought should be "How will this impact those on the bottom of the totem pole? How will this impact those who can least afford it?"

You are so right that so many of these "solutions" are fun things for affluent "environmentalists" to contemplate, but do NOTHING or else make life WORSE for those of us who are barely hanging on.

Saying this makes affluent people angry... they just lose their cool, and go on the attack.

YET, if we REALLY, SERIOUSLY want to find solutions, we will start with "O" For the "P" rather than ignore it.

Thank you for seeing the REAL problem!

:thumbsup:

[kristopher]

36. Electric transportation

Electric transportation energy costs are a small fraction of the costs of petroleum energy. How does it hurt the person on the bottom to strive to develop an affordable electric car? That is a pretty weird remark, IMO. You act like no one is able to conceive of the normal path of product development where expensive innovations and prototypes yield the inexpensive mainstream technologies we have at our disposal.

Bizarre.

[bobbolink]

40. And you think name-calling enhances your position?

You really can't conceive of having compassion and concern for those of us who just struggle to SURVIVE??

And this is called "progressive"?

Given that it's clear you WON'T, are completely UNWILLING to hear what I am saying, and are inclined to name-calling, this will go nowhere. Given that you feel such a sense of superiority, you will no doubt NEED to have the last word.

Have at it. I'm sure it will afford you that sense of entitlement.

Just realize that I see your lack of concern, and have no need to read further your elite looking down your nose at those you consider inferior to you. You're just showing yourself for what you are to those who read here.

Bye now.

[kristopher]

41. Name calling?

"Electric transportation

Electric transportation energy costs are a small fraction of the costs of petroleum energy. How does it hurt the person on the bottom to strive to develop an affordable electric car? That is a pretty weird remark, IMO. You act like no one is able to conceive of the normal path of product development where expensive innovations and prototypes yield the inexpensive mainstream technologies we have at our disposal.

Bizarre."

No name calling, bobbolink. Your criticism is baseless and your argument that the development of Tesla's automobile is somehow elitist is absurd. It is, as I said, an extremely bizarre line of argumentation.

[defendandprotect]

11. First of all, we don't need a "grid" and dragging electricity across 15 states . . .

Additionally, alternatives hopefully will soon include solar cells ---

See the movie "Who Killed The Electric Car?"

You're questioning battery and solar run cars ---

and suggesting that they're worse than "burning gasoline" --- !!!

And pushing nuclear power plants --- !!!

Let's try wind mills for electric cars ---

however, again --- see the movie --- what was happening 5 years or more ago is

not where they are now -- or would be once we got started with alternatives ---

[Howzit]

13. OK; So wind and solar power are so obvious

that you don't feel the need to mention, let alone lead with suggesting them.

Dear Gridless in Seattle:
I don't see private solar panels with enough capacity to power your home and car as being anything more than devices for rich environmentalists. The less well off won't be able to afford these, let alone private windmills. Unless you have adequate batteries to capture the juice, you have to go to bed early or drive to a place with conventional power. When you get home, you had better wait until well after sun-up before you drive again to allow your panels time to charge your car batteries.

Large wind turbines are more efficient than small ones, but also more expensive. This suggests that a bunch of people collectively buy a large wind turbine, or a farm full of them and share the power by means of a grid. As the wind doesn't blow all the time everywhere, the grid would also need to be connected to other forms of power generation.

Where are all the solar panels and wind turbines going to come from in the immediate future? Government subsidies can only support so many early adopters because those subsidies come from taxes paid by the majority who don't benefit from them - this is just like car insurance, which covers the losses of a small number of people covered by contributions made by a large number of people. If everyone crashes their car tomorrow the insurance companies will not be able to cover their obligation. If everybody wanted a subsidy to pay for their green power tomorrow there won't be enough people to pay for it.

Until renewable power actually yields a real return on investment before the hardware is about to fail it will remain relatively insignificant except for the wealthy. Nuclear power is very expensive to set up, and you absolutely don't want nuke plants build by the lowest bidder, but if you need to supply lots of power to lots of people where each person pays their own share, nukes are the way to go.

We have been hearing about emerging battery and PV technology that will revolutionize the world and it is always 20 years away. I will be happy to be proven wrong, but nuclear technology is available now.

[kristopher]

20. Always 20 years away in the minds of those promoting the Republican energy plan, you mean.

I'm afraid you need more knowledge on renewables and why they haven't been adopted. With today's technologies, we can replace over 80% of fossil fuels used in this nation within a couple of decades.

The only thing that stops their deployment are anti-competitive practices and policies crafted by the fossil fuel and nuclear power interests. Though their think tanks and media outlets the right wing elites have worked diligently for the past 30 years to introduce a host of false information into the discussion of our power needs. The myth that renewables and batteries need more research is bullshit. Yes, we needed more research on batteries for electric cars; but we could have used solar and lead acid batteries from 20 years ago (since you mention that number) to dramatically reduce the amount of fossil fuels used by the grid.

The only reason solar is expensive is the lack of demand induced by the policies of the fossil fuel interests. Craft policies that guarantee demand and the resulting investment in manufacturing and installation will do what it always does with simple electronic commodities - it will dramatically lower the price.


If you want confirmation that the poor analysis you've put forth here regarding electric cars, renewables and nuclear energy are bad for the public, I'd suggest you check in with the right wing think tanks that supply Hannity and Limbaugh with their talking points. You'll find you are parroting them precisely.

Of course, you might say maybe they have it right on this. I'd reply that they don't. As with every other policy in their book they are focused on perpetuating an existing power structure. Renewable energy and a desire to factor in the costs of environmental impact are their main 'enemies' in this day and age. They don't spend the time and money they do to demonize those areas unless those areas are a real threat.

Why are they a threat if renewables are presently impotent?

[defendandprotect]

21. humorous . . .

No -- wind mills were used against Enron in CA --

In 4 months they put up enough wind mills to supply 176,000 HOMES and families --

There would be many ways to provide electricity for cars ---

Supposedly there are also cars that can run on "compressed air" --

Many of these changes could be made to the gas-guzzlers . . .

Try watching the movie - "Who Killed The Electric Car?"

Again . . . we don't need GRIDS to drag electricity across the country --


Coal and nuclear are the dinosaurs --

burning fossil fuels is over ---

EXCEPT for those still pushing suicidal ideas ---

[Howzit]

27. If CO2 reduction is your goal, electric cars may not yet be much better than cars burning gasoline.

OK. So the original statement doesn't reflect what I meant. The real question is, how good are electric vehicles overall and what does it take to achieve this? Surely, this depends heavily on how the electrical power is generated, and today, that is likely to include a high percentage of coal.

[kristopher]

32. Why are you replying to yourself?

"There is enough excess capacity in the grid as it now exists to meet the needs of transportation. The plug in electric acts as a storage medium allowing both much more efficient use of the existing grid infrastructure and the replacement of that existing infrastructure by more intermittent sources like wind and solar.
The real point is that there is no need of greater innovation. Existing technologies in wind, solar and energy storage have the capability to cost effectively replace the existing fossil fuel infrastructure in both the personal transportation and electrical generation sectors. The only obstacle to price reduction is a failure on the part of policy makers to commit to a new infrastructure; a move that would ensure demand that leads to investment that leads to mass production and economy of scale price reductions..."

"Would you agree that with cheap storage, renewables can provide for home and personal transport? Solar, augmented by wind supported by cheap storage are the necessary ingredients, right? Figuring money is no object, you can go out right now and easily get somewhere between 80-100% off the grid right?

Mass produced lithium batteries and mass produced solar PV, mass produced solar thermal and mass produced home geothermal heat pumps; and we are most of the way there as we size each system for each home. Mass produced lithium batteries for EVs also, and mass produced EVs and we really really are almost there. Community scale and large projects of wind and solar feed a grid balanced by CAES on natural gas (70% reduction in fuel use from excess wind and solar production stored as compressed air).

It will work.

No coal.
Diminishing nuclear.
Very little natural gas; which we can get from renewable resources; no matter the scepticism of many here. I mean we have a lot of waste that is processed in this country, and we have a lot of farm waste that should be processed. These CAES could also run on biodiesel.

Remember the grid is only for minimal support for what your home system can't do.

Demand creates supply. Supply builds this infrastructure.

And everything is ready to deploy now. All that is required is to create a demand that will build the manufacturing base to reduce price."

And IDemo gives these sources:
"EV's, even those powered from coal burning plants, would have significantly reduced CO2 output compared to an equivalent number of internal combustion vehicles.

See - 'Debunking the Myth of EVs and Smokestacks'

Also, a study done by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (DOE) showed that up to 84% of our current light vehicle fleet could be powered electrically with no additional capacity added to the grid.

See - 'Mileage from Megawatts'"

[tom_paine]

6. Very interesting link. I feel compelled to point out that correlation does not equal causation.

Most of the coal is located in the Appalachian corrdior and in the Rocky Mtn. West, two areas with not dissimilar Scots-Irish culture as their "base culture".

It may be the culture that exists "on top" of the coal, and would be the same coal or no coal. It may be that the coal and culture are intertwined and the coal creates the conditions for the culture above it, thus making it a part of the cause.

It may be something wholly different. If it is axiomatic that in most of biology and earth sciences that it is impossible to get a 100% reproducible proofs like we get in physics and chemistry, how much more so for the social sciences?

But you basically said that in the beginning of your post, so perhaps you can forgive me for blithering unnecessarily, as I am not telling you anything you don't know already.

And thank you so much for that excellent resource of a link - bookmarked.

[kristopher]

12. It's good to be explicit.

And I agree, the cultural consistency is relevant. But it would also make sense that those areas are Red because they see the Republicans anti-climate change (anti-environmental actually) stance as representing their self interest. Obama went after the vote in PA where coal mining is offset by other economic centers within the state, but he skipped WVA and KY totally. If I were getting ready to put about 85,000 employees of coal companies out of work I wouldn't want to go to a place where that was sure to be topic #1.

Just speculating...

[tom_paine]

16. What aspect of Obama's plans are going to put all 85,000 coal workers out of work?

Did he suggest a full ban on coal-fired power plants or something? I didn't hear about that.

[kristopher]

19. "Clean coal" with "carbon sequestration"

"Clean coal" with "carbon sequestration" are vague promises that cannot be fulfilled in a meaningful time frame to deal with climate change. We MUST stop emitting the quantities of CO2 we emit. There are two primary sources - oil and coal. Any serious effort to deal with climate change will have to eliminate their use within the next couple of decades. That is going to put those miners out of work and cost the owners of coal. On the flip side, renewable energy production is, on a per watt basis, more labor intensive than fossil fuels. So while there should be an overall increase in jobs, the coal industry is destined to go out of business as far as production for domestic consumption is concerned. The incoming president is going to be faced with a choice as to whether to set that in motion, or continue to sit on the fence and pretend.

Now, will it be achieved through a ban? No, I don't expect so. But the goal of cap and trade is to put money into non-fossil technologies and encourage their deployment to replace fossils. Obama has committed to 15 billion a year for technology deployment and R&D. I'm betting the focus will be deployment. At some point in the process, a ban will probably emerge; but I wouldn't expect that anytime soon.

Of course, you know all that and are just encouraging more clarity from me; thanks.

[tom_paine]

25. Understood. Thanks. But if I am reading your post correctly, there's no

policy of Obama's that would specifically shut down the coal industry. Rather a sense of where he's going based on his approval for clean coal and carbon sequstration.

These days, with all the "media mechanisms" through which we perceive our reality (I don't mean you personally I mean society collectively) thoroughly polluted and corrupted, I have an innate distrust of "hunches" based on a "sense" of what I think a person is going to do.

At least a quarter of the time, IMHO, if not more, much more, when we feel that these days it's because of a specific PR strategy combined with powerful subconscious propaganda that put it there.

It sounds absurd to type it, probably moreso to speak it aloud, but I have always thought the imperatives of "deep penetration" advertising ALL sound absurd when vocalized.

How do the advertising people do it? I suspect those days are long past them, that they have covered the inherent absurdity of selling sex and subconscious discomfort as Product Selling Vehicles with a thick patina of corporo-speak and insider marketing lingo to make "the Emperor having no clothes" seem to be the most natural thing in the world.

Sorry kris. I digressed off into a tangent again, and all you did was elaborate your answer as I requested. It's my way, I guess.

It really doesn't have anything to do with your reply, other than to say that in a society as thoroughly propagandized as our is (if one considers "deep penetration" adevrtising a form of propaganda, which it is, and makes up at least 75% of all advertising efforts, then we are very heavily propagandized, indeed) that even the subcoscious "hunches" are suspect as having been delivered to our subconsciouses by others. Again, I am not speaking of you personally, but all of us collectively as a society.

Your point is well-taken about the implications of Obama's stances and how they might be perceived, and even perceived correctly, by the citizens of Coal Country.

NOTE: The primary book for understanding the history, aims, and methods of the modern advertising industry is Vance Packard's "The Hidden Persuaders". It will give you a background and glossary to understand other source material, if you are interested.

http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Persuaders-Vance-Packard/dp/097884310X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214598232&sr=8-2

(this is the newest printing. Amazon also sells used copies of the original and secondary printings)

[kristopher]

29. I'll get a copy, thanks.

But it will take me a little while to read it carefully.

[kgrandia]

15. An op-ed

Can't remember where I saw it - but it asked the question of whether Obama even needed to pander to the coal states with the prmoise of investment in clean coal - anyone know the article I'm talking about?