The environment thread

[Balta1701]

Good Op-ed piece in the WaPo by a guy from GE and a venture capital guy.

Do we want to win the race to lead the next great global industry, clean energy? That is the choice before us.

 

We are clearly not in the lead today. That position is held by China, which understands the importance of controlling its energy future. China's commitment to developing clean energy technologies and markets is breathtaking.

 

Consider: Chinese cars are more than one-third more fuel-efficient than U.S. cars. China is investing 10 times as much on clean power, as a percentage of gross domestic product, as the United States is. China is on track to create 150,000 jobs through the deployment of 120 gigawatts of wind power by 2020 -- an amount equivalent to today's global total and nearly five times America's. As a result, China is already curbing its carbon emissions substantially. This year alone, it will abate almost 350 million tons of CO2, as compared with business as usual. That's as much as is emitted by Argentina.

 

...

Today's policies stifle American innovation and competitiveness. But good policy can flip this dynamic. Five basic changes are needed:

 

-- Send a long-term signal that low-carbon energy is valuable. We must put a price on carbon and a cap on carbon emissions. No long-term signal means no serious innovation at scale, which means fewer American success stories.

 

-- Get the rules of the road right for utilities. We must make our utilities a driving force for repowering America, driving efficiency through incentives, a renewable electricity standard and a national unified smart grid.

 

-- Set energy standards that grow steadily stronger. America should strive to have the most efficient buildings, cars and appliances in the world. The savings will land in the pockets of U.S. consumers and businesses.

 

-- Get serious about funding research, development and deployment, at scale. The federal government currently spends only $2.5 billion on clean-energy R&D a year -- 0.25 percent of our annual energy bill. Sen. Jeff Bingaman's Clean Energy Deployment Administration is a good idea that would be fast and flexible. But more such programs are needed.

 

-- Fulfill President Obama's commitment to "become the world's leading exporter of renewable energy." We need a robust trade policy that seeks to open markets abroad -- including the Chinese market -- for U.S. clean-energy products through new trade agreements. Such policies unleash American competitiveness disciplined by market forces. This is widely endorsed by U.S. companies that compete internationally and by the broad-based President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

 

We should carefully design policy to bring in other nations. Think of the Copenhagen climate summit in December as an opportunity to create world markets and momentum for a low-carbon future, just as the Internet set the world on course for an information-rich future. Some say we shouldn't move until China moves. In fact, China is moving full speed ahead -- with or without us.

[mr_genius]

GE is trash. If they get a bunch of government money for this big 'green collar jobs' push I will officially join the birth certificate deniers society.

 

Seriously though, we should make a big push for alternative energy; but use a competent and responsible developer.

Edited August 5, 2009 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

Official EPA rating for the Volt: 230 mpg.

[Y2HH]

Official EPA rating for the Volt: 230 mpg.

 

I don't buy it. Something goofy going on to come up with a number like that.

Edited August 11, 2009 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

I don't buy it. Something goofy going on to come up with a number like that.

Of course there is. You can put it anywhere between 60 miles and infinity, depending on how you balance the electric/gas part.

[lostfan]

If I understand correctly, the EPA hasn't given an "official" number. The actual number really isn't that important though. That's marketing, GM wants people to start going "holy s*** 230 miles to the gallon!" Which so far seems to be working.

[StrangeSox]

Maybe the EPA will eventually come up with a "per unit energy" rating so that you can compare the efficiencies of different power generation platforms. I'm sure there's room for an environmental group to come up with a "CO2/mile" rating for cars, though it might be expensive to test and develop accurately. Unless its just derived from EPA fuel economy numbers.

[Balta1701]

Maybe the EPA will eventually come up with a "per unit energy" rating so that you can compare the efficiencies of different power generation platforms. I'm sure there's room for an environmental group to come up with a "CO2/mile" rating for cars, though it might be expensive to test and develop accurately. Unless its just derived from EPA fuel economy numbers.

Problem with a CO2/Mile rating is it depends 100% on the method of generation of that electricity. Now, they're all much, much less CO2 intensive than running an internal combustion engine (yes, even coal), but there's a huge progression between coal>oil>natural Gas>renewables.

[StrangeSox]

you left out nuclear

[iamshack]

Good Op-ed piece in the WaPo by a guy from GE and a venture capital guy.

 

I agree with the Bjorn Lomborg approach:

 

Dump all the money into R & D. The only way to make a dent in the problem is to make renewable energy economical enough for people to actually replace fossi fuels with it. Otherwise, we're just kidding ourselves and throwing money away.

[Y2HH]

I agree with the Bjorn Lomborg approach:

 

Dump all the money into R & D. The only way to make a dent in the problem is to make renewable energy economical enough for people to actually replace fossi fuels with it. Otherwise, we're just kidding ourselves and throwing money away.

 

I actually agree with that, too. Whatever we come up with, it has to be cleaner, equally or more efficient, and equally or less expensive than what we currently use or a majority of people (and foreign nations) will simply not make the change.

 

A day will come where we look back and laugh at the power sources we currently use and laugh about it, but some serious breakthroughs in energy creation and storage have to happen first.

[Balta1701]

I actually agree with that, too. Whatever we come up with, it has to be cleaner, equally or more efficient, and equally or less expensive than what we currently use or a majority of people (and foreign nations) will simply not make the change.

 

A day will come where we look back and laugh at the power sources we currently use and laugh about it, but some serious breakthroughs in energy creation and storage have to happen first.

2 points in reply. 1; we actually already know how to do the energy creation and storage. Seriously, we do. We just don't have the infrastructure set up to make it work; you have to be able to take the electricity from where it is generated to where it is needed in a timely fashion, and our current system has been built on the assumption of coal fired power plants. If you put a serious price on carbon emissions, you could quite readily have this country done using coal within 10 years; everything could be renewables and natural gas.

 

Second; the way to make these technologies more efficient? Start building them. With Baseload solar (concentrated solar thermal with storage), solar cells, wind power, etc., for all of the renewables basically, the big costs are the startup costs to design the programs, build the factories, build the windmills, build the plants, etc. The costs of running the plants after they're started up are much smaller than the initial costs. The only way to bring those costs down is to be able to spread the development costs out; once you've built the factory, everything else you build in that factory helps pay for it. The more of it you use, the more efficient it becomes.

[StrangeSox]

Second; the way to make these technologies more efficient? Start building them. With Baseload solar (concentrated solar thermal with storage), solar cells, wind power, etc., for all of the renewables basically, the big costs are the startup costs to design the programs, build the factories, build the windmills, build the plants, etc. The costs of running the plants after they're started up are much smaller than the initial costs. The only way to bring those costs down is to be able to spread the development costs out; once you've built the factory, everything else you build in that factory helps pay for it. The more of it you use, the more efficient it becomes.

 

It plays right into the technology development life cycle. Most R&D money up front is spent on exploring a large area of the design space with novel options and features, new designs, new architectures, etc. Eventually, the market settles on a certain design and the process innovations (reducing manufacturing costs, increasing efficiencies) really start to ramp up.

[lostfan]

What year is the Volt supposed to be ready for production? 2011? Cuz if so, I'm going to start saving money for a down payment now. My current loan matures in 2011.

[Balta1701]

What year is the Volt supposed to be ready for production? 2011? Cuz if so, I'm going to start saving money for a down payment now. My current loan matures in 2011.

First production models are supposed to roll out in late 2010, so a little over a year, give or take.

 

It's worth noting also that they've been beaten to market in places; the Chinese have a similar vehicle already to market. It's also possible that the Volt may not be necessary for everyone; they've gone with a 40 mile battery pack. If your typical commute is 10 miles or less, that's overkill for you, you could save money by going with a vehicle that uses only a 10-20 mile battery pack.

[HuskyCaucasian]

"Sensitive" Oil Industry Memo Lays Out Plan For Astroturf Rallies Against Climate Change Bill

The memo -- sent by the American Petroleum Institute and obtained by Greenpeace, which sent it to reporters -- urges oil companies to recruit their employees for events that will "put a human face on the impacts of unsound energy policy," and will urge senators to "avoid the mistakes embodied in the House climate bill."

 

API tells TPMmuckraker that the campaign is being funded by a coalition of corporate and conservative groups that includes the anti-health-care-reform group 60 Plus, FreedomWorks, and Grover Norquist's Americans For Tax Reform.

 

The memo, signed by API president Jack Gerard, asks recipients to give API "the name of one central coordinator for your company's involvement in the rallies."

 

And it warns: "Please treat this information as sensitive ... we don't want critics to know our game plan."

 

Aside from the astroturf nature of the planned events, which appear aimed at passing off industry employees as independent citizens, the memo also raises questions about the positions of several major oil companies on the issue of climate change. BP and Shell both are members of API, and also of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a coalition of groups that supports Waxman-Markey, the very climate change legislation the memo criticizes.

 

API has spent over $3 million lobbying against that bill this year.

[kapkomet]

This is kind of "anti-environment" but this is a historical perspective on the drilling of oil.

 

Edwin Drake

 

Why does this matter? It's where I'm from originally. There's a lot more to this then what this story publishes, but I always had a personal interest in this since this is where I spent the first few years of my life.

 

 

[iamshack]

2 points in reply. 1; we actually already know how to do the energy creation and storage. Seriously, we do. We just don't have the infrastructure set up to make it work; you have to be able to take the electricity from where it is generated to where it is needed in a timely fashion, and our current system has been built on the assumption of coal fired power plants. If you put a serious price on carbon emissions, you could quite readily have this country done using coal within 10 years; everything could be renewables and natural gas.

 

Second; the way to make these technologies more efficient? Start building them. With Baseload solar (concentrated solar thermal with storage), solar cells, wind power, etc., for all of the renewables basically, the big costs are the startup costs to design the programs, build the factories, build the windmills, build the plants, etc. The costs of running the plants after they're started up are much smaller than the initial costs. The only way to bring those costs down is to be able to spread the development costs out; once you've built the factory, everything else you build in that factory helps pay for it. The more of it you use, the more efficient it becomes.

 

Balta,

I understand that you are the board scientist, so I won't attempt to get too deep into the science with you, but I will comment on things from the "Power Company" perspective, as I am currently working as a trader for one.

 

I can tell you that the problem with building these large renewable plants now is that the technology is changing so rapidly (or at least there is the perception that it is, or will be) that there is a fear of committing hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars to an inferior technology or a technology that will be outdated in a decade. Secondly, in this current economic climate, it is extraordinarily difficult to raise rates to pay for such technology. My company recently invested several hundred million in a combined-cycle natural gas plant, in an effort to make us less vulnerable to rising coal prices as well as the power marketplace. Even though this plant will probably save our rate payers tens of millions of dollars over the next decade, they are furious that we raised their rates (very marginally) in order to pay for the plant. Obviously, natural gas is not a renewable technology, but it is far cleaner than coal, and yet, the rate payers do not take that into account when considering their bill. They want the cheapest energy they can get, bar none.

 

While the public says it wants renewable energy, what it really means (at least in this economy) is that it wants renewable energy, and it wants it at a cheaper cost than what it is currently paying. There simply is no technology currently available that a) is a similar price per megawatt hour as fossil fuels; AND B) is not an intermittent resource; AND would work well in large volumes with our current electricity grid. In fact, there is nothing that is particularly close.

 

While government mandates will push utilities and marketers to build projects which will satisfy minimum renewable energy requirements, these projects come at an increased cost over fossil fuels, especially when you consider the price certain states will have to pay in order to purchase credits because there is no economically feasible way for them to meet the government-imposed minimums themselves.

 

Rather than squandering billions of dollars on artificial caps and credits and all the other legal fictions which really don't result in any sort of significant improvement, dump all the monies into R&D and actually figure out the technology to replace fossil fuels. Something competitive in price and reliability, so that the public will buy into it, even after it hits their pocketbook.

Edited August 17, 2009 by iamshack

[NorthSideSox72]

Balta,

I understand that you are the board scientist, so I won't attempt to get too deep into the science with you, but I will comment on things from the "Power Company" perspective, as I am currently working as a trader for one.

 

I can tell you that the problem with building these large renewable plants now is that the technology is changing so rapidly (or at least there is the perception that it is, or will be) that there is a fear of committing hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars to an inferior technology or a technology that will be outdated in a decade. Secondly, in this current economic climate, it is extraordinarily difficult to raise rates to pay for such technology. My company recently invested several hundred million in a combined-cycle natural gas plant, in an effort to make us less vulnerable to rising coal prices as well as the power marketplace. Even though this plant will probably save our rate payers tens of millions of dollars over the next decade, they are furious that we raised their rates (very marginally) in order to pay for the plant. Obviously, natural gas is not a renewable technology, but it is far cleaner than coal, and yet, the rate payers do not take that into account when considering their bill. They want the cheapest energy they can get, bar none.

 

While the public says it wants renewable energy, what it really means (at least in this economy) is that it wants renewable energy, and it wants it at a cheaper cost than what it is currently paying. There simply is no technology currently available that a) is a similar price per megawatt hour as fossil fuels; AND B) is not an intermittent resource; AND would work well in large volumes with our current electricity grid. In fact, there is nothing that is particularly close.

 

While government mandates will push utilities and marketers to build projects which will satisfy minimum renewable energy requirements, these projects come at an increased cost over fossil fuels, especially when you consider the price certain states will have to pay in order to purchase credits because there is no economically feasible way for them to meet the government-imposed minimums themselves.

 

Rather than squandering billions of dollars on artificial caps and credits and all the other legal fictions which really don't result in any sort of significant improvement, dump all the monies into R&D and actually figure out the technology to replace fossil fuels. Something competitive in price and reliability, so that the public will buy into it, even after it hits their pocketbook.

I have two words for you: distributed system.

 

[iamshack]

I have two words for you: distributed system.

 

We already have that, as I understand it. We own, or contract for the rights to operate, several small renewable energy plants (I believe there are seventy or so in our system currently) which range from geothermal, solar, wind, biomass, hydro, etc. In the system I work in, we probably get 10-15 % of our capacity from sources such as these.

 

To really make a dent, and to have any chance of coming anywhere near the cost of fossil fuel costs, you're going to eventually have to build larger plants with more capacity. Luckily, in Nevada, we have some real choices and possibilities because of the sheer quantities of land available to us (and the 300 days of sunlight a year). However, the majority of states don't have that luxury.

[NorthSideSox72]

We already have that, as I understand it. We own, or contract for the rights to operate, several small renewable energy plants (I believe there are seventy or so in our system currently) which range from geothermal, solar, wind, biomass, hydro, etc. In the system I work in, we probably get 10-15 % of our capacity from sources such as these.

 

To really make a dent, and to have any chance of coming anywhere near the cost of fossil fuel costs, you're going to eventually have to build larger plants with more capacity. Luckily, in Nevada, we have some real choices and possibilities because of the sheer quantities of land available to us (and the 300 days of sunlight a year). However, the majority of states don't have that luxury.

No, you are missing my point (and I admit I was vague).

 

I mean fully distributed. Kind of like distributed computing. I mean making sure that any grid is capable of net billing, and is efficient at net power production and distribution. You then target individual energy users (homeowners and businesses) via R+D funded tech and tax incentives to do what they can individually to reduce energy use (smarter or better equipment, insulation, etc.), and to produce their own (solar primarily for homes, but also wind or other methods for larger facilities). Don't focus solely on plant production (though you will still need some of that). Next level up from that, as well, is community-based energy. neighborhoods or associations build small cooperative plants, that just have a small field of solar panels or wind turbines or water mills or whatever is locally appropriate, going back into the grid, with either a localized billing net or an association set up to distribute the credit.

 

I just think that the best way to stay agile and avoid the kind of behind-tech commitment you are fearing is to build a system that is smaller and more agile by nature.

 

[iamshack]

No, you are missing my point (and I admit I was vague).

 

I mean fully distributed. Kind of like distributed computing. I mean making sure that any grid is capable of net billing, and is efficient at net power production and distribution. You then target individual energy users (homeowners and businesses) via R+D funded tech and tax incentives to do what they can individually to reduce energy use (smarter or better equipment, insulation, etc.), and to produce their own (solar primarily for homes, but also wind or other methods for larger facilities). Don't focus solely on plant production (though you will still need some of that). Next level up from that, as well, is community-based energy. neighborhoods or associations build small cooperative plants, that just have a small field of solar panels or wind turbines or water mills or whatever is locally appropriate, going back into the grid, with either a localized billing net or an association set up to distribute the credit.

 

I just think that the best way to stay agile and avoid the kind of behind-tech commitment you are fearing is to build a system that is smaller and more agile by nature.

 

Well, there are programs like that in place. We have something called DSM, which stands for Demand Side Management. This focuses on programs which utilities can work with customers in order to reduce energy demands on the utility while saving money for the customer. One such program is called Cool Share, which allows the utility to control the compressor of the customer's central air conditioning system during particular hours on particular days (such as when the customer knows they will not be home). This reduces consumption, while at the same time saves the customer money. I know there are other programs under the DSM umbrella, I am just not certain of the particulars of all of them.

 

In regards to the community-based energy you refer to, who is going to pay to maintain a community wind turbine? Who is going to pay to install the solar panels? While I appreciate the idea of staying agile, these are incredibly inefficient ways in which to provide alternative energy. You're talking about power that is going to cost 5 times or more what fossil fuels cost at a time when many consumers are complaining about the price of fossil fuels.

[NorthSideSox72]

Well, there are programs like that in place. We have something called DSM, which stands for Demand Side Management. This focuses on programs which utilities can work with customers in order to reduce energy demands on the utility while saving money for the customer. One such program is called Cool Share, which allows the utility to control the compressor of the customer's central air conditioning system during particular hours on particular days (such as when the customer knows they will not be home). This reduces consumption, while at the same time saves the customer money. I know there are other programs under the DSM umbrella, I am just not certain of the particulars of all of them.

 

In regards to the community-based energy you refer to, who is going to pay to maintain a community wind turbine? Who is going to pay to install the solar panels? While I appreciate the idea of staying agile, these are incredibly inefficient ways in which to provide alternative energy. You're talking about power that is going to cost 5 times or more what fossil fuels cost at a time when many consumers are complaining about the price of fossil fuels.

Of course it costs more right now - this is the natural curve that pretty much all technology follows. And usually, if we are talking about personal computers or blu ray players, there is no need for the government to interfere with the slow progression to cheapness of those technologies (because they are luxury items). In this case, as we all seem to agree to some extent, you cannot just wait around for that to progress naturally. You need to fund R&D, and/or consumer demand, via grants or tax breaks or the like. This is true regardless of where or how you employ the system.

 

So IMO, you promote both. You fund R&D, you give tax breaks to utilities, businesses and consumers. You find ways to make sure the grid can handle various different models, and see what bubbles to the top. In any case, what you don't do, is look at it from a purely large-plant energy production model point of view. That's like trying to build a PC while thinking like a mainframe architect. Yes, the mainframe is more efficient for computing power, but its not necessarily the best model (client-server).

 

[iamshack]

Of course it costs more right now - this is the natural curve that pretty much all technology follows. And usually, if we are talking about personal computers or blu ray players, there is no need for the government to interfere with the slow progression to cheapness of those technologies (because they are luxury items). In this case, as we all seem to agree to some extent, you cannot just wait around for that to progress naturally. You need to fund R&D, and/or consumer demand, via grants or tax breaks or the like. This is true regardless of where or how you employ the system.

 

So IMO, you promote both. You fund R&D, you give tax breaks to utilities, businesses and consumers. You find ways to make sure the grid can handle various different models, and see what bubbles to the top. In any case, what you don't do, is look at it from a purely large-plant energy production model point of view. That's like trying to build a PC while thinking like a mainframe architect. Yes, the mainframe is more efficient for computing power, but its not necessarily the best model (client-server).

 

Oh believe me, I understand you're going to have the higher costs at the outset. What I guess I am saying is that we have reached a point where the utility can operate the smaller alternative sources such as geothermal and smaller wind and solar projects fairly efficiently. And private enterprise in certainly driving wind projects across the west right now. But to me anyways, the main obstacles remaining are those which are going to require massive investment into infrastructure as well as more R & D, and I would rather pour the funding into that now, so that we may accomplish things on a greater and more inexpensive scale 5-10 years down the road rather than wasting huge sums of money now making extremely minor gains.

 

The time has come where major progress is needed. We don't have time right now to move from vinyl to cassette tape to compact discs to digital. We need to move straight from vinyl to digital in one fell swoop. In my opinion, the only way to do so is to pour as much funding into the R & D as possible now, as to allow for much larger gains later.

Edited August 18, 2009 by iamshack

[EvilMonkey]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/19/uk-a...to-be-involved/