hot enough for ya?
Moderator: Dux
-
Topic author - Sergeant Commanding
- Posts: 6797
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm
Re: hot enough for ya?
ice out happens 7 days earlier than 100 years ago on this alaskan river. there's graph with a trend line and some mildly interesting comments, as people debate the reliability of what is shown. a bit like the overall climate debate in miniature
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... /#comments
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... /#comments
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.
-
- Lifetime IGer
- Posts: 21247
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
- Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan
Re: hot enough for ya?
What's true is that energy costs are regressive, that governments are poor at picking winners (i.e.dead man walking wrote:that's a nice idea but not how it works in the world. the amount of clean power brought online by choice is tiny compared to the amount developed because of mandated markets (like portfolio requirements) and subsidies.Turdacious wrote: Allowing people to choose clean power is the best way to increase clean power consumption.
the only way you can have an honest power market is if all the cost of fossil fuels (including health and environmental costs) are reflected in the price in the marketplace. those costs remain hidden in many cases. you can compare the price off coal to gas to wind, but those comparisons are warped by hidden costs that show up elsewhere (like hospital admissions for asthma or loss of habitat).
this is an old argument that should be familiar to all. it's true, yet still not the way our market is structured.
ethanol), and that a competitive green energy market is very near.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
-
- Lifetime IGer
- Posts: 21247
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
- Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan
Re: hot enough for ya?
Name a type of power production that isn't subsidized.Grandpa's Spells wrote:You're writing this as if you're unaware of the massive government substitutes to the fossil fuel industry. The solar/wind crowd have long said they'd happily compete on a level playing field.Turdacious wrote:The idea that governments should invest in the clean power sector is a little outdated- the private market sees the need to invest in clean power for their own benefit (cell phone batteries, electric cars, etc...) which far surpasses the ability of governments to pick winners (i.e. ethanol).
Allowing people to choose clean power is the best way to increase clean power consumption.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
-
- Lifetime IGer
- Posts: 11367
- Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:08 pm
Re: hot enough for ya?
Now you're ignoring degree.
One of the downsides of the Internet is that it allows like-minded people to form communities, and sometimes those communities are stupid.
-
Topic author - Sergeant Commanding
- Posts: 6797
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm
Re: hot enough for ya?
wholesale electricity markets opened up, what?, 15 years ago. ownership of generation is no longer entirely in the hands of monopoly utilities. so yes, electricity markets are more competitive, and wind and solar have done well, thanks in part to state and federal support.Turdacious wrote:What's true is that energy costs are regressive, that governments are poor at picking winners (i.e.dead man walking wrote:that's a nice idea but not how it works in the world. the amount of clean power brought online by choice is tiny compared to the amount developed because of mandated markets (like portfolio requirements) and subsidies.Turdacious wrote: Allowing people to choose clean power is the best way to increase clean power consumption.
the only way you can have an honest power market is if all the cost of fossil fuels (including health and environmental costs) are reflected in the price in the marketplace. those costs remain hidden in many cases. you can compare the price off coal to gas to wind, but those comparisons are warped by hidden costs that show up elsewhere (like hospital admissions for asthma or loss of habitat).
this is an old argument that should be familiar to all. it's true, yet still not the way our market is structured.
ethanol), and that a competitive green energy market is very near.
ethanol isn't energy policy. it's a blow job for farmers. conservative farm state pols are on their knees.
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.
-
- Lifetime IGer
- Posts: 21247
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
- Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan
Re: hot enough for ya?
Not really. The cleanest of the fossil fuels, natural gas, is competitive with the dirtiest, high sulfur coal, on current price; it's more competitive on long term outlook (there are decent odds that a Democrat will be in the WH in either four or eight years). Clean power fares relatively well compared to coal on this too.Grandpa's Spells wrote:Now you're ignoring degree.
And while government subsidies for fossil fuels may be larger in dollars, they are more heavily taxed (which, like the subsidy, is passed to consumers), and the subsidies are relatively less important to producers.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
-
- Lifetime IGer
- Posts: 21247
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
- Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan
Re: hot enough for ya?
Not talking about that that deregulation, but the one where public utilities allow consumers to pick the source of their power and charge different prices for each source.dead man walking wrote:wholesale electricity markets opened up, what?, 15 years ago. ownership of generation is no longer entirely in the hands of monopoly utilities. so yes, electricity markets are more competitive, and wind and solar have done well, thanks in part to state and federal support.Turdacious wrote:What's true is that energy costs are regressive, that governments are poor at picking winners (i.e.dead man walking wrote:that's a nice idea but not how it works in the world. the amount of clean power brought online by choice is tiny compared to the amount developed because of mandated markets (like portfolio requirements) and subsidies.Turdacious wrote: Allowing people to choose clean power is the best way to increase clean power consumption.
the only way you can have an honest power market is if all the cost of fossil fuels (including health and environmental costs) are reflected in the price in the marketplace. those costs remain hidden in many cases. you can compare the price off coal to gas to wind, but those comparisons are warped by hidden costs that show up elsewhere (like hospital admissions for asthma or loss of habitat).
this is an old argument that should be familiar to all. it's true, yet still not the way our market is structured.
ethanol), and that a competitive green energy market is very near.
ethanol isn't energy policy. it's a blow job for farmers. conservative farm state pols are on their knees.
Doing what you seem to be suggesting, i.e. making polluting fuels more expensive by either increased taxes or by restricting supply, is incredibly regressive because the poor face the brunt of the impact of these costs. Allowing people and businesses to pick cleaner energy sources and advertise it actually allows you to assign an economic value to being green. By the same logic, allowing people to produce their own green power (wind or solar primarily) and either consume it or sell it back to the PUCs, is excellent policy.
The other aspect is technology. The increases in battery technology (as DT points out in the Tesla thread, Tesla is in a very real sense a battery company), energy efficiency tech in building, ways to detect and increase energy efficiency, and increases in clean power production efficiency are all making solid contributions.
And you don't have to look at just ethanol, you can look at the loans that the Obama administration made to clean energy producers-- this wasn't a sector that lacked private capital, but the companies they invested in were ones that even VCs decided were too risky to continue to invest in.
Allow the market to work, and good things will happen. Everything else is just a recipe for failure or a massive circlejerk fantasy.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
-
Topic author - Sergeant Commanding
- Posts: 6797
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm
Re: hot enough for ya?
allowing electric customers to choose their suppliers has been around (in some states) for close to 20 years. the percentage that picks clean power is almost a rounding error (see below) of total electricity use.
state and federal mandates have been far more effective. no contest.
i am not proposing increasing taxes or restricting supply. i am proposing generators pay for their full costs. i have to pay to throw my trash away. generators should have to pay for throwing their trash in the air. that's what the sox cap and trade program does. i'm not sure how aggressive the nox program is, but same idea. mercury needs attention. co2 imposes a cost on society. their costs should be reflected in the price of coal, gas, and oil. there's nothing remotely controversial about this principle, i.e. externalities. the only problem is that polluters fight against fair markets--and often win.
many of the urban poor are paying for "cheap" power in the form of compromised health.
no free lunch, unless you're being treated by an oil company lobbyist.
note re green power purchases: "NREL's annual tracking of the voluntary market found that the U.S. voluntary green power market grew to 77.9 million megawatt-hours (MWh) in 2015." total consumption in in 2015 was 3.9 billion megawatt hours. voluntary green purchases amount to 2%, if you round up. by all means, check my math.
state and federal mandates have been far more effective. no contest.
i am not proposing increasing taxes or restricting supply. i am proposing generators pay for their full costs. i have to pay to throw my trash away. generators should have to pay for throwing their trash in the air. that's what the sox cap and trade program does. i'm not sure how aggressive the nox program is, but same idea. mercury needs attention. co2 imposes a cost on society. their costs should be reflected in the price of coal, gas, and oil. there's nothing remotely controversial about this principle, i.e. externalities. the only problem is that polluters fight against fair markets--and often win.
many of the urban poor are paying for "cheap" power in the form of compromised health.
no free lunch, unless you're being treated by an oil company lobbyist.
note re green power purchases: "NREL's annual tracking of the voluntary market found that the U.S. voluntary green power market grew to 77.9 million megawatt-hours (MWh) in 2015." total consumption in in 2015 was 3.9 billion megawatt hours. voluntary green purchases amount to 2%, if you round up. by all means, check my math.
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.
-
Topic author - Sergeant Commanding
- Posts: 6797
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm
Re: hot enough for ya?
p.s. you don't away scot free for your remark about fucked up subsidies during the obama era.
here's the cato inst on clean coal. fed losses on clean coal far exceed the amount lost on solyndra.
https://www.cato.org/blog/clean-coal-subsidies
here's the cato inst on clean coal. fed losses on clean coal far exceed the amount lost on solyndra.
https://www.cato.org/blog/clean-coal-subsidies
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.
-
- Lifetime IGer
- Posts: 21247
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
- Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan
Re: hot enough for ya?
Little hard to check your math when you don't provide sources.dead man walking wrote:allowing electric customers to choose their suppliers has been around (in some states) for close to 20 years. the percentage that picks clean power is almost a rounding error (see below) of total electricity use.
state and federal mandates have been far more effective. no contest.
i am not proposing increasing taxes or restricting supply. i am proposing generators pay for their full costs. i have to pay to throw my trash away. generators should have to pay for throwing their trash in the air. that's what the sox cap and trade program does. i'm not sure how aggressive the nox program is, but same idea. mercury needs attention. co2 imposes a cost on society. their costs should be reflected in the price of coal, gas, and oil. there's nothing remotely controversial about this principle, i.e. externalities. the only problem is that polluters fight against fair markets--and often win.
many of the urban poor are paying for "cheap" power in the form of compromised health.
no free lunch, unless you're being treated by an oil company lobbyist.
note re green power purchases: "NREL's annual tracking of the voluntary market found that the U.S. voluntary green power market grew to 77.9 million megawatt-hours (MWh) in 2015." total consumption in in 2015 was 3.9 billion megawatt hours. voluntary green purchases amount to 2%, if you round up. by all means, check my math.
Just a few points though-- power generators don't pay costs, their consumers do; forcing higher energy costs can have a lot of unintended consequences (like making American jobs less competitive). Also, good luck on the health component of the math; poor diets, obesity, and lack of physical activity far outweigh pollution as comorbid factors.
And if you're serious about clean power, why not push harder to make clean power more competitive. It isn't conservatives that are opposing fracking, wind generation off of Nantucket, demanding more environmental studies for solar farms, or trying to tear down hydroelectric dams.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
-
- Lifetime IGer
- Posts: 21247
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
- Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan
Re: hot enough for ya?
Clean coal is a lot like ethanol; the primary beneficiary was higher sulfur (i.e. higher polluting) coal producers, and the producers represented both red and blue states.dead man walking wrote:p.s. you don't away scot free for your remark about fucked up subsidies during the obama era.
here's the cato inst on clean coal. fed losses on clean coal far exceed the amount lost on solyndra.
https://www.cato.org/blog/clean-coal-subsidies


"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
-
- Lifetime IGer
- Posts: 21247
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
- Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan
Re: hot enough for ya?
And if you really want to bitch about coal...


"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
-
- Lifetime IGer
- Posts: 21247
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
- Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan
Re: hot enough for ya?
And regarding the Southern 'clean coal' power plant.
Makes my point pretty neatly. Mississippi Power's natural gas projections were way off, meaning that clean coal likely isn't competitive even with the subsidies and the cost of retrofitting the plant. Also-- it was approved by a coal state POTUS' EPA.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/8216clean- ... 74?tesla=yMississippi Power told the commission in 2009 that natural gas could hit $20 per million British thermal units and would drop no lower than $7.38 between 2014 and 2054.
Its forecast was made even after energy companies had discovered a way to pull gas from previously inaccessible shale-rock formations. The resulting glut means that natural-gas prices haven't topped $6 per million BTUs since January 2009. Today, they are around $3.75.
Jeff Burleson, vice president of system planning for Southern, says the projections look flawed today because the industry was "in transition from conventional gas to shale gas" in 2009.
The company in June 2010 won state approval to go ahead with the project.
Makes my point pretty neatly. Mississippi Power's natural gas projections were way off, meaning that clean coal likely isn't competitive even with the subsidies and the cost of retrofitting the plant. Also-- it was approved by a coal state POTUS' EPA.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
-
- Sergeant Commanding
- Posts: 7976
- Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 5:46 pm
- Location: TX
Re: hot enough for ya?
We can agree to disagree on the data, math, and "science" of global warming.
But a wise transition to natural gas, wind, solar, and nuclear with little local and federal government interference is wise. Battery technology while better, is still a challenge. Let industry and VC pursue it. Get out of the way.
But a wise transition to natural gas, wind, solar, and nuclear with little local and federal government interference is wise. Battery technology while better, is still a challenge. Let industry and VC pursue it. Get out of the way.
"Start slowly, then ease off". Tortuga Golden Striders Running Club, Pensacola 1984.
"But even snake wrestling beats life in the cube, for me at least. In measured doses."-Lex
"But even snake wrestling beats life in the cube, for me at least. In measured doses."-Lex
-
Topic author - Sergeant Commanding
- Posts: 6797
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm
Re: hot enough for ya?
turd and pl 54
i'd wager we don't have serious disagreements about the value of a transition to clean power, which has been happening and will continue. coal accounts for approximately 30% of our electrical generation, which is a much smaller share than it supplied a decade ago. the table at the link provides a decent snapshot of the change in our power mix.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly ... t=epmt_1_1
the economics favor gas today. wind is close, subsidies are a major factor in wind's rapid growth.
bernie introduced a bill to make the u.s. 100 percent renewable by 2050. that's called political theatre.
two observations: (1) nuclear has to have federal support. first, to cover liability. no private carrier will cover the risk, and there's no financing without the risk covered. second, we need the feds to have the balls to arrange for "permanent" storage. that's a political problem, not a scientific one, i believe. the whole "will it be safe for 10,000 years" spooks people.
(2) regarding the math for the health component of air quality. regulators already do the calculations whenever they approve a regulation. they attribute costs to sickness and premature death. an old guy like me is less valuable than you youngsters, but they put a value on human life and do cost/benefit calculations. undoing the clean power plan probably will require them to revisit the cost of human life. how many people will we allow to die so we can burn more coal? no one puts it that way, but that's part of the arithmetic.
i'd wager we don't have serious disagreements about the value of a transition to clean power, which has been happening and will continue. coal accounts for approximately 30% of our electrical generation, which is a much smaller share than it supplied a decade ago. the table at the link provides a decent snapshot of the change in our power mix.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly ... t=epmt_1_1
the economics favor gas today. wind is close, subsidies are a major factor in wind's rapid growth.
bernie introduced a bill to make the u.s. 100 percent renewable by 2050. that's called political theatre.
two observations: (1) nuclear has to have federal support. first, to cover liability. no private carrier will cover the risk, and there's no financing without the risk covered. second, we need the feds to have the balls to arrange for "permanent" storage. that's a political problem, not a scientific one, i believe. the whole "will it be safe for 10,000 years" spooks people.
(2) regarding the math for the health component of air quality. regulators already do the calculations whenever they approve a regulation. they attribute costs to sickness and premature death. an old guy like me is less valuable than you youngsters, but they put a value on human life and do cost/benefit calculations. undoing the clean power plan probably will require them to revisit the cost of human life. how many people will we allow to die so we can burn more coal? no one puts it that way, but that's part of the arithmetic.
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.
-
- Lifetime IGer
- Posts: 21247
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
- Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan
Re: hot enough for ya?
Connecting air quality to health costs and health outcome is a worthwhile way to look at things, but you have to have the ability to make the correlation. It's especially important because a lot of the cost is borne by people who don't pay for their own health care-- i.e. the cost is borne by people who pay more in taxes than the tax dollars they consume.dead man walking wrote:(2) regarding the math for the health component of air quality. regulators already do the calculations whenever they approve a regulation. they attribute costs to sickness and premature death. an old guy like me is less valuable than you youngsters, but they put a value on human life and do cost/benefit calculations. undoing the clean power plan probably will require them to revisit the cost of human life. how many people will we allow to die so we can burn more coal? no one puts it that way, but that's part of the arithmetic.
But can anyone really make any of those correlations in the US? No. Can other countries do it? Sometimes, yes. That still doesn't mean we can pull it off here.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
Re: hot enough for ya?
A pound of energy efficiency and conservation is with a bunch of pounds of energy production. Keep that in the crosshairs too.
Don’t believe everything you think.
-
Topic author - Sergeant Commanding
- Posts: 6797
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm
Re: hot enough for ya?
in some electricity markets, efficiency providers can sell reductions instead of generation.
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.
-
- Lifetime IGer
- Posts: 21247
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
- Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan
Re: hot enough for ya?
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05 ... ing-arcticGood news about climate change is especially rare in the Arctic. But now comes news that increases in one greenhouse gas—methane—lead to the dramatic decline of another. Research off the coast of Norway’s Svalbard archipelago suggests that where methane gas bubbles up from seafloor seeps, surface waters directly above absorb twice as much carbon dioxide (CO2) as surrounding waters. The findings suggest that methane seeps in isolated spots in the Arctic could lessen the impact of climate change [...]
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas. Molecule for molecule, it traps nearly 30 times as much heat in the atmosphere as CO2. But scientists know relatively little about its role in the global carbon cycle. Most atmospheric methane comes from biological sources—belching bovines and bacteria feasting on decomposing litter—or from the burning of fossil fuels.
If you love the planet don't listen to that Gaia hatin' DMW, drive a truck and eat moar steak.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
-
Topic author - Sergeant Commanding
- Posts: 6797
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm
Re: hot enough for ya?
and produce more heat-trapping methaneTurdacious wrote:Methane is a potent greenhouse gas. Molecule for molecule, it traps nearly 30 times as much heat in the atmosphere as CO2.. . . Most atmospheric methane comes from biological sources—belching bovines. . .
If you love the planet . . . eat moar steak.
are you sure your plan is going to work?
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.
-
- Lifetime IGer
- Posts: 21247
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
- Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan
Re: hot enough for ya?
No way the study would have been published in PNAS if it wasn't legit right?dead man walking wrote:and produce more heat-trapping methaneTurdacious wrote:Methane is a potent greenhouse gas. Molecule for molecule, it traps nearly 30 times as much heat in the atmosphere as CO2.. . . Most atmospheric methane comes from biological sources—belching bovines. . .
If you love the planet . . . eat moar steak.
are you sure your plan is going to work?
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/05/02/1618926114
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
-
Topic author - Sergeant Commanding
- Posts: 6797
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm
Re: hot enough for ya?
so we've got nothing to worry about. good to know.
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.
Re: hot enough for ya?
We should care about things we can influence. Not tossing the wrapper out of the car, not buying another piece of plastic that will eventually end up in the dumpster etc. As they say, you want to make the world better - start with yourself.dead man walking wrote:so we've got nothing to worry about. good to know.


-
- Sergeant Commanding
- Posts: 5058
- Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 11:13 am
- Location: The Usual Gang of Idiots
Re: hot enough for ya?
That's all well and good, but there comes a point where the things that need to change are beyond the power of the individual. I ride my bike to work, don't eat meat, reduce the amount of shit I buy and reuse and recycle as much as possible. But if I need to travel outside of my city I don't have a single option that's not fossil fuel powered. I could possibly afford solar for my roof, but I can't afford and certainly couldn't get city approval to cut down the trees that shade my roof.Sangoma wrote:We should care about things we can influence. Not tossing the wrapper out of the car, not buying another piece of plastic that will eventually end up in the dumpster etc. As they say, you want to make the world better - start with yourself.dead man walking wrote:so we've got nothing to worry about. good to know.
Some infrastructure level improvements are simply too large to be funded by private enterprise. At that point it's up to our government to make decisions on and provide funding for infrastructure projects that will best prepare us for the future. And what's best for our future is not always aligned with what's best for corporate wallets short term, or even citizens' wallets and convenience short term. That's why we elect our supposed best and brightest to go and make the hard decisions based on the best information. Instead, what we get is a bought and paid for system to maintain the status quo.
I don't have a lot of experience with vampires, but I have hunted werewolves. I shot one once, but by the time I got to it, it had turned back into my neighbor's dog.
-
Topic author - Sergeant Commanding
- Posts: 6797
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm
Re: hot enough for ya?
well said, alfred.
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.