Originally Posted by Skabungus

After all, the Spanish are a wreck to begin with!

Unfortunately Obama has held them up as an exemplar.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Last time I heard the Chinese were building a coal fired power plant every 10 days. They use more coal than the US, European Union, and Japan combined.

Yes, this is true, yet the Chinese are making huge progress toward sustainable building technology in ways that make America's green building efforts seem silly. You seem to be looking for some all or nothing example and you wont find it. China, more than any other country, is pragmatic. Coal fired power plants for needs now and green building tech and alternative energy for the future.

Germany is cutting its FIT which has made it the largest solar market in the world. http://bit.ly/6b4x2J A German politician has made the statement "The current rate of support not only harms the consumer durable with extra electricity costs, it also impedes the technological breakthrough"

What you point to is the modification of a program in light of its success. Having used subsidies to get the program off the ground, they're removing the protections in order to make the industry strive to compete. The only reason they have to do this, is that they started the sector in the first place. Smells like success to me!

I hear what you are saying about nuggets although risking all on the success of sudden change, I would call more like cannon balls.

No, YOU said risking it all. I point to forging ahead into the future and not nattering about pain and temporary costs. Moving away from fossil fuels is not "risking it all" just as the development of the internal combustion engine was not "risking it all" in the move away from steam and mule power. Charaterizing it is such is unfair and not based on what those calling for it have said.

There is something that seems always to be left out of these comparisons. What is missing in the "see, they're not perfect either" statements (like yours about Germany and China), is what the future direction should be in light of the examples. The question is not "should we do what Germany, China, Netherlands and Spain are doing?" The question IS how can we move forward and do it BETTER THAN GERMANY, SPAIN, NETHERLANDS AND CHINA.

This is where the nuggets (or cannon balls) come in. When you see a competitor moving in the right direction (away from outmoded tech in the direction of new, renewable, clean tech) do you try to emulate them, or do you try to beat the snot out of them at their own game by doing them one better? I'd opt to do the latter, but, then again, I am a highly competitive person with a desire to be on top of the pile. I have no desire to sit on the sidelines because I was afraid of some cash out of pocket, some extra time spent, some job dislocation or some nameless fear of the unknown.

Americans are innovators, competitors and winners. Time to get the game on and come out of the 4T on top of the stack, free of fossil fuels, secure and prosperous. Nattering about getting on with it sounds very old world to me.

Originally Posted by wtrg8

Originally Posted by James50

What makes me nervous about the current dialog is that those who want to take measures to mitigate global warming and move away from fossil fuels try to sell it on the basis that we can do it at little or no cost. Tom Friedman and Barack Obama both talk about the wonderful green economy that will result. I am OK with the vision, but we need to tell the truth about what the transition will mean and not try to sell it on false pretenses.

The analogies of going to the moon or the Manhattan project to create a non-fossil based energy infrastructure don't hold much water with me. These were discrete engineering projects and did not involve a complete remake of our society.

If the Spanish experience is correct, the transition will cost jobs in the short run. There is still a case to do it, but we need to tell the truth about it. It is going to be a decades long effort and will require sacrifice. I don't know if we are capable of such an effort and sacrifice, but trying to get it started by telling people its going to be painless will backfire in the end.

You ask what should we do. My personal favorite is a carbon tax that increases over time and replaces part or all of the payroll tax (FICA). The basic idea is to raise taxes on something you don't want (carbon) and lower taxes on something you do want (work). There would still be a net cost to the economy, but maybe less impact on jobs which is the most sensitive to real people.

Silly Rabbit, you are being practical again. I agree with your process on Green Power and Taxes, but the other posters on this forum will have none of it.

The problem is pace. We waited too long, with every roadblock being carefully observed starting in 1974-5 when the first CAFE standards were bing discussed. Oh, there was great rending of fabric as the auto giants cried about the pain ... oh the pain, of having to do what they knew they should. This was going to cost money, and no one wanted that. Guess what, Mr. & Mrs. Motorist weren't interested either, and the only leader that actually tried to get them interested, Jimmy Carter, got no support or credit for trying.

So we're here now, and the time is growing short. All I hear is the same lame pleas for delay and less pain. Let's just say that we've been there; done that. Now we need to do something else. Electric cars have passed the proof of concept stage. Supporting charging stations is a lot easier than supplying gasoline to that distribution system. No more delay. Even going at flank speed. this will take 20 to 40 years to get finished, and that's about all we have.

Originally Posted by James50

You ask what should we do. My personal favorite is a carbon tax that increases over time and replaces part or all of the payroll tax (FICA). The basic idea is to raise taxes on something you don't want (carbon) and lower taxes on something you do want (work). There would still be a net cost to the economy, but maybe less impact on jobs which is the most sensitive to real people.

I like this idea. Something along these lines was floated by Anderson in 1980 (I liked that too) and went over like a lead balloon.

Have you done any calculations as to how much an effective carbon tax (one large enough to change energy use patterns) could raise? Would it actually change the payroll tax to a noticeable degree?

Originally Posted by James50

I have heard people on this board say things that sound very much like "Oh you just get rid of fossil fuels and replace with wind and solar and we will create jobs doing it".

We are not ever going to "just get rid of fossil fuels and replace them with wind and solar".

There isn't really anything to debate, the solution to the problem is obvious, but politically impossible. You yourself have proposed a version of it.

It's like the nuclear waste problem. Again, the solution is obvious, find some suitable repositories and then offer to pay the locals for its use. In a stroke you convert an undesirable (to be avoided) to a desirable (if the price is right). You can take competitive bids from various alternatives (including Yucca mountain) and go with the lowest bidder. The fee that is required to compensate those affected in exchange for accepting the repository then puts a cost on nuclear waste disposal, allowing a real cost to be calculated for nuke plants. Problem solved.

Just about all of our problems are like this.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The problem is pace. We waited too long, with every roadblock being carefully observed starting in 1974-5 when the first CAFE standards were being discussed. Oh, there was great rending of fabric as the auto giants cried about the pain ... oh the pain, of having to do what they knew they should. This was going to cost money, and no one wanted that. Guess what, Mr. & Mrs. Motorist weren't interested either, and the only leader that actually tried to get them interested, Jimmy Carter, got no support or credit for trying.

So we're here now, and the time is growing short. All I hear is the same lame pleas for delay and less pain. Let's just say that we've been there; done that. Now we need to do something else. Electric cars have passed the proof of concept stage. Supporting charging stations is a lot easier than supplying gasoline to that distribution system. No more delay. Even going at flank speed. this will take 20 to 40 years to get finished, and that's about all we have.

Well nothing is going to happen at flank speed. Twenty years from now the energy mix will not be too different from what it is now. Same thing will be the case in 40 years if the world continues to function as it has. So what you fear is going to happen. What exactly do you fear?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

We are not ever going to "just get rid of fossil fuels and replace them with wind and solar".

We do that, or we lose the liveability of our Earth forever. Plus there are other green alternatives to wind and solar as well.

There isn't really anything to debate, the solution to the problem is obvious, but politically impossible. You yourself have proposed a version of it.

It's like the nuclear waste problem. Again, the solution is obvious, find some suitable repositories and then offer to pay the locals for its use. In a stroke you convert an undesirable (to be avoided) to a desirable (if the price is right). You can take competitive bids from various alternatives (including Yucca mountain) and go with the lowest bidder. The fee that is required to compensate those affected in exchange for accepting the repository then puts a cost on nuclear waste disposal, allowing a real cost to be calculated for nuke plants. Problem solved.

You can't charge a fee to those who will have to live with it thousands of years from now. Nucs are unsafe; we need to use safe and clean energy. And yes we need to switch right away. We don't have even 20 to 40 years, according to the scientists; we need to go at flank speed as M&L said. Exactly; or maybe "breakneck speed" would be the word. Those who may suffer economic consequences are mainly a few rich people; to hell with them, they are already taken care of. The cost to big companies is not even an issue; green is MUCH cheaper already. As for others who may be effected; changes in tech happen all the time; markets and industries come and go; often within a few years at most. That's the way things are. DVDs replace VCRs. Desktop computers replace graphic design shops. The internet has doomed many record stores and newspapers. In the same way, electric cars will replace gas guzzlers, and charging stations will replace gas pumps. Sometimes the process needs to be prodded by government for the sake of the public good. We need to adjust, and some people have to switch jobs, and we need to have enough concern for the millions of people and species being affected by the environmental crisis (not to mention the outrageous gas prices that generate huge, unnecessary profits for the oil men and hurts our economy) to stop making excuses and get going. It would be nice, and good for our economy, if more of us could drive or travel by mass transit to places more often again, without our conscience as well as our wallet being heavily affected!

Tesla Motors and Toyota are replacing the old auto Toyota/GM plant in Fremont CA with a new electric car plant. Way to go!

Some here are forgetting that if we don't get ourselves off fossil fuels there will BE NO FUTURE, as global warming gets worse and Peak Oil hits. We need to be building nuclear plants and renewable energy projects ASAP, same with electric cars and high-speed rail.

Of course the Denialists will have their heads in the sand even as South Florida and Holland disappear beneath the waves.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

We do that, or we lose the liveability of our Earth forever.

Forever is a long time. I know you mean well, but I really hope you will use your head as well as your heart. If life on earth is threatened in the way you say (and I don't think it is), we are doomed already. Nothing is going to change that fast. Just to take utilities as one example, they have to make plans out 50 years. Siting new plants of any kind can take decades. The folks I know tasked with this responsibility just laugh when anyone talks about major changes to the grid system in anything less than 20 years.

James50

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I like this idea. Something along these lines was floated by Anderson in 1980 (I liked that too) and went over like a lead balloon.

Have you done any calculations as to how much an effective carbon tax (one large enough to change energy use patterns) could raise? Would it actually change the payroll tax to a noticeable degree?

I have not done the calculations, but there are proposals out there. $10-15/ton CO2 seems to be the starting point with increases of $10/yr. There is a lot here: http://www.carbontax.org/

I really don't understand how cap and trade has garnered so much attention. My cynical side thinks it is because it will offer the political class so many opportunities for graft. It does not work in Europe and won't work here.

James50

I think that a transition away from fossil fuels could be sold as a sort of jobs program. In terms of mobilization, the effort could be compared to Rosie the Riveter building warplanes and battleships for World War II.

I remember that back in the 2000 presidential campaign Gore proposed a modest 5 cent rise in the Federal gas tax every year for a decade with the proceeds going to fund non carbon based energy projects. At the time gas was still under $1.50 a gallon and the Bush campaign cried as if such a plan would be the end of the American dream.

Originally Posted by James 50

Nothing is going to change that fast. Just to take utilities as one example, they have to make plans out 50 years. Siting new plants of any kind can take decades. The folks I know tasked with this responsibility just laugh when anyone talks about major changes to the grid system in anything less than 20 years.

Which makes it all the more a shame that we've already thrown away that decade.
We'd be almost through that rise and many currently unfunded plans might already be getting somewhere.

A Setback for Geoengineering?

Seeking to alter nature in order to compensate for our sloppy living is the wrong way to go about fixing the matter. GMO's, seeding the ocean and other science based solutions cause all kinds of unintended consequences and never deliver the results as promised.

A better method is the application of science to create more efficient, sustainable methods of living without causing undue impacts on the planet.

Interesting chart i ran into at the Weather Underground weather site:



without Anthropogenic influence things should have COOLED OFF slightly. Note how the divergence begins around 1960.

Maps of anticipated novel climates. Click on map for enlargement.

No analog ecological communities-defined

Originally Posted by James50

Forever is a long time. I know you mean well, but I really hope you will use your head as well as your heart. If life on earth is threatened in the way you say (and I don't think it is), we are doomed already. Nothing is going to change that fast. Just to take utilities as one example, they have to make plans out 50 years. Siting new plants of any kind can take decades. The folks I know tasked with this responsibility just laugh when anyone talks about major changes to the grid system in anything less than 20 years.

James50

Maybe the folks you know are out in Georgia? I don't know who you know, of course; but since in many places the transition has already begun, it won't take 20 years.

My point is that if the resources are given to transition in anything like what is now given to business as usual, things could change much quicker. It doesn't take that long to plan and build a power plant. Many plants today come on line a lot quicker than 20 years. How fast are the Chinese building coal plants, for example? 20 years ago, I don't even think they had pipe dreams of what exists today.

I think your point of view is conditioned by, among other things, that "you don't think life is threatened in the way I say." Get up to speed on the facts, and then I don't think you'll be saying it takes too long to change. Where there is a need and a will, things can be done much quicker. Out there in the red states, it's harder for people to see the facts. You guys don't get the right voices.

It's likely all about profit. Right now big oil and big coal get a lot more of this by charging exorbitant gas prices and knowing the people will pay them. Government needs to act to change this equation. A little push, and new things will be available.

Some energy companies are changing. Our PG&E is very reactionary, and yet they have phased out coal almost completely, just recently. It CAN be done.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Our PG&E is very reactionary, and yet they have phased out coal almost completely, just recently. It CAN be done.

I think you make my point. What you call "reactionary" is just your interpretation of what the engineers say can be done. CA still imports a lot of coal power from outside the state, depends on natural gas to stabilize the grid, and has some of the highest power rates in the country so don't get too high on your horse.

Incidentally, the same people who are knowledgeable about the grid also say that with the controls that are needed now for a coal plant that nuclear is cheaper than coal. There may be some merchant power plants built in GA, but it is very unlikely any more coal plants will be built by the utility company. They are going nuke.

James50

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Out there in the red states, it's harder for people to see the facts. You guys don't get the right voices.

The gratuitous put downs do get tiresome. There is big world outside California, and it is not populated by drooling sub-humans, but rather your fellow countrymen.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

The gratuitous put downs do get tiresome. There is big world outside California, and it is not populated by drooling sub-humans, but rather your fellow countrymen.

James50

Just because they are fellow citizens, doesn't mean they aren't dead wrong! Argumentum Ad Populorum is a fallacy. If the majority of my fellow citizens, say, reject Evolution, I am going to call them ignorant nimrods.

Originally Posted by Odin

Just because they are fellow citizens, doesn't mean they aren't dead wrong!

You sound like a boomer.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

You sound like a boomer.

James50

No, just an Aspie who doesn't get why people can't see obvious facts! I have always hated the Silent-esque Postmodernist "you are entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine" response when people are simply factually WRONG.

Originally Posted by Odin

No, just an Aspie who doesn't get why people can't see obvious facts! I have always hated the Silent-esque Postmodernist "you are entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine" response when people are simply factually WRONG.

I have found in my life that that kind of moral certainty is destructive of people and relationships. I don't recommend it as a life strategy.

James50

Denmark has an interesting way of testing windmills. Cut down 15 km2 of forest.

http://www.nationalttestcenter.dk/nyheder/english

James50