267 replies to this topic

[Steve Scheifler]

Almost forgot, we also no longer routinely burn our garbage in the back yard or dump our sewage in the creeks and rivers upstream from the next town.

Have you ever spent time in those other countries, away from tourist areas? I have, lived in the tegion for 5 years. Trust me, by comparison we’re doing pretty damn good looking after the environment despite what you may have learned in school.

[Jason J Ball]

If the math is what you have a problem with, I'm skeptical that you are interested in discussing or participating in actual solutions.  If the data is to be believed, you can add "good ole" UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Australia, Canada, EU, Russia, and Mexico, to your list of bad guy energy hogs.  If "per capita" is what is important, the U.S. is "only"  7th worst.  Vox cleverly listed only G20 countries in a recent article, which skews the per capita data so that the U.S. looks the worst. 

 

I don't think the per capita metrics are very useful in this case.  As I said, even a 100% reduction in energy consumption and/or C02 emissions from the 4% of the global population that are Americans, would appear to not move the global needle.  Turn the thermostat down, ride your skateboard to work, cheerlead for 54.5 MPG cars, put solar cells on the wrong side of your house so that passers-by can see it and applaud, but none of it adds up to an actual solution. 

 

I couldn't load your source data, but your excerpt of it seems to agree with the same data I posted.  China emits 30% of the global total.  Small efforts there will add up to more than large efforts hdere.

 

On balance, it would appear that your position is that Americans, Canadians, Europeans, Russians, and wealthy Middle Eastern countries should greatly reduce their energy consumption and emissions.  Do you have any proposals on how to do that? 

 

We could, for example, eliminate immigration except for people that come from equally energy-hogging locales.  We could implement a "child-rearing" tax (or a limit on how many children we can have), a dog-owning tax, a beef-eating tax, maybe an almond tax for our vegan friends.  We could increase the cost of airfare, since air travel is awful for the environment, and only global 1%-ers can afford to fly.

 

As I've said 2 or 3 times, my focus is on real solutions.  I'm a little too polite to tell you that your argument had no merit, but it would have more merit if it was focused on something other than the politically convenient and popular trope of making the 4% of Americans the most often or only mentioned "bad guy" in the energy spectrum.

 

Imagine there are 100 people in your "neighborhood".  One family of 4 (i.e. 4% of the neighborhood) uses 5 times more water than the average.  If we can get them to use only twice the average, or we poison them with VW TDI fumes until they pass out and consume no water at all, the mere fact that they are ONLY 4% and they are using ONLY 5 times more than the average, results in those 4 people not being able to affect the fate of the Titanic.  It is parametric sensitivity, and it doesn't care about anyone's feelings or who is in the White House.

 

Do we want to "feel" right, or do we want a solution?  The bottom 40%-ile energy consumers in Mexico are still consuming more energy PER CAPITA than the the next 120+ countries after them.  So what?

 

"Conservation", even in energy hog nations, would appear to not be a feasible solution ...  just like asking people to not use horses would have likely failed to solve America's largest environmental problem in 1894. 

 

I'm optimistic that a family of technological solutions will solve climate change - but it would help if the cool kids and the political operatives once known as "The Press" would help us get there. 

It's not tribalism to want to be a good steward of the environment. Why should we not reduce our personal consumption? We are supposed to be world leaders. The greatest nation on earth, which we've recently, inexplicably, abdicated our role. Is it possible to get to a "per capita" usage like China? Sure! Arguing it won't make a difference doesn't help anyone. "Ah, it doesn't effect me so why bother" is a weird position to take. Should we continue to push for greater fuel economy, yes. There are challenges to that lead to diminishing returns. Electric cars will outnumber gasoline engines within 10yrs, possibly even in the next 5 if Elon Musk can get production kinks worked out.

 

The biggest gains we can make are simply re-organizing and better utilizing existing technologies. Using peaker grid systems to avoid over producing power is huge. Using solar/wind to supplement with battery storage to smooth peak demand times also works. Necessity breeds innovation, that's the role government regulation needs to play. "Meh, regulation is bad!" Well it's better than continuing to kick that can down the road and let the next generation clean up after us. 

 

Many small changes can add up to big gains. My house generates between 300-600kWh every month. This month I've generated 58% of the energy my home uses. I am also limited by the local power authority to having only 16 panels (4.6kW grid), I could have an additional 24 on the roof (6.9kW) but then I wouldn't need the power company at all. I also live in NC where we have 265 days of clear sun and the rear of my house faces south. But so what if the panels were on the front of the house? If everyone has them, how can it be a deterrent or value reducing? Tesla makes solar roof cells that look like tiles and/or standard shingles. Cost is prohibitive right now, but cost will come down. We installed solar on my house last year for $15k (<10yr payback), in 2013 the cost was $28k. 

[Steve Scheifler]

Jason, my prior two posts cover most of it for me, but I’ll repeat that of course we CAN do better, and we ALWAYS do. I’m an Elon Musk fan in many ways but face it, if everyone went electric cars next year the power grid would melt down. But that won’t happen because they can’t even begin to get enough raw materials for the batteries (just not enough child labor to work in toxic environments). And nobody ever publishes the true ecological impact of creating, transporting, installing, maintaining and recycling all the batteries, solar cells, and other wonderful stuff you are so proud of. Where were your panels made, by whom, with what labor and at what impact on the planet? You are proud of under 10 years to break even financialy, but all your green rhetoric is scornful of such considerations. What is the true environmental break-even compared to natural gas generated electricity, or nuke power? If you have not looked into that then all your preaching falls flat. My goal is not to put you down, but does that make sense?

These is no quick fix, period. We have given up on what was probably the best solution overall, nukes, but we are steadily moving towards alternatives. Unfortunately we can’t seem to do that without dividing into camps at the extremes. If either side was given a free reign things would be a LOT worse, so we’ll just keep watching the extremes call each other stupid, dishonest and down right evil as we somehow maintain a reasonable course and speed.

[Jason J Ball]

Almost forgot, we also no longer routinely burn our garbage in the back yard or dump our sewage in the creeks and rivers upstream from the next town.

Have you ever spent time in those other countries, away from tourist areas? I have, lived in the tegion for 5 years. Trust me, by comparison we’re doing pretty damn good looking after the environment despite what you may have learned in school.

Pretty damn good "could" still cause our extinction. Until we recycle 100% and become more energy efficient, there's still lots of room for improvement. This "good enough" is loosing mentality. JMHO

 

P.S. Those regs that stopped power companies from dumping in local streams were rolled back immediately by our current admin. Yes they were just implemented, but companies will choose bottom line savings over doing the right thing 99 out of 100 times. 

[Danica Davison]

Guys and gals, let's just quit while we are behind.

 

Our carbon footprint is just too big now. With Bumble and Tinder, all of the bachelors and bachelorettes are spending too much time swiping and matching hotties, which requires the smartphones to be plugged in to a power source AT ALL TIMES because nobody wants to miss out on a good match to some other douche nozzle who got their first and obviously had a fully charged phone. And then, after hours of messaging back and forth with multiple potential matches while plugged in the whole time, you have to get in your  fastest gas guzzling whip, and drive these fine ladies all over town. Of course, you would take the long scenic route so you can spend more time with them.  Next thing you know, you are just sitting in the car with the car running for no reason at all, just talking until things hopefully get a little exciting. Time flies fast when you are having a good time and distracted by a pretty girl, and the next thing you know ... you have been sitting in the car for two hours with it running. You will need to give every millennial and generation Z kid a smartcar or a Tesla to curb all of those emissions.  It is just impossible to minimize this behavior, and for that, you are all too late to make changes.

[speedengineer]

...

Many small changes can add up to big gains. My house generates between 300-600kWh every month. This month I've generated 58% of the energy my home uses. I am also limited by the local power authority to having only 16 panels (4.6kW grid), I could have an additional 24 on the roof (6.9kW) but then I wouldn't need the power company at all. I also live in NC where we have 265 days of clear sun and the rear of my house faces south. But so what if the panels were on the front of the house? If everyone has them, how can it be a deterrent or value reducing? Tesla makes solar roof cells that look like tiles and/or standard shingles. Cost is prohibitive right now, but cost will come down. We installed solar on my house last year for $15k (<10yr payback), in 2013 the cost was $28k. 

 

450 kWh/month * 0.12 $/kWh * 12 months/year * 10 years = $6480, which is far short of paying back the $15k investment cost.  Factor in the opportunity cost of $15k, as well as future solar system maintenance costs, and solar is less favorable from a financial standpoint.  Was the $15k before or after the federal rebate?

 

I'm actually in favor of home solar.  When you spec and install the systems yourself rather than paying an installer, cost is about half, and then you really can break even in around 10 years.  I nearly installed a 4kW system on my house this spring, but just too many other projects going on.  Hopefully public opinion and comprehension of solar systems will improve in the coming years, and that will solve the issue of home sale values, etc. 

 

 

PS:  I can't wait until everyone is driving electric vehicles....gasoline will be so cheap!!!

[Jason J Ball]

Steve,

 

There are environmental costs in everything. Solar and battery production mining does have a significant environmental impact. But compare it to the impact of our existing power generation methods, it "could" be argued that it is far more environmentally friendly. I agree with you on nukes as being a viable alternative until you get to the storage of no longer usable fissile material. Then no one wants it stored in their back yard. The NRC is bloated and over cautious IMO, but for good reason. It makes nukes not cost effective. Solar will consistently beat coal generation on the cost/kWh curve in the next 5yrs. ($0.10kWh vs. $0.05-$0.17kWh [Forbes]) Wind is currently the cheapest, but it also has it's drawbacks. 

[Steve Scheifler]

Pretty damn good "could" still cause our extinction. Until we recycle 100% and become more energy efficient, there's still lots of room for improvement. This "good enough" is loosing mentality. JMHO

P.S. Those regs that stopped power companies from dumping in local streams were rolled back immediately by our current admin. Yes they were just implemented, but companies will choose bottom line savings over doing the right thing 99 out of 100 times.

Despite stating it multiple times and adding emphasis you seem to have missed me saying that we can, should, and will continue to do better. Worse yet, you then added “good enough” out of thin clean air (have you seen photos from a century ago BTW?), and went on to dodge my questions.

This is EXACTLY how people on both sides of almost any important debate lose all credibility and only alienate anyone they might otherwise sway. Congratulations on being part of the problem rather than the solution.

[Johnny D]

[Jason J Ball]

450 kWh/month * 0.12 $/kWh * 12 months/year * 10 years = $6480, which is far short of paying back the $15k investment cost.  Factor in the opportunity cost of $15k, as well as future solar system maintenance costs, and solar is less favorable from a financial standpoint.  Was the $15k before or after the federal rebate?

 

I'm actually in favor of home solar.  When you spec and install the systems yourself rather than paying an installer, cost is about half, and then you really can break even in around 10 years.  I nearly installed a 4kW system on my house this spring, but just too many other projects going on.  Hopefully public opinion and comprehension of solar systems will improve in the coming years, and that will solve the issue of home sale values, etc. 

 

 

PS:  I can't wait until everyone is driving electric vehicles....gasoline will be so cheap!!!

The payback includes a slow increase in the reimbursement rate per kWh. Current rate is $0.125/kWh renegotiated after 5 yrs. $15k-$4.5k (tax savings). Averaging 485kWh/month and we are just getting into peak generation almost 600kWh in March, 700kWh April, this month is trending to 750kWh. At a 550 ave. it's $8250 at the 10 yr mark with no increase in reimbursement. Panels are good for 20 yrs. And we had the money laying around. Gotta offset my chick car hobby somehow!

[Steve Scheifler]

Steve,

There are environmental costs in everything. Solar and battery production mining does have a significant environmental impact. But compare it to the impact of our existing power generation methods, it "could" be argued that it is far more environmentally friendly. I agree with you on nukes as being a viable alternative until you get to the storage of no longer usable fissile material. Then no one wants it stored in their back yard. The NRC is bloated and over cautious IMO, but for good reason. It makes nukes not cost effective. Solar will consistently beat coal generation on the cost/kWh curve in the next 5yrs. ($0.10kWh vs. $0.05-$0.17kWh [Forbes]) Wind is currently the cheapest, but it also has it's drawbacks.

So you haven’t added it up. Without that and a reasonable impact delta between options we really don’t know how guilty to feel or what the per impact-unit cost is of forcing things to move faster at all cost. A pretty tough argument to make, which is why fear and hyperbole is so popular.

Danica, are you seriously trying to bring cell phones into the power consumption equation???

[Steve Scheifler]

The payback includes a slow increase in the reimbursement rate per kWh. Current rate is $0.125/kWh renegotiated after 5 yrs. $15k-$4.5k (tax savings). Averaging 485kWh/month and we are just getting into peak generation almost 600kWh in March, 700kWh April, this month is trending to 750kWh. At a 550 ave. it's $8250 at the 10 yr mark with no increase in reimbursement. Panels are good for 20 yrs. And we had the money laying around. Gotta offset my chick car hobby somehow!

My fingers are so much slower than even my poor aged brain, I left out the opportunity cost, thanks Speed. Let’s look back in 10 years at how the S&P 500 has performed since your “investment “

My roof shingles are good for 20 years, in theory. No maintenance at all till then? I know I know, it isn’t really about the $, you’re just offering that for those who care, and beause you can’t really quantify the net environmental impact.

BTW, i’m an avid recycler, have made my house far more efficient at costs I will never recover and generally try to be responsible (other than race cars). I’ve even considered roof panels and may do them on a future home. I’m just starry eyed about what I’d be doing.

[Jason J Ball]

Despite stating it multiple times and adding emphasis you seem to have missed me saying that we can, should, and will continue to do better. Worse yet, you then added “good enough” out of thin clean air (have you seen photos from a century ago BTW?), and went on to dodge my questions.

This is EXACTLY how people on both sides of almost any important debate lose all credibility and only alienate anyone they might otherwise sway. Congratulations on being part of the problem rather than the solution.

I could say the same thing Steve about "despite what you learned in school"! We're on the same team. I didn't answer both posts. See your questions answered where I quoted them. 

[Jason J Ball]

My fingers are so much slower than even my poor aged brain, I left out the opportunity cost, thanks Speed. Let’s look back in 10 years at how the S&P 500 has performed since your “investment “

My roof shingles are good for 20 years, in theory. No maintenance at all till then? I know I know, it isn’t really about the $, you’re just offering that for those who care, and beause you can’t really quantify the net environmental impact.

Now my shingle under my panels are good for more than 20yrs! Nothing but panels and wire to replace. Wall mount inverter is good for 10yrs. And less than $1000 to replace. 

 

Can you quantify the current power system(s) environmental cost impact? Strip mining for coal, fracking for oil/nat gas, cost to species of dammed up rivers? I think we're at least equal on environmental impact. Do we include the cost of oil spills? 

Edited by Jason J Ball, 05-18-2018 01:53 PM.

[Steve Scheifler]

Now my shingle under my panels are good for more than 20yrs!

Got me there!

The “good enough” bit was egregious and frankly infuriating. If I am guilty of anything similar I’ll apologize and correct it.

[Jason J Ball]

Got me there!

The “good enough” bit was egregious and frankly infuriating. If I am guilty of anything similar I’ll apologize and correct it.

Steve,

 

The "good enough" wasn't directed at you. No offense intended. Just in the general attitude that comes from certain philosophies on climate change drives me crazy.

 

I'm on the side of pushing for energy efficiencies and less/no dependence on fossil fuels. Improving our power systems so that we are not wasting energy by over generating. Decentralization of the power grid and reducing the stranglehold that regional power authorities have on the grid.

 

I get accused of being a climate extremist. But my position is we only have one planet, we need to protect it. If I'm going to err, it will be on the side that protects the environment as much as we can. Some pain will inherently be felt economically and in our lifestyle. We still want our cake and to be able to eat it too. I fear we won't leave anything salvageable for future generations if we don't make changes and hence my angst using "good enough". It is better to find common ground and paths we can all work on. 

[Bench Racer]

Jason, should you accept, your next challenge is to rid the world waters of floating waste plastic.

 

Were you aware of the Chrysler Turbine car of development years 50's-70's? 

 

"However, by 1978 the company was encountering significant financial difficulties and new CEO Lee Iacocca needed U.S. government loan guarantees to avoid bankruptcy. A government condition of that 1979 deal was that the gas-turbine program be abandoned because they believed it was "too risky" for an auto company of Chrysler's size."

 

My question is, was this ^ the real reason for the project to be dumped or did other car companies play a roll.

[Michael Novak]

Jason wasn't even born yet when the turbines went away. The Chrysler turbines were all but done at that point anyway---neat yes---fuel efficient no.

 

They will run on almost anything which is pretty neat. The other car companies had no part in their demise. A friend of mine was in charge of the area where they kept all the extra stuff  in Highland Park ---that wasn't at the museum ---we spent afternoon about 15 years ago firing one of them up and a couple other cool old prototypes.

[MPR22]

We are working on the wrong problem. We waste most countries’ GDPs on our highway transportation system that is ridiculously expensive to build, maintain and replace. If we spent some real engineering and economic effort bringing three dimensional travel to our masses think of all the carbon credits we could save from the lack of traffic alone.

[Jason J Ball]

Jason, should you accept, your next challenge is to rid the world waters of floating waste plastic.

Were you aware of the Chrysler Turbine car of development years 50's-70's?

"However, by 1978 the company was encountering significant financial difficulties and new CEO Lee Iacocca needed U.S. government loan guarantees to avoid bankruptcy. A government condition of that 1979 deal was that the gas-turbine program be abandoned because they believed it was "too risky" for an auto company of Chrysler's size."

My question is, was this ^ the real reason for the project to be dumped or did other car companies play a roll.

Bench, scientist claim to have created and enzyme that breaks down plastic. What does it turn it into??? The pacific ocean garbage patch is huge and needs to be addressed.
Turbine cars are not very practical. I'm trying to convince my wife to buy a model S.