The Energy Thread

Ah, thank you for digging that up.

Hedonics does seem to be the buzz topic among environmental economists lately, and yeah, it does seem obvious. Even the economist teaching the class was like "so this demonstrates that people do NOT like to live by superfund sites!", before slapping his forehead in mock shock.

Agreed on the energy thread, because we've probably derailed this one for long enough.

― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Thursday, 4 June 2009 14:09 (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

― Prince of Persia (Ed), Thursday, 4 June 2009 19:11 (3 years ago) Permalink

Economics as the science of stating the bleeding obvious strikes again. I think Hedonics, among other methods has more to play around the margins. At the AAAS StGlobal conference in Feb there was a philosopher from UCSD who was looking at some of these issues, critiquing CBA especially from the point of view of valuing intangibles and "the commons". I think I upset him when I suggested using a discrete choice method for providing, if not absolute valuations, then relative valuations within a community.

― Prince of Persia (Ed), Thursday, 4 June 2009 19:17 (3 years ago) Permalink

Economics as the science of stating the bleeding obvious strikes again.

lolz so true

― Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 4 June 2009 19:22 (3 years ago) Permalink

I think discrete choice is as promising a method as any, at least in the short term, but I'm not sure how useful it would be for the most controversial aspects of applying CBA to environmental problems in the long term - estimating the value of a statistical life and an appropriate discount rate.

― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Thursday, 4 June 2009 19:25 (3 years ago) Permalink

And I mean "i'm not sure" quite literally, because I'm certainly no expert on discrete choice method.

― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Thursday, 4 June 2009 19:25 (3 years ago) Permalink

i have only performed one discrete choice survey (and filled out a few) for a class, but anecdotally I think that respondents get bored quickly as the survey progresses. I'm sure there must be a way of weighting the early answers but I haven't seen it.

― Prince of Persia (Ed), Thursday, 4 June 2009 19:33 (3 years ago) Permalink

Z S are you going to stay connected with Academia inside the EPA?

― Prince of Persia (Ed), Thursday, 4 June 2009 19:35 (3 years ago) Permalink

There are a few professors I plan on staying in touch with. One of them, the aforementioned resource economics teacher, works with EPA on occasion. I think they give him grants. The situation with my other favorite professors is difficult. There are four of them I really like, and all of them are in their mid-80s, and kind of (finally) easing into full retirement.

― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Thursday, 4 June 2009 19:37 (3 years ago) Permalink

One of them, my thesis adviser, mentioned that he would try to help me get my thesis published, so that might be another way to stay connected.

Are you working at DOE?

― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Thursday, 4 June 2009 19:39 (3 years ago) Permalink

There appears to be a good revolving door between EPA, DoE and academia, with good reason, and plenty of insiders seem to publish and attend conferences. You should try an wring a couple of conference papers out of the grad school experience if you haven't already, it may help with progression through the DoE/EPA. This seems to be the message from the career talk at the STGlobal conference I mentioned earlier. Not a bad conference to target with a paper incidentally.

xpost

I am at CMU, in the department of Engineering an Public Policy(in the masters program but applying for Phd), we do a bunch of stuff with the DoE and EPA. We have a DC office and a series of live via teleconference seminars with government folks which has given me a little insight into what goes on. I applied for an internship there, an although they were happy to accept non-citizens, their system demanded an social security number, which I couldn't get until I had a confirmed job offer.

― Prince of Persia (Ed), Thursday, 4 June 2009 19:47 (3 years ago) Permalink

That is good advice on the conference papers, especially because sooner or later I'll probably be going back to school for a PhD. I'm a little frustrated now because I'll be working for two years in the Toxics Release Inventory division in EPA, which is interesting and all (I did a good amount of work and research on coal plants while I was at school), but not exactly the topic I want to tackle in the long term. Plus, I think a good amount of my job will involve the communication of environmental info to the public via the EPA's website. Again, interesting work, but I'd much rather be doing energy related stuff.

― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Thursday, 4 June 2009 19:55 (3 years ago) Permalink

When you do it sounds like the EPP Phd would be right up your street.

― Prince of Persia (Ed), Thursday, 4 June 2009 19:57 (3 years ago) Permalink

Definitely look at that ST Global conference it is aimed at grad students and postdocs and the standard was good in general and it was pretty relaxed. I will be targeting something for next year. Its in DC as well so nothing to loose really.

― Prince of Persia (Ed), Thursday, 4 June 2009 19:58 (3 years ago) Permalink

I guess I'm the lone private sector energy guy here then... Ed you were doing superfund cleanups or something before, right (or am I thinking of someone else?)

― Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 4 June 2009 19:59 (3 years ago) Permalink

That isn't me. Technically I am private sector right now as I am interning in a start-up.

― Prince of Persia (Ed), Thursday, 4 June 2009 20:01 (3 years ago) Permalink

xpost

I will, I have the page bookmarked now actually.

― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Thursday, 4 June 2009 20:01 (3 years ago) Permalink

Interesting short article on the availability of rare earth materials:

Renewing Our Dependence

― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Saturday, 6 June 2009 16:35 (3 years ago) Permalink

Shakey, I wonder if it's me you were thinking of - I was working on the Hanford cleanup for 3 years, then did 1+ year converting landfill gas to LNG to run the OCTA buses, and am now working for giant global company doing all sorts of smartgrid transmission and distribution R&D stuff. So yeah, private sector energy is my current venue. Also still supporting the LNG plant folks, and they are working on an interesting idea for a lower-energy compressor that uses flux fields from permanent magnets for parts of the compression stages.

― Jaq, Saturday, 6 June 2009 16:59 (3 years ago) Permalink

Ah! An energy thread! (rubs hands gleefully... poises hands over keyboard... brow contracts) Uh, what was the question?

― Aimless, Saturday, 6 June 2009 17:57 (3 years ago) Permalink

No question, really. Just rollin'.

― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Saturday, 6 June 2009 18:03 (3 years ago) Permalink

I am thinking about starting a thread exclusively dedicated to so-depressing-it's-almost-funny statements found in comment sections on climate change and energy blogs and articles.

e.g.

John Says:
June 5th, 2009 at 1:14 pm

It seems the so called deniers and so called warmist don’t know what they are talking about.

It is obvious that the earth cools and warms…..it has been HOT in the past and COLD in the past……thus will happen in the future….COLD and HOT!

or HOT then COLD! IT IS THAT DAM EASY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Someday I could compile 300-500 of these comments in a row into a cheap self-published zine and sell it on the street packaged with a cheap can of beer for $2.99.

― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Sunday, 7 June 2009 15:57 (3 years ago) Permalink

I get depressed by not just the lack of understanding but the total lack of curiosity about some of the most basic (and accessible) things. And non-existent critical thinking skills. I'd buy that zine (well, depending on what brand of beer maybe).

― Jaq, Sunday, 7 June 2009 17:18 (3 years ago) Permalink

I'm actually working on this zine now. I have a crazy excel spreadsheet with dozens of comments, divided up by date, website, topic (Conspiracy, Predictions, Greenies, Treason, LOL, Need More Warming, Socialism, etc) and username, and so on.

― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Sunday, 7 June 2009 22:01 (3 years ago) Permalink

I generally get most irritated by the eating lentils in the dark brigade. Although wilful stupidity on both sides is not helpful.

― Prince of Persia (Ed), Sunday, 7 June 2009 22:04 (3 years ago) Permalink

Linda B.:

"The people in charge in DC don't care about actual scientific facts. They just want to control us and raise taxes for their pet projects. GE wants to sell us windmills and Algore wants to profit from selling tracking software. He even lied to Congress under oath about that. No one is told that greenhouse gas is an unproven theory, and some think that cars spew co2. What are they teaching in schools these days."

― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Sunday, 7 June 2009 22:05 (3 years ago) Permalink

That is some next level idiocy right there.

― Prince of Persia (Ed), Sunday, 7 June 2009 22:06 (3 years ago) Permalink

OK so apparently I should have been in Long Beach today. I have finally discovered why I can't speak with any of the equipment manufacturers aI want as they are all at some car battery/supercap/large LiIon conference out there. We'd dismissed it as not worth going based on the presentations and never look at the exhibitors. (Damn your country for being so big and pittsburgh only having 1 direct a day to LA)

― Prince of Persia (Ed), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 14:33 (3 years ago) Permalink

man what ARE they teaching in schools these days

― Kitchen Paper Towel (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:18 (3 years ago) Permalink

I'm still moving forward with that zine idea: I have an Excel spreadsheet with 45 (and counting) hilarious, sad, stupefying, ridiculous comments on climate change that I could find, along with the poster, the date of the comment, the website, and the general topic (including conspiracy, global warming will be good for the world, left vs. right, it's snowing somewhere, ???, and LOL).

― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:20 (3 years ago) Permalink

Someday I could compile 300-500 of these comments in a row into a cheap self-published zine and sell it on the street packaged with a cheap can of beer for $2.99.

― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Sunday, June 7, 2009 10:57 AM (3 days ago) Bookmark

send me one, plz

― i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:21 (3 years ago) Permalink

like for real i would happily distribute these all over the place

― i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:22 (3 years ago) Permalink

I'm thinking of cramming a bunch of pseudonyms for enviros and climate change on the cover, too: Green Weenies, Global Warmingism, Gang Green Agenda, Warmists, Al Bore, Owlgore, Algore, Envirofascists, etc

― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:22 (3 years ago) Permalink

Owlgore

wait isn't this a noise band

― Kitchen Paper Towel (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:24 (3 years ago) Permalink

ha, thanks for the early support! I've never distributed a zine before, although I have made one just for me and my friends (the "1610 Anthony Beat", which provided the daily news for where I was living, complete with exhaustive coverage of what I thought the cats were thinking about). I'm going to try to make this one decent, lightly footnote the comments so that I can provide some actual information on the last page, and throw in some appropriate artwork.

― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:25 (3 years ago) Permalink

I like this pair:

I think that this type of indoctrination is pathetic. I have given my kids the information they need to shoot down most of the drivel that they are exposed to. One good letter to the teacher a couple of years ago and Bill Nye (Global Warming Moron Guy) was banished from the school. The kids have current events homework once a week and they always take debunking material in for that. We figure that way we are counter-acting the programing for the other kids as well. The down side is that some of the kids (including mine) have started to poke fun at teachers who insist on spouting the "end of the world" stuff. They get in trouble at school for it, but I buy em an ice cream on the way home from school.

and

"Growing up, my parents did a great job of letting me be a kid. I didn't know what was happening in Vietnam, the recession in the 70s, Watergate or the gas rationing. We were kids and our biggest decision was where to play today.

Today, adults think children need to know this crap. They change the school curriculum to address social problems in America, instead of teaching math, English, reading, history, etc. I would imagine these areas had to be cut, in terms of time spent on learning this, to include such wasteful topics as global warming, sex education, etc.

― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:31 (3 years ago) Permalink

"warmist"?

― cant go with u too many alfbrees (Abbott), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:37 (3 years ago) Permalink

I'm thinking of cramming a bunch of pseudonyms for enviros and climate change on the cover, too: Green Weenies, Global Warmingism, Gang Green Agenda, Warmists, Al Bore, Owlgore, Algore, Envirofascists, etc

― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 10:22 (11 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I spend a lot of time calling some very good friends who don't believe in technological solutions to climate change or that an attempt to maintain living standards in the west whilst mitigating climate change 'lentil eaters' after an outburst accusing them of wanting us all to eat lentils in the dark, but this is friendly jibe. (If i am feeling uncharitable I will tell my activist friends to go back to school and get an engineering degree if they want to change the world, I imagine wanting to change the world with an English Literature BA must be pretty frustrating, sometimes I a nasty cynical person.).

― Prince of Persia (Ed), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:38 (3 years ago) Permalink

You have to admit it IS kind of disconcerting that Bill Nye was apparently lurking around at the school like some creep all the time.

― cant go with u too many alfbrees (Abbott), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:40 (3 years ago) Permalink

My only worry is with copyright issues. Is there a copyright on comments published on a blog? I mean, I know that skirting around copyright has been central to zine culture from the very beginning, but I'd rather not have to deal with cease and desist letters either.

On the other hand, I do not expect (or even want) to make ANY money with this, only to recoup part of the printing/shipping costs.

― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:46 (3 years ago) Permalink

OMG you guys we might be running out of wind!

― Chubby Checker Psycho (Pancakes Hackman), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:48 (3 years ago) Permalink

I am a sort of energy guy as well - I work for a renewable energy company in a trading / marketing capacity, managing scheduling and contracts in the deregulated North-Eastern power markets. I have a business administration background and I'm working on an economics degree so I am extremely unlikely to solve any of the world's problems.

― Matt D, Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:57 (3 years ago) Permalink

Don't knock yourself, you are the guys who are going to make my stuff a success.

― Prince of Persia (Ed), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:59 (3 years ago) Permalink

yeah I don't have an engineering degree either - I kinda fell into this work after endless temp gigs at the local utility (PG&E)

― Kitchen Paper Towel (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 16:22 (3 years ago) Permalink

(altho that was a long time ago - I've been working for my current company for almost 10 years now)

― Kitchen Paper Towel (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 16:22 (3 years ago) Permalink

I imagine wanting to change the world with an English Literature BA must be pretty frustrating

dude for real

― i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 16:28 (3 years ago) Permalink

I'm not ragging on those without technical qualifications and realise the importance of advocacy, we wouldn't be this far along the road without it, I just favour a more directly practical approach.

― Prince of Persia (Ed), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 16:40 (3 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, good point: literature has never changed people's lives.

― Mr. Que, Wednesday, 10 June 2009 16:41 (3 years ago) Permalink

^^^^butthurt

― i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 16:42 (3 years ago) Permalink

:D

― i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 16:42 (3 years ago) Permalink

;)

― Mr. Que, Wednesday, 10 June 2009 16:42 (3 years ago) Permalink

you're the san francisco mitt romney

― iatee, Monday, 30 July 2012 16:32 (9 months ago) Permalink

I was just sort of stunned to receive this news, since in all other respects they have seemed pretty typical SF liberals. the nature of the work, on top of the huge dislocation involved (the kids are 3 and 4), I was just like ... really dude, no other jobs around here?

― Dunn O)))))))) (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 30 July 2012 16:37 (9 months ago) Permalink

aren't there some high tech, low emissions (or relatively low) coal plants? cf that new yorker article or something

― smells like ok (soda) (dayo), Sunday, 5 August 2012 13:52 (9 months ago) Permalink

was it an article by a freakonomics guy or something

― Matt Armstrong, Sunday, 5 August 2012 14:46 (9 months ago) Permalink

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/12/21/091221fa_fact_osnos

― smells like ok (soda) (dayo), Sunday, 5 August 2012 14:49 (9 months ago) Permalink

Jeremy Grantham is one of the few "important" (aka rich) willing to state the obvious about the United States' corn ethanol "policy":

Despite corn being almost ludicrously inefficient as an ethanol input compared to sugar cane and scores of other plants, 40% of our corn crop – the most important one for global exports – is diverted away from food uses. If one single tankful of pure ethanol were put into an SUV (yes, I know it’s a mix in the U.S., but humor me) it displaces enough food calories to feed one Indian farmer for one year! To persist in such folly if malnutrition increases, as I think it will, would be, to be polite, ungenerous: it pushes the price of corn away from affordability in poorer countries and, through substitution, it raises all grain prices. (The global corn and wheat prices have jumped over 40% in just two months.)

Our ethanol policy is becoming the moral equivalent of shooting some poor Indian farmers. Death just comes more slowly and painfully.

Once again, why single out Indian farmers? Because it was reported last month in Bloomberg that the caloric intake of the average Indian farmer had dropped from a high of 2,266 a day in 1973 to 2,020 last year according to their National Sample Survey Office. And for city dwellers the average had dropped from approximately 2,100 to 1,900.

― Thanks WEBSITE!! (Z S), Monday, 20 August 2012 02:58 (9 months ago) Permalink

― Thanks WEBSITE!! (Z S), Monday, 20 August 2012 02:59 (9 months ago) Permalink

BEND OVER AND TAKE IT, AMERICA

― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 12 September 2012 23:01 (8 months ago) Permalink

such a sham

― stop swearing and start windmilling (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 12 September 2012 23:09 (8 months ago) Permalink

― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 12 September 2012 23:45 (8 months ago) Permalink

I like coal

― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 12 September 2012 23:46 (8 months ago) Permalink

coal is good

― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 12 September 2012 23:46 (8 months ago) Permalink

god the whole youtube channel is amazing

― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 12 September 2012 23:49 (8 months ago) Permalink

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=TLkLkx70Dsc

― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 12 September 2012 23:57 (8 months ago) Permalink

big surprise, shale gas reserves may be lower than estimated...

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/are-us-shale-gas-resources-overstated-part-1

meanwhile, India is filing a WTO anti-dumping complaint against the US regarding solar panel financing restrictions. An interesting twist to the whole solar panel trade war saga.

― sleeve, Thursday, 6 December 2012 20:57 (5 months ago) Permalink

I read an article on oil drum that argued pretty persuasively that the recoverability of shale is something like 5-10%. Tempted to say it's a boondoggle but that's probably a little harsh.

― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 6 December 2012 21:20 (5 months ago) Permalink

The debate over how much shale gas is potentially recoverable has gone on for at least five years on forums like The Oil Drum. Ultimately recoverable shale gas reserves really depends on the shape of the hyperbolic decline curves that can be extrapolated from early flows, and so far these have varied very markedly between fields:

― Chinchilla! Chinchilla! Chinchilla! (Sanpaku), Thursday, 6 December 2012 22:43 (5 months ago) Permalink

Its not a boondoggle, but tight gas needs gas prices above $5 (and higher) to be economic. The drilling and frak jobs on a single well can run into the millions.. Gas firms were in a land rush during 05-08, after the technology and potential were demonstated in the Barnett shale, and the lease contracts typically stipulate initial production within the first X years in order for the gas firms to hold onto the lease. So ssince the collapse of the gas market in 2008 the firms have been "forrced" to drill uneconomic wells in order to hold onto future revenue streams. The smart ones hedged like mad in 08 and are doing okay, the dumb ones, well lets just say you can thank their shareholders for your low gas heating bills for the past few years.

― Chinchilla! Chinchilla! Chinchilla! (Sanpaku), Thursday, 6 December 2012 22:53 (5 months ago) Permalink

Chu submitted his resignation today, he will step down when a replacement is announced.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Reports-Steve-Chu-Officially-Leaving-DOE-Post

― sleeve, Friday, 1 February 2013 18:35 (3 months ago) Permalink

wondering how long it will take to get a replacement. Lisa Jackson is also stepping down from EPA. She announced it a while ago (planning on leaving "soon after" the State of the Union address), but it seems like whoever is nominated will face absolute opposition from republicans, particularly because any meaningful action on climate change is likely to come through EPA rules.

― Z S, Friday, 1 February 2013 18:40 (3 months ago) Permalink

hydro power: i have read in a couple places that it isn't "actually" renewable due to sediment accumulation. is this true? to what extent?

― max, Sunday, 14 April 2013 14:29 (1 month ago) Permalink

I think that might be a confusion between renewable and sustainable. Sediment accumulation is more about ecosystem disruption and environmental damage down stream than about wether the source of energy is more or less infinitely replenished. A reservoir behind a dam can silt up reducing it's capacity to store energy, although good management and maintenance practices can minimise it, but the source of energy (the water cycle) continues to be renewed.

― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Sunday, 14 April 2013 15:25 (1 month ago) Permalink

Even after a dam's reservoir is largely silted up, there's nothing preventing the fall of water through the turbines. What's lost is the ability to store large quantities of energy for use in low flow seasons, as well as ample irrigation & recreational water.

I haven't read anything about the effect of a river carrying its normal sediment load would have on the turbine blades, but it wouldn't be too difficult to continually dredge a small settling pond around the water intakes to minimise that.

― Me So Hormetic (Sanpaku), Sunday, 14 April 2013 18:33 (1 month ago) Permalink

a new kind of hydro power may be at the horizon

― Sébastien, Sunday, 14 April 2013 19:40 (1 month ago) Permalink

what he says is interesting but for some reasons it doesn't look like the academic world is rushing to get in on that. maybe it's bunk.

― Sébastien, Sunday, 14 April 2013 20:44 (1 month ago) Permalink

doesn't seem scalable

― well if it isn't old 11 cameras simon (gbx), Sunday, 14 April 2013 21:14 (1 month ago) Permalink

ugh fuck these people

developing "model legislation" to repeal renewable energy portfolio standards and then passing it around to various state legislatures to try and get them passed

― four Marxes plus four Obamas plus four Bin Ladens (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 17 April 2013 16:50 (1 month ago) Permalink

that's their thing, and they are wildly successful. i'm surprised they didn't try it earlier on. republican controlled state legislatures are DYING to shit all over renewable energy, this is like one of their main causes.

― your holiness, we have an official energy drink (Z S), Wednesday, 17 April 2013 16:54 (1 month ago) Permalink

yeah they are sponsoring crazy insane legislation in NC and Kansas among other states, pure evil.

in other depressing news,

As IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven points out in the introduction to the report, we are way behind in pretty much every area needed to address the global warming challenge.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/reality-check-renewables-arent-cleaning-up-the-global-energy-system

― my mental killfile seems to be working (sleeve), Thursday, 18 April 2013 20:17 (1 month ago) Permalink

whenever I feel down about the true viability renewable energy, I am always encouraged by how hard the fossil fuel industry and their pocketed legislators are fighting to kill it.

― charlie 4chan, internet detective (Hurting 2), Thursday, 18 April 2013 20:27 (1 month ago) Permalink

well mixed-source renewables have reached grid parity in Australia and Hawaii (i.e. same price as fossil fuel), so there is hope.

― my mental killfile seems to be working (sleeve), Thursday, 18 April 2013 20:35 (1 month ago) Permalink

I mean if they weren't potentially viable, there'd be nothing to lobby against.

― charlie 4chan, internet detective (Hurting 2), Thursday, 18 April 2013 20:36 (1 month ago) Permalink

efficiency is more ... well efficient in reducing reliance on fossil fuels. unfortunately it's not as simple to sell as a solar panel.

― four Marxes plus four Obamas plus four Bin Ladens (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 18 April 2013 20:36 (1 month ago) Permalink

Germany was getting 70% of it's electricity from solar power during periods of Summer 2012. And Germany isn't exactly the sunniest region! and like sleeve mentioned, renewables are at or approaching price parity with coal in many places. with even a small price on carbon (one not even approaching the true costs of using fossil fuels), the whole process would accelerate dramatically. it totally is possible. but if the u.s. congress can't even stand up to the NRA in the wake of a series of tragedies that are immediate, tangible, and provoking of widespread public mourning, they're going to have an even tougher time standing up to fossil fuel interests with even more money/influence, and with consequences of climate change that aren't as tangible and immediate as school massacres.

― your holiness, we have an official energy drink (Z S), Thursday, 18 April 2013 20:45 (1 month ago) Permalink

also, Shakey otm about efficiency. I do solar quotes as part of my day job, and I am continually amazed/horrified at Americans and their excessive energy usage. single family homes using 3,000 kWh a month - almost triple what we use with five people in our house. and almost all of them are weirdly fixated on covering 100% of their usage with solar, as opposed to trying to reduce their usage first. then, when you give them the inevitable answer - that there isn't enough room on their roof to cover more than 20% - the response is usually "well, can't you make better panels?" fucking America, RIP.

― my mental killfile seems to be working (sleeve), Thursday, 18 April 2013 20:58 (1 month ago) Permalink

yeah everyone is like, DON'T TELL ME HOW MUCH ENERGY TO USE I NEED IT ALL

― four Marxes plus four Obamas plus four Bin Ladens (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 18 April 2013 21:04 (1 month ago) Permalink

I left that light on in an empty room FOR A REASON

― four Marxes plus four Obamas plus four Bin Ladens (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 18 April 2013 21:05 (1 month ago) Permalink

in ALEC news, the North Carolina bill to repeal their state's RPS has died in committee, with six Republicans voting AGAINST it. This is good news!

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/nc-renewable-energy-standard-scores-surprise-win

― Flat Of NAGLs (sleeve), Monday, 29 April 2013 16:36 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

!!

― four Marxes plus four Obamas plus four Bin Ladens (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 29 April 2013 16:40 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

the republicans must have been confused or something?? i don't understand! still, great news, hopefully a harbinger for similar efforts!

― your holiness, we have an official energy drink (Z S), Monday, 29 April 2013 16:53 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

A study out in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences examined attitudes about energy efficiency in liberals and conservatives, and found that promoting energy-efficient products and services on the basis of their environmental benefits actually turned conservatives off from picking them.

...The study then presented participants with a real-world choice: With a fixed amount of money in their wallet, respondents had to "buy" either an old-school light bulb or an efficient compact florescent bulb, the same kind Bachmann railed against. Both bulbs were labeled with basic hard data on their energy use, but without a translation of that into climate pros and cons. When the bulbs cost the same, and even when the CFL cost more, conservatives and liberals were equally likely to buy the efficient bulb. But slap a message on the CFL’s packaging that says "Protect the Environment," and "we saw a significant drop-off in more politically moderates and conservatives choosing that option," said study author Dena Gromet, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2013/04/how-do-you-get-conservatives-buy-energy-efficient-products/5435/

― your holiness, we have an official energy drink (Z S), Tuesday, 30 April 2013 19:08 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

god i fucking hate people

― your holiness, we have an official energy drink (Z S), Tuesday, 30 April 2013 19:09 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

isn't that reaction the opposite of being conservative

― four Marxes plus four Obamas plus four Bin Ladens (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 April 2013 19:11 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

literally speaking

― four Marxes plus four Obamas plus four Bin Ladens (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 April 2013 19:11 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

wow that is amazingly stupid. i'm wondering if this is a case of hating the band because of its fans. and by "band" i mean the planet we need to exist.

― Spectrum, Tuesday, 30 April 2013 19:13 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

conservative pours cyanide into drinking water. "ha! take that you sissy planet loving liberals." drinks it, dies. ghost of conservative doomed to roam a dead planet for eternity: it was worth it!

― Spectrum, Tuesday, 30 April 2013 19:15 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

or could be that environmentalism has become a partisan political stance that makes some people squeamish. wanting human civilization to continue as radical, controversial politics. still fucking stupid and unfortunate.

― Spectrum, Tuesday, 30 April 2013 19:17 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

well, then there's this, from the last few paragraphs of the article:

That doesn’t necessarily mean green advocates need to somehow cover up the environmental benefits of a policy or product: A study from Stanford psychologists released last December found that re-framing environmental messaging in terms of preserving the "purity" of the natural world resonated morally with conservatives.

so...don't talk about protecting the environment...but do talk about preserving the purity of the natural world?

brb i have to go have outside and try to convince an inanimate object to do something

― your holiness, we have an official energy drink (Z S), Tuesday, 30 April 2013 19:18 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

must increase amount of virginity in the air

― four Marxes plus four Obamas plus four Bin Ladens (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 30 April 2013 19:20 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

hmmm ... protect the environment could imply people are doing bad things to the environment ("protecting" here meaning from people), whereas preseving the purity of the environment eliminates that baggage and just focuses on the good.

― Spectrum, Tuesday, 30 April 2013 19:23 (3 weeks ago) Permalink