seems like its changing daily
― Suckanoosik Chamber of Commerce (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 24 June 2009 16:12 (3 years ago) Permalink
What's sad about the GOP talking point about Waxman-Markey being too complicated and long to understand is that its complexity is at least partly a consequence of near-total incompetence and inaction on climate and energy over the past (GOP dominated) decade.
― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Friday, 26 June 2009 16:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
this also seems to be getting rushed because the Dems fear 1994 all over again and want to cram as much in before the summer in Obama's first year in office. I'm sure something will come out of this but I am sure it will be a mess riddled with loopholes, exemptions and boondoggles.
― Mornington Crescent (Ed), Friday, 26 June 2009 16:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
that GOP thing is hilarious (I like how energy companies, utilities, and oil companies aren't even on there lolz)
― And the biggest self of self is, indeed, self (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 26 June 2009 16:56 (3 years ago) Permalink
but also what Ed said.
nonetheless I'm absolutely convinced its better than the alternative, which is nothing
What's also frustrating is that several of the points highlighted at the top of that chart can be so easily refuted.
FAMILIES > Higher Prices > Power Bills & Heating and Cooling Bills- An analysis of Waxman-Markey recently released by the EPA found that by 2020 electricity bills would be LOWER (7%, to be exact), even if electricity prices were higher. Why? The energy efficiency provisions in the bill would help to lower household demand enough to more than offset the rise in rates, resulting in a lower overall monthly bill for the average American.
FARMERS > Higher Prices > Food Prices- Unless GMO crops miraculously save the day (and I don't think they will), we've got an impending global food crisis, which is bound to drive up food prices even without climate legislation. The combination of rapidly growing populations, rising affluence, a lack of additional suitable cropland, water scarcity and erosion have already made the prospects of feeding 3 billion more people by 2050 bleak. Climate change, while possibly marginally increasing crop yields for the part of the world that shifts into more favorable temperature range, will almost certainly be a huge net loss for farmers because of increased drought, severe weather events, disruption of summer mountain meltwater than many farmers depend on, desertification, and on and on and on. Attempting to halt climate legislation to "help" the farmers if fucking absurd.
DRIVERS > Higher Prices > Gasoline Prices
Again, the writing on the wall about gasoline prices has been evident for many years. We are likely at peak oil already, with only a global economic crisis to temporarily dampen gas prices. Options: Vastly revamp public transportation systems so that owning a car isn't mandatory in most of the United States at it is now, improve fuel economies of vehicles to match those of Europe and Japan, invest heavily in electric powered vehicles and electric battery storage capabilities. Or...be like the GOP and pretend that the Earth's resources aren't finite.
WORKERS > Lost Jobs- uuuuugh. Can anyone point me to a credible source that DOESN'T think that clean energy jobs will one of the most important industries of this century? If this was 1902, the GOP would be attacking the idea that automobiles would ever gain traction and pushing for more investment in stagecoaches instead.
― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Friday, 26 June 2009 17:22 (3 years ago) Permalink
Also, this from the ACEEE:
June 24, 2009
Washington, D.C.—The federal energy efficiency provisions included in H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (aka Waxman-Markey), could save approximately $1,050 per household by 2020 and $4,400 per household by 2030, according to an updated analysis by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). Changes to ACEEE’s analysis come from an updated assessment of savings from a number of provisions, as well as changes to the bill made in a Rule’s Committee version of the bill released yesterday.
― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Friday, 26 June 2009 17:25 (3 years ago) Permalink
If this was 1902, the GOP would be attacking the idea that automobiles would ever gain traction and pushing for more investment in stagecoaches instead.
this newfangled contraption is going to completely decimate the horseshoe industry!
― And the biggest self of self is, indeed, self (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 26 June 2009 17:26 (3 years ago) Permalink
Watching this House debate on C-SPAN is absolutely tearing my stomach up. Take me to the hospital, fuck.
― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Friday, 26 June 2009 19:20 (3 years ago) Permalink
Livebloggin' the appearance of Boehner's awesome chart at the ACES debate
― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Friday, 26 June 2009 21:41 (3 years ago) Permalink
he is a complete douchebag.
― Mornington Crescent (Ed), Friday, 26 June 2009 22:07 (3 years ago) Permalink
― Mornington Crescent (Ed), Friday, 26 June 2009 22:26 (3 years ago) Permalink
so irritated at the Republicans' refusing to satisfy my twisted, radical environmentalist desires
― And the biggest self of self is, indeed, self (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 26 June 2009 22:30 (3 years ago) Permalink
Can anyone explain what exactly they are voting on?
― Mornington Crescent (Ed), Friday, 26 June 2009 22:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
I don't think most of the people voting could even explain it
― And the biggest self of self is, indeed, self (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 26 June 2009 22:54 (3 years ago) Permalink
I mean, I can guess it is a bad thing judging by how the votes are breaking down, however the text on the CSPAN screen is barely a coherent sentence.
― Mornington Crescent (Ed), Friday, 26 June 2009 22:57 (3 years ago) Permalink
ON PASSAGE means the final vote, right?
― Mornington Crescent (Ed), Friday, 26 June 2009 23:06 (3 years ago) Permalink
― Mornington Crescent (Ed), Friday, 26 June 2009 23:18 (3 years ago) Permalink
I was out for the last few hours, just got back. Passed 219-212? What are these "Special Order Speeches" going on at C-SPAN right now then? Souder (R-Indiana) is going on about how democrats must have been smoking "marijuana cigarettes" when they came up with ACES.
― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Saturday, 27 June 2009 01:12 (3 years ago) Permalink
Man, some serious sour grapes and imbecility there.
― Mornington Crescent (Ed), Saturday, 27 June 2009 03:37 (3 years ago) Permalink
Energy thread peeps,
Mr. Shirky seems to believe that there is a yet-unmodeled economic force, what he calls a "social lubricant" in this keynote, which is required by the human phenotype at large whenever a massive transformation takes place (apparently by way of general-purpose-technologies) in how the most developed economies accomplish work.
What, if anything, do you think might be the "social lubricant" for sustainable (ok semi-sustainable) energy? It seems clear to me that there is no fucking way on the whole of goddamned earth that we will make any kind of switch to non-carboniferous power in the near term, but if we do, how is the pop going to deal? What is the interstitial soiled-pants solution for all the human beings who are going to be taken by surprise?
I'm thinking it's nintendo games. I'm not even sure if I'm joking, which is a pretty good indication that I'm so right it hurts.
― El Tomboto, Saturday, 27 June 2009 05:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
I think you are not far off the mark, El T. We'd adapt voluntarily for something that pleases or amuses or delights us. Except of course then the religious zealots will start yammering about how whatever-it-is is perniciously destroying family values/etc, so we'll have to put up with that too.
― Jaq, Saturday, 27 June 2009 15:04 (3 years ago) Permalink
That was a cool video, and I kind of want to read Shirky's book now.
I think before you can begin to answer what sort of social lubricant will accompany sustainable energy systems, you have to guess at how much lube will be needed in the first place (lol). The shock created from the transition to clean energy depends on the nature of the new system, along with the way we view our present system, right? Currently, at least in the West, we plug appliances into outlets, water magically comes out of the faucet, gasoline flows out of pumps, etc. If you choose to you can think about the crazy process it takes to get these materials into your hands, but you certainly don't have to. Energy and water is easily and readily available, and incredibly cheap at that. And so we take it for granted.
The ease of access to energy in the future depends on whose vision you believe the most. First, take the optimistic outlook. If wind, CSP and solar PV, geothermal, etc are ramped up quickly enough, there's a possibility that not that much would change from the perspective of the consumer. You'd still have outlets, with the only difference being the supply of electricity in the first place, far out of sight, along with improved transmission lines. With energy efficiency, if utility profits were decoupled electricity consumption so that they had an incentive to save energy, utilities could actually come to houses and put up much of the front end investment for homeowners, like new windows, insulation, and so on. So on that end, things could end up looking the same as well. From the perspective of the consumer, they would just have a more efficient house and an extra section on the utility bill that states how much money was saved from efficiency, how much of that savings goes to the utility, and how much of it goes in their pocket.
I'm not sure if that kind of smooth transition is possible in the near term, and even if it was, it would only apply to the industrialized West. If we had meaningfully committed to clean energy and efficiency a decade ago or earlier, it certainly would have been easier. But I'm trying to force myself not to be such a cynical pessimistic bastard all of the time, so I'm acknowledging that there is a possibility of a transition more smooth than bumpy.
I think it's much more likely that there is going to be a serious wake up call very soon. I hate to pinpoint 2012 for my doomsday prediction, but it would not surprise me. That was the year that the IEA, traditionally very conservative and optimistic (and RONG) with their oil predictions, highlighted as the likely year of the energy crunch. If and when the global economy recovers and begins to move back into the heavy positive growth of the mid-00's, we'll be butting our heads against the resource constraints that we were dealing with before the recession. The oil crises in the 70s were caused by embargos, wars and revolutions. Wars still pose a threat to our oil supplies, obviously, but the main driver of price increases are supply and demand. Demand was dampened by the global economic fiasco, but supply hasn't increased, and it won't significantly increase.
Somehow I got off on a tangent there. I think we face similar problems with electricity. Regardless of the idiotic GOP arguments I witnessed last night during the "debate", I think eventually the U.S. will wake up and realize that we probably shouldn't be powering half of our country with coal. A price on carbon will maybe help push that realization a few years ahead, along with the conspicuous absence of the North Pole (or maybe not). The question is if clean energies can be ramped up quickly enough to match the decrease that is needed from coal. If we would have started years ago, maybe, but I wouldn't bet on it now. Rather than voluntarily changing our energy consumption habits, we're about to be forced by constraints. Oops!
What is the social lubricant? Well, I've put myself back into pessimistic mode now so I'm just going to roll with it. The lubricants that Shirky talked about in his lecture (gin during the industrial revolution, tv during the 20th century) were responses to seemingly positive changes (reliable food supply, better health, more free time, etc). For much of the population, the lubricant for widespread negative change is fingerpointing, denial, and violence. I don't doubt that there will be tons and tons of people working as hard as they can to peacefully complete the transition to clean energy, but I also don't doubt that the people who did everything they could to delay a response to climate change will continue to fuck up the world. When there are millions of environmental refugees floating across boundaries, I don't see James Inhofe, Joe Barton and Dick Cheney opening up their arms. I see them in a grab for the remaining energy supplies (ie, power).
Uuuugh, I disgust myself sometimes. What the hell, I'll just agree and say nintendo games. We're all going to play nintendo games.
― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Saturday, 27 June 2009 15:36 (3 years ago) Permalink
― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Saturday, 27 June 2009 15:54 (3 years ago) Permalink
I also don't doubt that the people who did everything they could to delay a response to climate change will continue to fuck up the world
Well, it's ego, isn't it. Admitting they were wrong = self-worth gone.
― Ned Raggett, Saturday, 27 June 2009 16:01 (3 years ago) Permalink
David Kurtz wrote a little bit about that TPM last night:
Is it going to be like the opposition to civil rights was, where the same people who opposed it to begin with were the first to declare, without any irony, that racism is abated and then raise the cry of reverse racism? Are we facing, as we did with civil rights, a decades long running battle of constant resistance where the enemies of progress work to undermine every step forward -- even as they enjoy the benefits of the very thing they are fighting?
We hear a lot from global warming deniers about the "high cost" of carbon emission regulation. Of course, in absolute terms they are right. It will be expensive. But what price are the deniers willing to pay personally for the high cost of being on the wrong side of science and history? Many of today's deniers will be long dead by the time the worst effects of inaction are realized. Those who do live long enough will more than likely be insulated from the most extreme effects by their relative wealth and prosperity, compared to Bangladeshis, for instance. And in any event, there is no justice -- no democratic justice -- in punishing fools for being fools.
― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Saturday, 27 June 2009 16:03 (3 years ago) Permalink
Reminds me of the response of Limbaugh et al. on Bush criticism. I caught part of his show on a drive to Missouri last week, and he was going on and on about how annoying it was to hear people continue to complain about Bush, even after his presidency has ended. That Democrats should "quit whining and move on". I'm not sure how you move from unreserved support for 8 years of morally indefensible Bush policies to "quit whining and move on" without some stage of coming to terms with the reality of what happened, but I guess that's how some people deal with it.
― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Saturday, 27 June 2009 16:11 (3 years ago) Permalink
Nintendo game isn't that wide of the mark, I don't think. Look at the hohm announcement earlier in the week. A little bit of price visibility, a little social shame and some blinnking lights and we're half way there. Actually consumer exposure to the true cost of electricity is key, the rest is sugar coating. When people find out that it is costing them dollars an hour to run their AC on a sunny august afternoon, that's the real game changer.
― Mornington Crescent (Ed), Saturday, 27 June 2009 16:16 (3 years ago) Permalink
― Mornington Crescent (Ed), Saturday, 4 July 2009 18:24 (3 years ago) Permalink
A memo from the American Petroleum Institute API has leaked which "reveals a plan to create astroturf rallies at which industry employees posing as 'citizens' will urge Congress to oppose climate change legislation."
One of the most frightening aspects of the ongoing health care "debate" debacle has been the growing certainty that this is the kind of shit that's going to drag down the climate bill in a few months. And worse, the knowledge that an industry-funded lobby is already making plans to sabotage the legislative process likely won't make much of a difference in public perception. I won't go as far as saying this is a "new era" of widespread disregard for facts, but I do think that there is a stronger tendency these days to just pick your team and oppose the other, no matter what.
This is going to be an ugly, ugly year.
― Tom Pagnozzi (Z S), Friday, 14 August 2009 16:17 (3 years ago) Permalink
a good encapsulation of what California is up to
― the taint of Macca is strong (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 1 October 2009 15:17 (3 years ago) Permalink
I read that whole thing and sent it to my dad. Very interesting.
Also, am I just paying more attention, or is the NYT energy-crazy lately?
― I would feel confident if I dated her because I am older than (Laurel), Thursday, 15 October 2009 15:10 (3 years ago) Permalink
any thoughts on this proposal?
― Jesus, the Czar of Czars (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 27 October 2009 16:57 (3 years ago) Permalink
I was excitedly* reading through those, some good projects, not too many not so good, no outright wacky ones such as those funded by ARPA-E last week.
*Excited because I though this was the pot of money we were in for but that is probably not due for a couple of weeks yet.
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Tuesday, 27 October 2009 17:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
The company I'm contracting to is involved in 9 of those smart grid projects.
The new big thing I keep hearing about for carbon sequestration: biochar. Which, of course, is ancient tech, just made more efficient and spun up with current buzzwords. But still interesting and with demonstrable potential for good things (in particular soil remediation).
― Jaq, Wednesday, 4 November 2009 21:46 (3 years ago) Permalink
― being being kiss-ass fake nice (gbx), Monday, 7 December 2009 14:25 (3 years ago) Permalink
― big darn deal (Z S), Sunday, 13 December 2009 00:38 (3 years ago) Permalink
“Ben Wessel: [of the Sustain US youth delegation] First of all my name is Ben [sticks his hand out to shake].
Monckton: No, no. I’m not going to shake the hand of Hitler Youth. I’m sorry.
Wessel: Sir, as a Jew I’m not really sure how I should take that.
Monckton: I’ll tell you how you should take it. You should take it.
Wessel: My grandparents escaped the Nazis growing up in Germany.
Monckton: Because of the biofuel scam, world food prices have doubled. That it because of the global warming scare, which you won’t look at the science of. As a result of that, millions are dying in third world countries because food prices have doubled because of the biofuel scam, because of the global warming scare.
And you people don’t care. And until you start caring I will call you Hitler Youth if you ever again interrupt any meeting at which I am present, where we are trying to have a private conversation.”
― big darn deal (Z S), Sunday, 13 December 2009 00:40 (3 years ago) Permalink
fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck want to STRANGLE HIM
I am becoming increasingly angry with Michael Mann and the CRU folks and all those who have inflicted bad science on us because despite the overwhelming evidence their ineptitude has handed a great stick to fucknuts like the noble lord there.
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Sunday, 13 December 2009 00:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
hello energy professionals and experts
i am seeking your opinions regarding the obama administrations recent announcement regarding offshore drilling
thank you in advance
― max, Wednesday, 31 March 2010 15:38 (3 years ago) Permalink
I'll add more when I get home and off my iPhone, but this was a huge mistake both on environmental and political grounds. It wasn't a surprise that Obama was going to do it - he repeatedly described his intentions during the campaign. But why NOW?What was gained in return for this huge concession/slap in the face to environmentalists?? This could have been a huge bargaining chip in the inevitable watering down of the climate/energy bill that's forthcoming.
― Ted. E. Bear, P.I. (Z S), Wednesday, 31 March 2010 16:05 (3 years ago) Permalink
I mean, shit, Boehner has ALREADY released a statement attacking Obama's move because he says it doesn't go far enough!
This was a decision that isn't likely to win any republican votes (just like the concessions to hcr), will add only marginal resources to the US energy portfolio, and alienates much of Obama's progressive base that hoped that he realized that it isnt wise to compromise on the environment.
― Ted. E. Bear, P.I. (Z S), Wednesday, 31 March 2010 16:16 (3 years ago) Permalink
― Ted. E. Bear, P.I. (Z S), Wednesday, 31 March 2010 16:31 (3 years ago) Permalink
Sorry it's just me responding so far but Grist sums it up here.
― Ted. E. Bear, P.I. (Z S), Wednesday, 31 March 2010 17:44 (3 years ago) Permalink
no zach you were the person i was thinking of when i asked, thanks
― max, Wednesday, 31 March 2010 17:48 (3 years ago) Permalink
I’m holding out hope that things appear worse than they are. Because the key isn’t how much offshore drilling is allowed. The crucial issue is whether oil and gas companies decide it’s worth their money to go out, find, and retreive the stuff. And things could be brighter on that front, because, as Joe Romm explains, the payoff in these reserves may not be worth the trouble. (Nobody knows precisely how much oil and gas are in these places.) GOP politicians like John McCain and Sarah Palin have used offshore drilling as a rallying cry, but energy companies need to keep clear heads, crunch the numbers, and decide if a given project pays.
how likely is it that oil companies will decide its cost-effective to go drilling off of the carolinas?
The situation strikes me as another example of American leadership providing misleading statements about oil that serve to further promote energy security populism which in turn creates some flawed assumptions regarding how we frame our relationship with oil.
Fundamentally you can't assume that you can achieve energy security by increasing domestic production in order to offset / reduce foreign imports - oil is almost a perfect model of basic global supply / demand pool from which all participants purchase the same product. Using the term "foreign" oil versus "domestic" oil implies that you're creating a two price supply and demand structure which isn't really possible - on an textbook economics level it's going to seek equilibrium. So really the policy is not buying any sort of domestic energy security, it's just increasing the global supply by a marginal amount.
With regards to gas it's different because there are pretty significant logistical challenges and the markets are regional, not global - I assume most of this potential future gas will get piped to the Henry Hub region in the southern states and contribute to the perceived oversupply; but that's hard to say given that we don't know yet how much actual production will come out the exploration / development / exploitation process. In other words, more numbers required. It does seem to be a high political cost for little gain at this time?
― Matt D, Wednesday, 31 March 2010 18:09 (3 years ago) Permalink
I'd say not the vast majority won't be profitable until oil is back up at 2007/08 prices ($120+), although i'd be curious to get Ed's take on it. As Romm points out in the link in the quote you just posted, oil companies already have access to billions of barrels of offshore that they aren't developing, presumably because drilling deep into ocean floors and building pipeline infrastructure dozens of miles out into the ocean is incredibly expensive.
Regardless, due to the time lag (around a decade) between oil exploration and actually obtaining the resources, let alone the fact that a lot of this oil wouldn't even go to the US (oil companies are, of course, multinationals), most of the stuff I've read suggests that the best case scenario is that this will lower the price of gas maybe several cents about a decade from now.
Even with this giveaway, when the price of oil is sky high in a few years I'm assuming that conservatives will pull a Boehner and blame it all on Obama for not opening up the most environmentally sensitive locations of all.
― Ted. E. Bear, P.I. (Z S), Wednesday, 31 March 2010 18:17 (3 years ago) Permalink
when can we have a gas tax
― max, Wednesday, 31 March 2010 18:22 (3 years ago) Permalink