The Energy Thread

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

Owlgore

wait isn't this a noise band

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.

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.

"warmist"?

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.).

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.

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.

OMG you guys we might be running out of wind!

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.

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

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)

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

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

dude for real

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.

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

^^^^butthurt

:D

;)

(i totally get yr point, by the way Ed, I just had to stick up for my peoples.)

Like I say the importance of everything from Thoreau through Rachel Carson right up to the day after tomorrow but I was thinking of a particular unemployed semi-professional activist I know.

Trust me when I say I don't think he is going to bust out the next Silent Spring.

LOL. I know who you are ragging on but until you learn to spell, engineer boy, don't even go there! World will be unsaved due to some typo-related glitch in yr masterplan.

discovering that mil was means 1/1000th of an inch in american and not a handy abbreviation for millimetres yesterday was a more likely cause of failure. (I am working with someone who was involved with the "whoops those were metric dimensions mars mission", we are hopefully quite alive to this). ;-P

Besides they are getting me a harvard MBA to take care of things like spelling for me.

Harvard MBA probably cannot spell either, claims to have minion for such things as well. I am beginning to think bad spelling in whatever language will be the downfall of everyone as it highlights lack of observational skills (you're surrounded by correct examples to look at and still FAIL).

Your clue about 'mil' is that it ain't 'mm'. DUHHHHHH.

This was a verbal, rather than written things. NB I don't write professionally in ILX style.

I am working with someone who was involved with the "whoops those were metric dimensions mars mission"

lolz I remember that - that was some funny (and very expensive) shit

OK then you have an out, but whenever I've seen yr pro writing you have to be led gently through 'corrections' before you can get that sucker out there. BTW the best and worst thing that could have ever happened to crown me Spelling Bitch was acing MENSA spelling test given by bored English teacher when I was 15/16ish, which is prob not unique on ILX.

Be sure and drop N a line, letting her know how you're getting on. She'll be tickled about factory news.

Anyway, groping back towards topic:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jun/10/oil-price-increase

"Nobody has solved the issue of the '2012 supply gap' which may emerge later than thought but which will be deeper. It means prices may even jump over the $250 hurdle we have forecast a year ago," said Miller.

2012 comes from the IEA report from a few years back, but I'd say the "supply gap" will most likely occur when the economy "recovers" from the recession. Global oil production peaked in the 1st quarter of 2008 (declining slightly in the 2nd and 3rd quarters of 2008, before the recession), indicating that there was already the beginning of a supply crunch in 2008, because prices during 2nd and 3rd quarters were at record highs yet production declined.

WRT peak resources this work is really interesting:

http://rutledge.caltech.edu/

Joe Romm has a good post discussing Waxman-Markey, and in particular, the idea that if it fails to gain passage the EPA would easily take up the slack. The key part is here:

Many people, including some commenters here, are under the misimpression that absent passage of this bill, the EPA can and will use the endangerment finding to achieve comparable regulation of CO2 under the Clean Air Act. That view has several flaws.

First, whatever Obama might do with the EPA — and it would take many, many years to put in place a program that could substantially reduce existing emissions (see below) — could be undone by a subsequent administration, which is not true of climate legislation. Politically, it would be quite easy for a future President to simply stop the EPA process in its tracks or allow the myriad lawsuits against it that will inevitably occur to delay the process to death. What political cost could their be if the forces of denial and delay had already triumphed and stopped the US political system from embracing comparable legislative action? Undoing a law that was passed by Congress, however, and then used as the basis for international negotiations, would be hard even for a President Palin to do.

Second, whatever Obama might do with the EPA, the rest of the world would know that the United States political system is incapable of agreeing to binding targets, so that would certainly be all-but fatal to the international negotiation process or a bilateral deal with China.

Third, if Congress rejects this bill, then, domestically, legislative action on greenhouse gas emissions will be dead for a long time. How long did it take before we got a chance to take up serious health care legislation after it died? How long since we reconsidered an energy tax after the BTU tax died? How long since we have passed major legislation to strengthen the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act to deal with obvious dangers to public health? Still waiting!

Fourth, the EPA authority is most easily translated into regulating emissions from new sources. Obama has already announced the strongest regulations ever for tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions. That mostly leaves new coal, which was already starting to collapse, thanks in part to the renewables and efficiency in the stimulus package

Waxman-Markey set to pass the House

Is there a handy guide to what is actually in Waxman-Markey, I am assuming it is substantially different from what was originally presented and pretty watered down.

seems like its changing daily

http://i39.tinypic.com/245khao.jpg

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.

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.

that GOP thing is hilarious (I like how energy companies, utilities, and oil companies aren't even on there lolz)

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.

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.

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!

Watching this House debate on C-SPAN is absolutely tearing my stomach up. Take me to the hospital, fuck.

Livebloggin' the appearance of Boehner's awesome chart at the ACES debate

http://i43.tinypic.com/nx0qxt.jpg

he is a complete douchebag.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24232.html

so irritated at the Republicans' refusing to satisfy my twisted, radical environmentalist desires

Can anyone explain what exactly they are voting on?

yeah i've been curious about it for a while now, and the cynic in me says (w/o data) that we're not using it because a) there's some fatal flaw that isn't being reported or b) Big Energy interests are actively suppressing it

when they realise all you need to do to acquire it is send out a truck to drive over fields of it they'll love it

admittedly the video i watched is redolent of the sort of conspiracy theory magnum opuses the internet excels in but sorensen says several times that he thought the same thing - "there's some fatal flaw that isn't being reported" - and went to grad school in Knoxville to find out, and everybody was like nope, you're right

the bit of the video that i actually found most interesting i still don't quite understand - about producing jet fuel out of seawater (related vid here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_3495016107 ). the guy makes a good point about aviation: electric planes don't exist and won't exist. you still need some kind of energy-dense hydrocarbon to make these things fly. but how any of that relates to nuclear i don't quite get

ah i guess the idea is that the electricity required for electrolysis has to come from somewhere? and that's where thorium (or what have you) comes in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9TR9G5bd7w
I don't know if there has been any talk about DAPL around here, it's something I've been following closely.

kinda wish there was a thread for #NODAPL, we'll see where it goes after today. heavy shit going down.

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/10/27/developing_100_militarized_police_demolishing_nodapl

from yesterday:

https://cldc.org/2016/10/26/update-militarized-police-presence-at-standing-rock/

https://www.tesla.com/solar

this seems Actually Good

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/8/31/17799094/california-100-percent-clean-energy-target-brown-de-leon

Energy industry is fucking bonkers right now, so much is happening in CA

see also: new cash rebates for battery storage being offered in CA and HI

everybody wants everything to be electric from clean energy sources (sucks to be you SoCal Gas!)

I want nearly all energy to be electric so I can keep burning natural gas to cook

otmfm

though if the utility figures out how to harvest biogas and pipe it to my house at sufficient scale I'll happily burn that too. Anyway the electricity mix in my state is like 80%+ hydro 😎

where are you... Colorado?

Seattle iirc

here's an overview of the new CA legislation:

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/on-to-the-governors-desk-what-100-clean-energy-means-for-california#gs.U3FXrJs

It makes more sense to use methane/natural gas for space heating and cooking heating over electricity on efficiency grounds, but in the future the methane will be provided by excess renewable energy.

I fully expect a much worse case scenario for global warming than most, but should society recover, there's a high likelihood it will be with a methane infrastructure providing energy storage/generation/end-user heat production.

I haven't probed deeply into it, but I expect that there are already feasible and demonstrated solutions to every one of the technical problems associated with stopping fossil fuel use completely.

The biggest and most intractable problems are that such solutions would require a massive recapitalization of our energy infrastructure, coupled with removing many trillions of dollars worth of assets from financial markets. I fear that won't happen until the disaster is already so far advanced that the collapse of society is already well underway.

I fear that won't happen until the disaster is already so far advanced that the collapse of society is already well underway.

no need to fear, we're likely already past the tipping point

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609642/the-year-climate-change-began-to-spin-out-of-control/

there are a lot of ways to collapse, though. the task now is to mitigate it as much as possible.