“My personal path“:
…being English I knew all about the vagaries of the weather, but the warnings about CAGW always seemed to be made in the most certain terms. Was it really possible to predict the climate so assuredly? The global climate must be an extremely complex system, and very chaotic. I had recently heard about financial institutions that were spending vast sums of money and picking the very best maths and programming graduates, but still were unable to predict the movements of financial markets with any confidence. Predicting changes to the climate must be at least as difficult, surely? I bet myself climate scientists weren’t being recruited with the sort of signing-on bonuses dangled by Wall Street. I also thought back to the ice age scare, which was not presented as an absolute certainty. Why the unequivocal certainty now that we would only see warming, and to dangerous levels? It all started to sound implausible.
The whole thing also seemed uncertain on the simple grounds of common sense. Could mankind really force such a fundamental change in our environment, and so quickly? I understood that ice ages could come and go with extreme rapidity, and that following the scare of my childhood, no one seriously claimed to be able to predict them. So in terms of previous natural variability, CAGW was demonstrably minor in scale. It seemed obvious that if natural variability suddenly switched to a period of cooling, there would be no CAGW no matter what the effect of mankind on the atmosphere. Even more fundamentally, how could anyone really be certain that the warming then taking place wasn’t just natural variability anyway? The reports I read assured me it wasn’t, but rarely in enough detail to allow me to decide whether I agreed with the data or not.
The other thing that really got me thinking was seeing the sort of people that would appear on television, proselyting about the coming tragedy that it would imminently become too late to prevent. Whether from charities, pressure groups or the UN, I knew I had heard their strident and political use of language, and their determination to be part of the Great Crusade to Save the World before. These were the CND campaigners, class war agitators and useful fools for communism in a new guise. I suddenly realised that after the end of the Cold War, rather than slinking off in embarrassed fashion to do something useful, they had latched onto a new cause. The suggested remedies I heard them espouse were always socialist in approach, requiring the installation of supra-national bodies, always taking a top-down approach and furiously spending other peoples’ money. They were clearly eager participants in an endless bureaucratic jamboree.
And remain so.
Part of the loss of allure of climate change as a call to action is that the action is decidedly minor. A ton of carbon dioxide abatement is trading at $3.17 a ton in the RGGI exchange in the US. That’s $60 per person per year to become carbon neutral and plentiful natural gas supplies will keep the price in the $3-10/ton range until we aren’t burning any coal (e.g., drop the output from 18 tons per person to 15 tons per person; emissions were 20 tons per person in 1990). National healthcare is closer to $4000 per person per year.
well bear in mind, there is little demand for Carbon credits.
The idea was that by capping carbon dioxide emissions,
and issuing permits, the least efficient producers would sell
their rights to higher efficiency producers.
However without any stick forcing new entrants to buy these,
the market is saturated.
However, cheap wind and solar are starting to crush coal and nuclear
electricity anyways, so, it’s likely that these older coal plants will go offline permanently.
Germany is now starting to retire a significant chunk of their coal plants after having shut down their nuclear sites.
>the market is saturated
20 states set up a regional greenhouse gas exchange http://www.rggi.org where the price is $3.17 per ton to further abate greenhouse gas emissions in those states. The marginal permit has a positive price so the permits are being used and if someone bought 1 million of them and retired them, there would be 1 million tons less CO2 emitted in those states.
>cheap wind and solar
If something gets cheaper than natural gas, then it will be even less than $3.17/ton to abate additional CO2.
“Coal-fired power plants contributed 52% of Germany’s first-half electricity demand as output from natural gas-fired power plants and wind turbines fell, research organization Fraunhofer Institute (ISE) said.
Coal plants increased production by about 5% to 130.3 TWh in the first six months of 2013 as output from gas-fired power plants fell 17% to 21.9 TWh, said ISE, which collated data from Germany’s statistical office and the EEX transparency platform.
Wind turbine output fell 10% to 22.4 TWh, while solar output was unchanged at 14.3 TWh. Hydro output rose 3% to 9.2 TWh, with nuclear output up 1.8% to 46 TWh.”
http://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/London/German-coal-fired-power-rises-above-50-in-first-26089429
So: 130.3 TWh vs 22.4 TWh + 14.3 TWh. And solar and wind has costs Germans hundreds of billion of dollars above the cost without subsidizing them- most of this higher cost is very high cost that Germans are forced to pay for their electricity, rather direct government subsidy.
“Although coal is Germany’s most abundant indigenous energy resource, its role in the country’s energy mix, albeit significant, has been decreasing steadily over time. However, coal use has increased since the Fukushima reactor accident since it can be used as a substitute for nuclear power in electricity generation. Germany was the world’s eighth largest producer of coal in 2011.”
“Natural gas use in Germany has declined from its peak in 2003 at rate of 3.2 percent per year through 2011, largely because of energy efficiency improvements.
Germany was the sixth largest generator of nuclear energy in the world in 2011 with 102.6 terawatthours, and historically it was an important exporter of nuclear technology. Following the Fukushima accident in March 2011, the German government decided to close eight reactors launched before 1980 because of public protests, and to close Germany’s nine remaining nuclear reactors before 2022.”
http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=GM
“Germany’s dash for coal continues apace. Following on the opening of two new coal power stations in 2012, six more are due to open this year, with a combined capacity of 5800MW, enough to provide 7% of Germany’s electricity needs.
Including the plants coming on stream this year, there are 12 coal fired stations due to open by 2020. Along with the two opened last year in Neurath and Boxberg, they will be capable of supplying 19% of the country’s power.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/23/germany-to-open-six-more-coal-power-stations-in-2013/
“Coal-fired power plants contributed 52% of Germany’s first-half electricity demand”
http://www.renewablesinternational.net/rise-of-coal-power-from-us-to-germany/150/537/71517/
“In contrast, Germany continues to build solar and wind power capacity at impressive rates. The country is on target to build nearly 4 gigawatts this year alone, equivalent to around five percent of its peak demand at 80 gigawatts. Likewise, Germany has installed around two gigawatts of new wind power per year recently, putting the additional new renewable capacity at around 7.5 percent of peak demand. In comparison, the US has just crossed the threshold of 10 gigawatts for solar altogether, equivalent to around 1.5 percent of peak demand.”
http://www.renewablesinternational.net/disruptive-german-wind-solar/150/537/71335/
Yesterday, Germany’s Süddeutsche Zeitung reported that Germany’s power plant operators are planning to shut down up to 20 percent of the country’s roughly 90 gigawatts of dispatchable, conventional power capacity – primarily gas turbines and coal plants. Those shutdowns do not include the government’s plans to shut down nuclear. Because Germany has peak power demand of 80 gigawatts and that peak always occurs on late November evenings when there is reliably no sunlight, Germany will always need roughly 90 gigawatts of dispatchable generation capacity in case there is too little wind, as I have repeatedly pointed out.
At present, roughly 15 plants are officially scheduled to be decommissioned in Germany, but the newspaper reports that a wide range of others are on the table, and even municipal utilities are complaining about low profits. RWE’s CEO has said that profitability is not possible for conventional power plants at wholesale prices below four cents, which is roughly where we are now. And the culprit is easy to identify: disruptive wind + solar.
“However, cheap wind and solar are starting to crush coal and nuclear
electricity anyways, so, it’s likely that these older coal plants will go offline permanently.”
On what planet do you live on? Major wind farm players (Spain, UK, etc) are backing away from wind because they can’t afford the huge subsidy (or higher rates in the case of Germany). Thousands of wind mills have fallen silent. They proved themselves – by actual experience – unable to generate electricity reliably and predictably. They are also unable to stand the stresses of medium-high winds – having to be shut off when they should be producing electricity.
There is no such thing as cheap wind….it’s the biggest boondoggle next to Obamacare.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_Kingdom#Economics
Spains wind farms are in trouble because they were financed assuming a large FIT. The brits are continuing to invest in wind energy.
you can say what you want but Bloomberg is taking a different posture, so is Buffet. Buffet is investing hard into renewable energy
and stopping nuclear and fossil fuel investments.
The brits are continuing to invest in wind energy.
Indeed, they are:
Every job in Britain’s wind farm industry is effectively subsidised to the extent of £100,000 per year
So:
you can say what you want but Bloomberg is taking a different posture, so is Buffet.
When the government is paying for the labor, I bet they are. It’s a good way to redistribute wealth from the middle class to the elites.
deguy,
Of course the value of carbon credits could change quickly if this research turns out successful.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/27/carbon-dioxide-power-plants_n_3660989.html?utm_hp_ref=green
Carbon Dioxide Power Plants: Could The Greenhouse Gas Be Used To Generate Electricity?
Posted: 07/27/2013 11:03 am EDT
[[[If truly scaled up to massive proportions, the researchers say this new process could help to use the 12 billion tons of CO2 released every year by burning coal, oil and natural gas to produce electricity (another 11 billion tons are generated by home and commercial heating). They say that using all of the CO2 from power plants, industrial factories and residences could generate more than 1.5 trillion kilowatts of electricity every year. That, according to the paper, is 400 times more energy than is generated annually by the Hoover Dam.]]]
I am skeptical that this would work, but, I have always believed that the CO2 output from power plants is a natural feedstock for industrial processes. The HBR back in the 70s made the argument that pollution control shouldn’t be viewed as a charge against profits but rather a cost for feedstocks for new materials. Once that mindset took hold, promptly, industries evolved and stopped polluting.
Car Mechanics stopped dumping oil and coolant and sent it back to be reprocessed. Paint factories stopped dumping intermediates and started feeding them to oil refineries, etc…..
I suspect CO2 will become a primary feedstock for algae biofuels and enhanced greenhouse production.
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2011/February/RehabilitatingCapturedCO2.asp
If you clean Smokestack emissions and feed the warm moist air and CO2 into greenhouses, you should be able to force production of Algae and rice.
I’m not sure why all the whining about this, the value added products should be worth more then the costs.
well bear in mind, there is little demand for Carbon credits. The idea was that by capping carbon dioxide emissions, and issuing permits, the least efficient producers would sell their rights to higher efficiency producers. However without any stick forcing new entrants to buy these,
the market is saturated.
If the new entrant meets the threshold for entry, they get entered.
And of course, the “solution” is to reduce supply even though a case for increasing the cost of these vouchers has never been demonstrated. Changing behavior of businesses is more important than whether the change in behavior is beneficial or not.
However, cheap wind and solar are starting to crush coal and nuclear electricity anyways, so, it’s likely that these older coal plants will go offline permanently. Germany is now starting to retire a significant chunk of their coal plants after having shut down their nuclear sites.
We’ll see if these technologies continue to remain competitive in the absence of massive subsidies.
Some of my skepticism about carbon offsets and various carbon taxes had to do with where the money was going. With the UN involved, it’s likely that a lot of the money went to feed the bureaucracy and private bank accounts.
Some of the carbon offset crowd claimed they were planting trees to absorb CO2 but it was always in distant countries with no accountability. It reminded me of an old routine by the late Jewish comedian Buddy Hackett. He talked about how he was asked to donate money to plant trees in Israel. He sent the money. One day, he asked for a picture of the tree he bought. He received a note in Hebrew that said, “The f**king tree died.”
I can relate to the linked discussion. As I hear CAGW today, I can’t help but think I’m listening to the geocentric arguments of the past.
The suggested remedies I heard them espouse were always socialist in approach, requiring the installation of supra-national bodies, always taking a top-down approach and furiously spending other peoples’ money.
Yep, I pretty much noticed that from the beginning. That, and the constant calls for sacrifice and a reduced standard of living.
Yep, I pretty much noticed that from the beginning. That, and the constant calls for sacrifice and a reduced standard of living. by people with more than two houses, private jets, and (in at least one case) a house with an attached 707 hanger.
“Oh, I only use one square.”
That, and the constant calls for sacrifice and a reduced standard of living.
Yes. Insty is right too; I’ll consider it a crisis when the Davos Men act accordingly. Hypocrisy is not a motivating influence to sacrifice.
“Yep, I pretty much noticed that from the beginning. That, and the constant calls for sacrifice by other people and a reduced standard of living for everyone but themselves.”
FTFY, rickl.
They were clearly eager participants in an endless bureaucratic jamboree.
Stealing that line for use elsewhere. A great way to state what is really going on.
For me the big red flags were the nonsensical conclusions (so we all die if there’s a degree of cooling or a degree of warming?), the wildly exaggerated claims, the apocalyptic predictions about a temperature shift that nobody would notice unless they stared at their thermometer for a living (and only if statistics was their hobby, even then), followed by an avalanche of utter idiocy and religious fervor.
Then, unlike the behavior of real scientists, among whom the ones with the most accurate theories, data, and experimental methods become the acknowledged experts, among the warmists, the most observationally, numerically, and statistically inept among them rose to the forefront, forming a vanguard of stupid.
Oily fame, power, and money poured down onto the smoldering noble cause corruption, and the resulting conflagration finished off any shred of integrity the warmist scientists may have had. Their science became nothing more than a marketing tool to preach doomsday and demand redemption through tithes and penance.
As the Earth continues its flagrant disobedience of warmist model predictions, we’re witnessing the conversion of less-committed “believing” scientists into agnostics, agnostic scientists into skeptics, and skeptical scientists into “denialists.”
At some point science will have to conduct a postmortem, figuring out how global warming became science’s flagship project when it was never more than a weak tentative theory contradicted by both measurements (no tropical mid-altitude warming, etc) and the planet’s long geologic and ice core records.
If science if so objective, self-correcting, and certain, how did it get hijacked by a bunch of quacks pedaling carbon futures and polar bear posters? How did a cabal of conspiratorial, statistically challenged half-wits with a god complex commandeer editorial control of once prestigious scientific journals, pumping out sloppy, error-laden papers and patting their pal-reviewers on the back for slipping another piece of unsupportable garbage past their betters in the hard sciences?
So regarding a personal path, almost all credible scientists will get on board the skeptical streetcar at some point along its route, and the passengers like to chat about how long they’ve been riding, where they hopped on, and why. Each one has an interesting story, but all the stories will boil down to the same thing: They realized the car they were on was heading the wrong damn way, took a hard look at its passengers, made a few queries, and finally the conductor piped up and said, “This here streetcar’s named Desire and we heading to Crazy Town!” So they jumped off and hopped aboard the car named “Evidence.”
It’s not that hard to modify lifestyle and still maintain a quality of life.
Solar PV is getting really really cheap these days, you can buy complete modules for $1/watt. If you want to do the work yourself, it’s $2-3/watt for everything.
You can get a UPS system to support dropouts for an additional $1/watt.
A hybrid car is a few grand more and depending upon gas prices pays for itself
in a couple of years. A plug in hybrid is pricier but also has a economic return within it’s lifespan.
LED lighting is still pricy, but it helps keep the house or office cool.
If you live in the south or southwest a white roof drops heat loads from the summer and does a lot to reduce AC requirements.
The nice thing about these investments is they save you money.
As for Global Warming.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/07/26/north-pole-now-lake/
Even Fox News is reporting it these days.
I can maintain “a quality of life”? Why thank you for your benevolence in letting me keep some of my own earnings. Not as much as before, but I guess it is still some, for now. Until the next crisis and then I only have to give a little more…
How about it is my choice, not yours, on how I live or whether I want to maintain a particular quality of life?
How about when every answer from your side is always “you only have to spend a little more this time”, and yet there’s always a next time and a next time and a next time and a next time and a next time and a next time, that it gets tiring to not just be able to relax knowing my own earnings aren’t under constant assault?
That right there is the main reason I stopped listening to your side, because the answer is always the same: give more and more of your earnings at gunpoint to some bureaucrat who will just use it to further his own political agenda.
No thanks and screw off.
Oh, and here in the northern border states electrics and other “alternative” cars are stupid because gas engines produce heat just by their nature. When it is February and -15 outside that heat is actually a useful byproduct that comes for free, you know to actually heat the car and the defroster so I can see without the windshield fogging up and freezing over. No reduced range just to get some heat. With an electric car I have to waste battery power powering a heater, reducing my range (pathetic as it is to start with) and putting me more at risk of freezing to death.
Again, no thanks and screw off.
After rereading my post later in the day, I apologize for the “screw off” part. That was unjustified.
However, I still completely oppose the notion of just always “paying a little more” and then everything will be better. As I stated, this is always the answer from the left and it keeps getting repeated. Pretty soon a man has no money left because he is busy being guilt-tripped into spending all that he has on things that function equivalently but are more expensive because they are “green”. Now he is in poverty. How is that an improvement?
“That was unjustified.”
No it wasn’t. I actually tried to post “Hear, hear!” after it, but was prevented by the site’s spam filter from posting something so pithy.
it is also your choice if you want to pay the oil companies and the utilities or pay yourself. If you look out in Arizona, APS wants to stop paying for excess electric power and Barry Goldwater Jr is fighting to keep freedom of choice in how arizonan’s provide their electricity.
I’m cool if you want to keep paying Exxon, and Conoco and Lukoil your $400/month on gasoline and pay the Dynegy and Southern $100/month.
It’s a free country.
I’m working on putting together the systems so I can pay myself.
If that offends you, I’m sorry.
If freedom and choice bother you, well, what can I say?
I’m working on putting together the systems so I can pay myself.
LOL, I bet you are figuring out how to cash in on the subsidies. I’m also sure that later you’ll insist we all owe you a bailout.
Freedom and choice don’t bother me. What bothers me is not having the freedom and choice. Meaning, when you take my money at gunpoint (taxes) and give it to “green” energy companies the free choice is no longer mine to make.
I have no problem with *you* wanting to buy and install whatever you want on *your* home.
But right now traditional fuels are what provide the actual reliable energy that people want. No windmills or solar panels do that. They provide some power, but not all the power I want all the time. By “I” I mean anybody who wants to flip the light switch and have the light come on every time without fail. This includes all California leftists.
If all of the greenies were just trying to convince me to buy certain products and weren’t running to the government trying to mandate that I must meet this and that qualification for the express and only purpose being energy efficiency, then we could talk.
But, this is not the case because the left generally sees human nature as perfectible if only enough government force is applied, which is the very philosophy and process that leads to no freedom and widespread slavery and death in a country.
Punishing criminals and fighting foreign invasion is one thing. But, the left doesn’t stop there. They do things like corrupt the meaning of the Constitution from being “everyone is equal before the law” to “the law shall be used to level everybody” which translates to “you make more than I deem worthy so I shall take it at government gunpoint and give it to those who have not worked for it”. See any NYTimes article about “CEO makes more than X times lowest paid employee”.
They see “injustice” in society because of “1%/99%” and will stop at nothing to “correct” this injustice, without realizing what kind of system would need to be set up to “correct” that situation. That kind of system justifies and executes the worst forms of government action imaginable, leading to widespread slavery, poverty and death. I guess in some twisted way everybody is “equal” in that society.
Really it is just everyone leveled to the same level of poverty and hunger.
The left doesn’t ever seem to think that the people who would administer this system with government guns are just as, if not more, corrupt than the 1% that they want taken down a notch.
Do you have a problem with the Army buying Hybrid vehicles
and designing Hybrid Jeeps and trucks? How about Air Force bases installing large wind mills and solar collectors? How about the navy buying BioDiesel for ships and aircraft?
Are they engaging in choice and change internally?
Do you have a problem with the Army buying Hybrid vehicles
and designing Hybrid Jeeps and trucks? How about Air Force bases installing large wind mills and solar collectors? How about the navy buying BioDiesel for ships and aircraft?
Are they engaging in choice and change internally?
No, a lot of that change is being forced down their throats. Biodiesel for ships and planes costs over $16 a gallon. The money for that boondoggle comes from other, worthwhile projects and goes to Obama’s cronies. As for hybrid trucks and other ground vehicles (they have not used Jeeps since the 1980s), they’re only worthwhile where the fuel savings offset the significantly higher costs, or if there’s a secondary requirement such as the need to generate a lot of electricity to power special mission equipment.
It’s one thing for a Forward Operating Base (FOB) to use alternative energy when appropriate. The logistics cost for supplying energy at remote FOBs is very high. Due to the danger of ground transportation, a lot of the fuel for generators has to be flown in, often in very costly to operate helicopters. So, if solar or wind is appropriate for the climate at a remote FOB, all is good. However, the economics of wind and solar power in the US are dismal without government subsidizes.
Where I have a problem in that particular case is along the lines of what Larry J already discussed.
Standard gas engines are well-understood and relatively cheap to run. The basic technology is 100 years old and the industry around the technology is well-developed. Yes, this assumes a cheap enough supply line, but that is most of the military’s current deployment. Solar/wind stuff makes sense in remote areas (Afghanistan remote bases) where the traditional supply lines are not cheap and you need to be more self-sufficient because the supply lines are vulnerable to attack.
But the current “green” efforts in the military are not for the most part about military readiness. They are about leftist agendas that can’t be implemented in any other venue because Congress won’t fund it. The president has more direct control over the military, so that is where the current leftist green crap can be done more easily. But that for the most part has nothing to do with improving the ability to kill people and break things.
The North Pole is often just open ocean at this time of year, going all the way back to when the nuclear navies started visiting. It’s often open water during interglacials, and arctic whales thrive in those periods. Some of the worst arctic melting, enough to induce panic in the New York Times and talk of a year-round ice-free northwest passage, was back in the 1920’s. One of the problems our satellites have in measuring ice extent is that in the summer, melt water sits on top of the arctic ice. To a sensor, is it ice or is it water?
The Danish Meteorological Institute has also just published a rather close correlation between arctic sea ice extents and the length of the sunspot cycle, covering the last four-hundred years. Link
On another note, the periods of bigger summer melts let polar bears thrive, contrary to what the warmists claim. The error stems back to some older scientific papers on polar bears that were misinterpreted. Seals are one of their primary food sources, and seal success depends on having thin layers of fresh ice, which form after a good arctic melt clears out the previous year’s accumulation. When the arctic doesn’t melt, thick multi-year ice packs accumulate and the seals have trouble keeping their winter breathing holes open.
So their population thrives on warmer temperatures that cause melting, as does the polar bear population. Combine that with data on the arctic whale populations and the conclusion is that all arctic mammals thrive when it’s warmer and suffer when its cooler. So every time you install a PV system or buy a more fuel efficient car, ten baby seals die, along with a highly intelligent whale and a cuddly polar bear – not to guilt you out or anything.
It’s not that hard to modify lifestyle and still maintain a quality of life.
Maybe that’s true, but it’s even easier to not modify the lifestyle at all and automatically maintain that quality of life. So why should I modify my lifestyle?
It’s also not that hard for price shifts in commodity energy to squeeze that lifestyle too.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_3bGnkNeoPxk/SG5JszLkwgI/AAAAAAAACEo/DRk_pafeDII/s400/1-gas-ann.gif
I seem to recall 2008, really vividly, when Gas prices were flirting with $5/gal. I knew people who were paying more for gas then they were on their mortgages.
What happened to their lifestyle in that year? Oh Right, we went into a economic freefall.
I seem to recall electricity prices in california in 1999 spiking through the roof
http://www.coast2coastlighting.com/images/CaliforniaElectricityPriceChart.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis
Sure, you can stick with the old ways of doing business, but, you are subject to massive price spikes and uncertainty.
Buying a hybrid helped insulate me from Gas price variation and when i get to a Plug in Hybrid and solar panels i’ll be heavily insulated from price spikes.
The deregulation of these markets has induced very large swings in energy prices. My natural response is to invest into methods to insulate me from these costs. I suppose if i owned an oil well i could also do that as a strategy,
but, not a lot of oil territory inside the beltway.
Strawman, dude. Why don’t you just answer the question that was asked?
It’s also not that hard for price shifts in commodity energy to squeeze that lifestyle too.
If there’s a cheaper lifestyle with better quality of life due to naturally high commodity energy, then I’ll move to it. But I won’t make this lifestyle change merely because someone got religion.
I seem to recall 2008, really vividly, when Gas prices were flirting with $5/gal. I knew people who were paying more for gas then they were on their mortgages.
I was one such person. Of course, I didn’t actually have a mortgage so that made it particularly easy for me to meet your criteria.
I seem to recall electricity prices in california in 1999 spiking through the roof
And I seem to recall the flawed design of the spot market for electricity that created the environment for those price spikes then and later on during the California electricity crisis.
Sure, you can stick with the old ways of doing business, but, you are subject to massive price spikes and uncertainty.
The new ways of doing business are subject to massive price spikes and uncertainty too.
The deregulation of these markets has induced very large swings in energy prices.
Not at all. The deregulation of the California market was done in a remarkably bad way. That has led to large price swings in the California and neighboring markets. But similar deregulation in the Texas electricity market hasn’t.
And if a market naturally is volatile enough to have huge price spikes and such as part of the market’s behavior, then I think the price spikes themselves are a good solution to the problem. They signal to buyers both that the market isn’t currently meeting demand very well and also that the market in question is volatile and provide incentives for buyers to consider more stable arrangements.
I’m very much in favour of efficient machinery and also efficient building design. Traditional styles of building in many places that get hot in summer could point the way to some extent; I strongly suspect that the styles used (small windows, thick walls coated with whitewash on the outside) were and are used because experience has taught that such features make the building more livable – in winter as well as summer, incidentally.
White roofs are an extension of this idea. Incidentally, thermally efficient glass (with an IR-reflecting coating inside the double glazing cavity – you are double glazed, right?) goes quite a long way in this direction without too much extra cost.
It can be quite surprising how much difference such a thing as decent draughtproofing can make, in winter at least.
Before we moved in, we improved the Insulation on the roof to R-30,
and sealed, foamed, caulked every hole in the ceiling.
We also added some cross ventilation so at least the worst of the trapped air moves around. Unfortunately the place came with builder grade double pane windows. I doubt they have Low-E glass or argon but, that’s not the best return.
My focus is to try and get Solar collectors installed and to replace the ancient heaters with something from the 21st century. Older place the steam system comes from the Hoover administration.
But the insulation did a lot, apparently the place used to burn 2 tanks of oil/year, last winter we used 1/4 of a tank. Warm winter, but still.
dcguy – Sure. If you already have double glazing then ripping it out and replacing with the energy-efficient stuff is probably a poor idea. But it’s worth thinking about the issue, if you’re having DG installed for the first time or one of the windows gets broken.
Your reporting of an 8-fold decrease in heating fuel use by doing some bsic work on energy efficiency sorta makes my point for me. Does anyone actually like paying more than he needs to to keep his house warm?
One further thought on this issue; if you live somewhere where it gets really cold in winter then going a little further, to triple glazing, is probably worth thinking about – again, if you’re having windows replaced. I believe that double glazing is compulsory on new builds in Finland; but many are now opting for triple. When it gets to -40 or -50…
There is Energy Efficiency and then there is Global Warming.
Yes indeed, the engineering geek in me is keen on any kind of insulation or energy saving project to shave some more off the energy usage and money off the utility bill.
The energy geek in me would just love to drive a Prius, to try the “pulse-glide” method to cruise through the Madison Isthmus at 60+ MPG on the trip computer.
The thing is, a Prius, on average, saves, maybe, 20 percent of the fuel of a Corolla. So what if we all drove a Corolla? Well, that is not going to cut it with the putative impending Catastrophe. We are all going to need to ride bicycles. Well no, that is not going to cut it either as we are fueling are bicycles by eating meat and other First World foods.
This idea that “well, I drive a hybrid, insulated my house, and purchase LED lights so I am doing my part” is missing the point. Given the vast population of the Earth and the gap between the G-8 and most of the world, a socially just solution would involve a serious deindustrialization. Or a crash program in atomic power. The Al Gores of the world who preach Climate Change and maintain high consumption lifestyles, even if they are using EnergyStar appliances, simply don’t get this.
A crash program in atomic problem has serious problems in weapons proliferation, waste management, and operating safety, especially when pushed on the corners of the world. Japan runs a train with a perfect safety record, but other parts of the world, not so much. A crash program in renewables may be unicorn-flatulence thinking. A global crash program in anything costs serious money in a world where most people live with very little.
I see hydrocarbon fuels as meeting energy needs over my life time. I see fuel usage increasing over current levels even with aggressive energy conservation measures. I see a false belief in the harm in this level of energy use as working against world prosperity, which I see as a social justice concern.
I don’t know what you mean a prius saves 20% over a corolla?
the 2013 EPA’s at 30 MPG and the Prius has an EPA of 50.
50/30 = 1.66 or 66% better MPG. and a Plug in Prius EPA’s out at
95 MPG. The Plug in Prius effectively increases MPG by 200%.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=32951&id=32950&id=33324&id=33335
You can also look at the Volt or the Ford C-Max.
It’s really just a matter of how much you value gas in the future.
if you think gas is going to get cheaper, all of these look bad, if you think gas is going to get more expensive, well, that’s your call.
As for the rest of the world, I have choice here, and I can influence the local government. Africa, China and India will have to make their own choices.
Japan may run trains well, but, they have trouble with nuclear reactors.
If your goal is to save gas, and you drive mostly in start-and-stop traffic, then the Prius makes sense. If most of your driving is on freeways without slowing, you would be better off with a comparably powered ICE vehicle, as you wouldn’t have to be lugging all those batteries around, too.
You can’t get something for nothing. People think the Prius is magical, and automatically gets better mileage. But, its only actual advantages are in being able to shut down instead of idling, and in reclaiming some kinetic energy during braking. If you don’t spend a lot of time idling or braking, then it’s not going to make you better off.
Japan has no trouble with nuclear reactors. They have problems with earthquakes and tsunamis.
It’s a little more involved than that. I’ve owned a Prius for 3 years and 43,000 miles. A significant percentage of those miles were on the interstate highways. When cruising on level ground at a steady speed, those batteries are dead weight just as you describe. However, the roads are seldom level. When going downhill, I gain some regenerative charging that helps go up the next hill. Most of the time, I set the cruise control for the speed limit. If the winds are calm, I typically get around 50-55 MPG at highway speeds. The car is very sensitive to headwinds, though. I’ve seen the mileage drop to 40 MPG or less in strong headwinds.
For city driving here in Huntsville, I’m routinely averaging in the mid 40 MPG range which is substantially less than the low 50 MPG range I averaged in Colorado Springs. I think it has to do with the local traffic conditions. I reset the “A” trip odometer with every fillup and let the “B” odometer roll over every 10,000 miles. Currently, the “B” reading is 47.4 MPG average for the last 9,800 miles which included a lot of highway driving. My record for a tank is almost 60 MPG for over 300 miles of driving in Yellowstone National Park.
The Prius is a good car for my needs. It would be a lousy car for someone who needs to haul a lot of stuff to a jobsite or someone who has a large family. A car is only good for anyone if it meets their particular needs. Those zealots who try to push everyone into hybrids are simply wrong, as are those morons in Congress that mandated the new fuel economy standards that must also include work vehicles like pickup trucks. People should be free to make their own decisions about everything without having to justify their decisions to anyone else, so long as they’re willing to live with the consequences.
Whatever you gain going down a hill will be lost when you go back up. The key thing to note is when I said “comparably powered”, and a comparably powered ICE vehicle which does not have to tote around the batteries has a smaller engine then the Prius.
I’ve driven the Prius as a rental. Acceleration is abysmal. There may not actually be a comparably powered vehicle on the market in the US.
I’ve driven the Prius as a rental. Acceleration is abysmal.
What year Prius was that? Mine is a 2010, the first year of the 3rd generation of the car. It’s rated at 0-60 MPH in 9.7 seconds and will do it. That’s hardly neck snapping acceleration but significantly better than the 2001 Honda CR/V I owned before it. That car was great in snow but basicallly a gutless SUV-wannabe. Pulling out into fast traffic caused my life to flash before my eyes on more than one occassion, but I put over 100,000 miles on it because it met my needs at the time quite well.
I can only speak from my experience of more than 3 years and 43,000 miles with the Prius. It meets my needs nicely. It could also be the worst possible car in the world for someone with substancially different needs. Buy whatever you want and I’ll do the same.
I’m not necessarily badmouthing the Prius. In actuality, I think it is an impressive engineering achievement and, as I stated, in some situations, such as start and stop traffic, it is ideal.
But, it isn’t magic. It obeys the law of conservation of energy just like every other vehicle, and it isn’t well suited for people living outside of packed urban areas. And, it isn’t going to solve the problem of where and how we derive our energy, or significantly reduce our “greenhouse” emissions, which do not need to be reduced anyway.
The problem I have with the Prius is that the “cool” engineering drives the cost of it into the realm of much faster cars. For roughly the same cost I have a 2007 Nissan Altima 3.5SE with a manual transmission which is rated on that site from Larry J at 0-60 in 5.7 seconds (yes, it is a fun car).
Granted it is 27 mpg on average, but I definitely have no acceleration issues.
The problem I have with the Prius is that the “cool” engineering drives the cost of it into the realm of much faster cars.
If your priorities are for cars that go fast, that’s completely your business. That kind of performance wasn’t my priority so my vehicle choice was obviously different from yours. The point being, we’re both right.
When I want to drive a fun, sporty car, I take out my wife’s turbocharged Mini Cooper. It’s the larger, 4-door Countryman model (even the grandkids would have trouble riding in the back of the smaller Minis) but still quite fun. We traded in her Toyota Highlander for it. The funny thing is that now, the Prius is our “big” car for carrying things in addition to being the all around car due to the better gas mileage.
Being a geek, I do appreciate the engineering that goes into the Prius. The energy management is quite sophisticated as it determines how much to draw from the batteries verses the gas engine at any given time. The batteries also power the air conditioning (nice in the summer when the engine is off while sitting at a traffic light), the heater water pump (nice in the winter), power steering and other systems.
But, it isn’t magic. It obeys the law of conservation of energy just like every other vehicle, and it isn’t well suited for people living outside of packed urban areas.
“Any technology sufficiently developed is indistinguishable from magic.” Arthur C. Clarke
No, the Prius isn’t magic. It’s good at capturing some of the kinetic energy that would’ve been wasted as heat (brakes) and using that to reduce the amount of gas needed to reaccelerate the vehicle. It’s also good at capturing potential energy (coasting downhill). It does a good job on the road as well as in city driving. When I moved from Colorado to Alabama last year, I drove it over 900 miles in one day, averaging 70-80 MPH (I was in a hurry) and still getting nearly 50 MPG. I don’t do any of that hypermiling stuff. I was alone in the car but it also had a fairly heavy load of stuff in it. It isn’t just a city car like the pure electrics.
My Prius didn’t do very good in the snow in Colorado. I sure wouldn’t willingly take the thing off of paved roads. It isn’t going to carry a large family, tow anything or carry a lot of equipment like a pickup. It meets my needs, though, and that’s why I bought it. I’m certainly no environmentalist, greenie or liberal (defying the stereotype of Prius drivers). I’m just a geek who likes the technology and who likes not having to pay so much for gas, and was concerned that if Obama was able to get his policies in place, the price of gas would skyrocket. So far, that hasn’t happened but not for lack of trying on his part.
Larry J
July 29, 2013, 12:08 pm
It’s also good at capturing potential energy (coasting downhill).
Again, what you gain there is lost when you go back uphill. Unless it’s a steep hill where one normally would have been braking going down. But then, it’s just another instance of reclaiming energy from braking.
“It does a good job on the road as well as in city driving.”
Again, you’d do better with a comparably powered ICE vehicle which didn’t have to tote around the weight of the batteries.
“If your priorities are for cars that go fast, that’s completely your business.”
Unfortunately, a lot of hairshirts believe it is their business to push their neurosis on others. That you do not is all fine and good, but it is too bad the others are not like you.
Again, you’d do better with a comparably powered ICE vehicle which didn’t have to tote around the weight of the batteries.
Everything in engineering involves tradeoffs. A gas engine of the same horsepower as the combined gas/electric setup in a Prius would likely be heavier. It would also need a larger gas tank to get the same range (my 10 gallon tank is good for up to 500 miles in good conditions). Both of those things would offset some if not all of the battery weight. From what I’ve seen online, the battery pack weighs 118 pounds. Of course, you wouldn’t need the electric motor/generator or any of its controls. The current gas engine produces 98 HP and the electric motor 36 HP for a combined peak of 134 HP. I have no info on how much the electic motor/generator and control electronics weigh.
Unfortunately, a lot of hairshirts believe it is their business to push their neurosis on others.
Yeah, that’s why Prius drivers are hated so much. Unfortunately, too many of them are smug (as in that classic South Park episode) and everyone assumes we’re all that way. Last year, I was looking for a “Drill Baby Drill” bumper sticker to put on my car just to watch people’s heads explode. But then, the oh so tolerant Left would likely key my car for daring to have a differing opinion. Freedom to me is the ability to make your own decisions about what you want or need without having to justify your decisions to anyone. Drive what you want and enjoy the freedom of the road.
My point was that you could use a smaller engine to get the same punch, because you’re not hauling around the batteries.
Anyway… ” Last year, I was looking for a “Drill Baby Drill” bumper sticker to put on my car just to watch people’s heads explode.” That would be a riot! I doubt you’d be keyed. They’d rationalize it that you must somehow be poking fun at the drill advocates.
My point was that you could use a smaller engine to get the same punch, because you’re not hauling around the batteries.
I’m not certain of that. The curb weight of a 2010 Prius is reportedly 3,060 pounds. The batteries weigh 118 pounds. If you take out the batteries, electric motor/generator and associated control electronics and cables, you might lower the weight by 200-300 pounds. Let’s use the larger number just for the sake of discussion.
The standard Prius has a power to weight ratio of 22.8 pounds per horsepower. Acceleration is more driven by torque than horsepower. A larger gasoline engine can make up the horsepower lost by getting rid of the electrical components but it likely won’t have the low end torque. Electric motors provide excellent torque at low RPMs. To get the same acceleration, you’d need a gas engine that matches the torque. That engine is going to be heavier than the stock Prius engine. I don’t know if you’d want to use the standard continuously variable transmission or replace that as well. In the end, the weight savings over the stock hybrid setup likely won’t be more than 5%. Without the battery pack, you’d have to put in standard air conditioning, power steering and all the other systems that depend on the battery pack. You’d end up with a streamlined car that probably wouldn’t get nearly the same MPG as the hybrid. There isn’t a non-hybrid Prius but you can look at the standard verses hybrid versions of the Camry and Highlander to get an idea of the difference in performance and cost. Hybrid technology comes with a cost. I tend to own my cars for about 10 years so we’ll see how it fares over the long run. I do get some encouragement from seeing the occassional 1st generation Prius and some of the older 2nd generation models. I’ve talked to owners with well over 100,000 miles on their cars who say they’ve seen no noticeable battery degradation.
A prius is a compact, but Toyota now has a Hybrid Highlander as well
as a Hybrid Camry and Hybrid Highlander. Lexus also has a lineup of
hybrids. I suspect if not this year, Toyota will have a small pickup hybrid out.
No vehicle is useful if it doesn’t meet your needs, but, the technology is evolving.
“JPMORGAN ACCUSED BY U.S. REGULATOR OF MANIPULATING POWER MARKET
JPMORGAN ACCUSED OF MANIPULATIVE ENERGY-BIDDING STRATEGIES
JPMORGAN ACCUSED OF ENERGY-MARKET MANIPULATION IN 2010 AND 2011
U.S. FERC ANNOUNCES JPMORGAN ALLEGED VIOLATIONS IN E-MAIL”
seems like JPM is about to pay $400 million in fines for market manipulation.
Me, I so totally want to be able to insulate myself from these shocks.
I like to think of it as a Hardware hedge on energy price spikes.
I’ve got about 2/3rds of the hardware together for the Solar Hot Water system, I’ll probably spend most of my spare time in August soldering pipe to connect it up.
It’s darned pricy for a 2 loop heat exchanger tank, so I may end up fabricating something myself.
“My point was that you could use a smaller engine to get the same punch, because you’re not hauling around the batteries.”
of course, a Hybrid also lets you use a smaller engine then a comparable ICE car because you have the electric motor.
A Gas engine is typically sized to minimum acceptable acceleration from a dead start to 60 MPH. The 0-60 time. Now that means that much of the time,
a gasoline powered car is not running at it’s most optimal performance point.
A hybrid will try to keep it’s gas engine right at the optimum fuel consumption point and then add electric power or take it out. My Honda Insight wants to run the engine at 2500 RPM then add torque through the IMA. Let’s me average 47 MPG and i do a lot of driving in the city. The CVT Trans, handles a lot of the issues, so it’s a multi-variate optimization problem between the CVT ratio, the Engine RPM and the IMA assist.
I’ve seen Hybrids where the Gas source is only 10% of the Total system energy power balance because it’s sized to average power requirements over a lifecycle.
Now I suppose if you want to climb the rockies or Mt Washington, you might run the battery flat, but, Hybrids have been able to dramatically jump total system MPG because of that trade between Peak and Average power requirements.
It’s all very clever engineering. Real Pity GM abandoned that technology in the 90s. Terrible mistake.Took them 15 years to try and catch up.