Imagine a group of 100 fisherman faced with declining stocks and worried about the sustainability of their resource and their livelihoods. One of them works out that the total sustainable catch is about 20% of what everyone is catching now (with some uncertainty of course) but that if current trends of increasing catches (about 2% a year) continue the resource would be depleted in short order. Faced with that prospect, the fishermen gather to decide what to do. The problem is made more complicated because some groups of fishermen are much more efficient than the others. The top 5 catchers, catch 20% of the fish, and the top 20 catch almost 75% of the fish. Meanwhile the least efficient 50 catch only 10% of the fish and barely subsist. Clearly, fairness demands that the top catchers lead the way in moving towards a more sustainable future.
The top 5 do start discussing how to manage the transition. They realise that the continued growth in catches – driven by improved technology and increasing effort – is not sustainable, and make a plan to reduce their catch by 80% over a number of years. But there is opposition – manufacturers of fishing boats, tackle and fish processing plants are worried that this would imply less sales for them in the short term. Strangely, they don’t seem worried that a complete collapse of the fishery would mean no sales at all – preferring to think that the science can’t possibly be correct and that everything will be fine. These manufacturers set up a number of organisations to advocate against any decreases in catch sizes – with catchy names like the Fisherfolk for Sound Science, and Friends of Fish. They then hire people who own an Excel spreadsheet program do “science” for them – and why not? They live after all in a free society.
After spending much energy and money on trying to undermine the science – with claims that the pond is much deeper than it looks, that the fish are just hiding, that the records of fish catches were contaminated by being done near a supermarket – the continued declining stocks and smaller and smaller fish make it harder and harder to sound convincing. So, in a switch of tactics so fast it would impress Najinsky, the manufacturers’ lobby suddenly decides to accept all that science and declares that the ‘fish are hiding’ crowd are just fringe elements. No, they said, we want to help with this transition, but …. we need to be sure that the plans will make sense. So they ask their spreadsheet-wielding “advocacy scientists” to calculate exactly what would happen if the top 5 (and only the top 5) did cut their catches by 80%, but meanwhile everyone else kept increasing their catch at the current (unsustainable rate). Well, the answers were shocking – the total catch would be initially still be 84% of what it is now and would soon catch up with current levels. In fact, the exact same techniques that were used to project the fishery collapse imply that this would only delay the collapse by a few years! and what would be the point of that?
The fact that the other top fishermen are discussing very similar cuts and that the fisherfolk council was trying to coordinate these actions to minimise the problems that might emerge, are of course ignored and the cry goes out that nothing can be done. In reality of course, the correct lesson to draw is that everything must be done.
In case you think that no-one would be so stupid as to think this kind of analysis has any validity, I would ask that you look up the history of the Newfoundland cod fishery. It is indeed a tragedy.
And the connection to climate? Here.
I’ll finish with a quotation attributed to Edmund Burke, one the founders of the original conservative movement:
“Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little.”
See here for a much better picture of what coordinated action could achieve.
Anne van der Bom Says (4 juin 2009 at 2:32 AM):
“How irrelevant that not all money payed directly to coal companies. Actually, it is even better for them. The NETL is effectively running the show for them through the CCPI & CCTDP programs. Those programs serve only one purpose: keeping coal in business under ever more stringent emission standards.”
Still doesn’t make it a subsidy to the coal companies. It’s general research for (what some politicians see as) the public good. How about for example the funding for the Human Genome Project? Drug companies use the information from that project: does that make it a subsidy?
#1179 Ike Solem
You reassert a widespread misunderstanding as an axiom: “Electric cars are far more efficient than internal combustion vehicles–”
A little known (made up) chapter of gavin’s thread story goes:
In taking care of the fishery a group of fishermen looked at their diesel fuel bills and realized that something had to be done. They made up a story that, by fishing with dynamite, they could save fish; but of course they cared nothing about that in the face of their diesel fuel costs. They proved their case by bringing back the 33% of the dead fish that immediately came to the surface, ignoring the invisible 66% left rotting on the bottom (the sharks were quite pleased with the deal). Since the fishermen only recognized the fish in their boats, they told everyone that their fishing was good for the fish stock since only the biggest fish were taken, thus they were not depleting the fish stock at all.
Claiming that electric motors have higher efficiency than automobile internal combustion heat engines ignores the reality that huge amounts of energy are wasted at the central power plant heat engine that is effectively part of the electric motor. The mechanical energy that is apparent at the electric motor shaft represents the mechanical energy out of a heat engine in a central power plant. Electricity is just a carrier of energy, whether it is on a wire, out of a plug, through a converter, or stored in transit in a battery. All such conversions in transit have their inefficiencies, but these are nothing compared to the losses at central power plants.
Electric motors are not engines. Their efficiency is only an energy conversion efficiency. Which can easily be designed to be 85% to 93% depending very much on cost of construction. Heat engines are very difficult to build to achieve more than 30% to 50% efficiency.
Maybe we can skip everyone commenting with assertions that solar and wind will make it all different. Of course they could. However, in all cases there is a heat engine of some sort involved in making an electric motor run, but the point is not that these are a form of heat engine, rather, the point is that these are not likely to materialize sufficently to change the central power plant system.
I continue to confront the fact that there are not affordable alternatives among the touted options to coal generation where coal exists in abundance and power generation using coal is highly cost effective, though not at all efficient. I would be glad to hear differently, but up to now the proponents of solar and wind have not yet made their case that these ideal sounding options will materialize on a sufficiently large scale.
Perhaps assertions of the future for solar and wind would be accompanied by convincing arguments that they would be affordable in the context of our economy and political reality. (Take note along the way that we are demonstrating our steadfast political will for CO2 reduction in the Waxman Markey legislation bill — NOT)
In nearer term reality, I look to ways to reduce CO2 by (1) getting more energy out of burning stuff, and making that stuff something that minimizes CO2 release, (2) using a small fraction of the energy now used by our cars to churn air by cars, so whatever fuel wins out will only be needed in small quantity, and (3) using also a small fraction of the energy now used by trucks and cars to warm their tires, with a similar reduction in the need for fuel. When all the nonsense fades away, these kinds of things might get some attention. (I am not holding my breath.)
> There are no “acidified regions” to go look at.
Sure there are. You can visit lovely Tatoosh Island:
http://www.experiencewa.com/attraction.aspx?id=55
But you’ll learn more if you read about it instead:
A site where ocean pH is measured:
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/48/18848.full
“… Little published empirical information exists on the dynamics of directly measured ocean pH (1, 11), and none is available at temperate latitudes, which harbor the world’s most productive fisheries….”
“… Our results indicate that pH decline is proceeding at a more rapid rate than previously predicted in some areas, and that this decline has ecological consequences for near shore benthic ecosystems….”
“… Examination of 24,519 measurements of coastal ocean pH spanning 8 years (Fig. 1) … between 2000 and 2007. The decline is significant (P
Regarding the economics of energy production in the U.S., a couple of interesting pieces that seem to do a pretty good job of breaking down the particulars and practicality re Nuclear vs Renewables.
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/plants/plants.pdf
http://docs.nrdc.org/nuclear/files/nuc_08042301A.pdf
> Anne van der Bom “… but are not strong enough.”
I’m sure you know
https://www.etsovista.org
for excellent and very detailed information on where it all comes from and where it all goes to at any point in time. NorNed is special because the Netherlands have no direct, land-based links to the north (obviously) and their profile matches perfectly with the Norwegians. Between, say, Germany and France there already is a multiple of that capacity going back and forth across multiple lines and the entire market is already often following regional rather than national variabilities. In etsovista you can watch realtime how every country is almost always importing and exporting at the same time, simply because the grid at one border is in another condition than on another one at any point in time. It’ll be interesting to see what’ll happen, when the British islands get wider connections to the continent.
In terms of renewables, the really interesting thing would be a NorNed kind of technology linking the major European hubs to Africa (with a gazillion political hurdles in the way, of course – and somebody who’d have to invest massively in “solar from the sahara” with a huge up-front payment, but thats a different matter).
re 1201.
“Still doesn’t make it a subsidy to the coal companies. It’s general research for (what some politicians see as) the public good.”
I think your representation is far too trusting of the intentions and goals of private research, to put it kindly. First and foremost much of this research is about profit and profit sustainability, not the public good.
Perhaps you might want to read the piece I provided regarding private research I put up earlier in response to your mistaken assumptions in 1128 regarding the percentage of all research being conducted by public entities vs government.
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/oct/sciences-worst-enemy-private-funding
Also worth a view:
http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/lift_the_veil_intro.pdf
http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/lift_the_veil_guts_fnl.pdf
Jim Bullis @ 1195:
And you can judge the validity of those prices these days by the age of the news story.
The larger parts of a 4KW system — panels, grid-tie inverter — are $14K for the panels and $4K for a 7KW grid-tie inverter (give the customer a chance to expand — smaller ones are cheaper). Those prices are current retail. Installation and balance of system components aren’t going to tack on another $22K these days.
This is why I keep saying — the cost of solar is falling and is projected to continue to fall. Buying solar is a lot like buying a computer — the longer you wait, the cheaper it gets.
#1207 Furry
Hi Furry,
I think that news story was less than a year old. Sure technology improves, and that could change things. I remain skeptical.
However, your numbers are good enough to demonstrate my point. If I add correctly, $14K plus $4K equals $18K (still true even in California). Even if you throw in just $12K for installation we are up to $30K. (Maybe it would be $12K in many parts of the country, but you don’t get a lot from a contractor around here for $12K — Portola Valley maybe even less.)
I reiterate my concern that this does not represent a system concept that will be implemented on a large national scale.
#1207 Furry
When they send over the workers and robotic machines that built your computer and put them to work installing solar panels and electrical wiring, then I will think a bit more on the subject.
RE:1193
Hey bobberger,
Interesting how little we actually know about the amount of energy that reaches us from the sun. Looking back over the Barrow, Alaska North Slope Skyrad 60 detector history between 1 Mar 2003 and 31 Oct 2006 there was a nice period of time in which solar data was gathered. In this time frame there is a clear signature of no less then 8 hours of shortwave downwelling radiance running near 800 W/m^2 for about 30% of the time. As to diffuse longwave it looks like there was an average of about 200 W/m^2 during the same time frame. If you click on a thumbnail you can get a good indication of the days measurements. http://www.archive.arm.gov/tnb/JSP/Thumbnail.jsp
Of course trying to maintain the detectors in the wind and ice is a bit difficult as it would be for a PV panel. However, for islands in the lee of a warm ocean current near the same latitude it may be likely to see less issues with the ice, though it is likely there would be more issues with the mists or fog during the cooler months.
Ever since the 1970’s it has not been recommended that you would want to deploy solar PV panels at greater then 45 Deg. Lat anyway. However, in the upper Latitudes the average wind speeds are generally steadier and at a greater average velocity then the lower Lats.
I suspect the biggest issue for wind relates to the high speed horizontal axis wind spinners icing up. This was one of the design considerations suggesting a articulated blade (Impact Lift/Drag Design) vertical axis device might be more effective. The articulation when responding to wind speed gusts generally helps clear the blade of ice and with the design running at a little less then 3 times wind speed with multiple blades, the unbalancing effects of uneven build up are minimized.
Cheers!
Dave Cooke
Jim Bullis @ 1208:
Jim,
The article was 2 1/2 years old — it was dated, as I recall, December 2006.
A 4KW solar installation — pure grid-tie, no battery — isn’t going to cost anything close to $12K. Not for the labor, not for the balance of system components, not for anything. Grid-tie inverters from companies such as Sunny Boy and Xantrex often include the required DC disconnects, so the connections are array combiner box (can be made from a 6×6″ PVC box with fuse blocks for each string — very cheap to make, or you can buy a combiner box and save the labor of making one) to inverter to main service disconnect via a backfed 30A 2 pole breaker. Wiring is in 3/4″ EMT, which is about $10 per 10′ piece, last time I bought any. Not expensive at all. Conductors are either #2 AWG for bipolar or larger for single pole. Pretty sure #2 AWG THHN is less than $1.00 per foot, but I could check if it makes you happy. Mounting is 10 pieces of 20′ (or so — assume 4 row of 5 and it could be 8 pieces) of Unirac or unistrut. Five 204″ pairs of Unirac and legs are $1,310 (modules in “portrait” orientation. Unistrut is MUCH cheaper, but doesn’t look as pretty). #10 AWG USE 2 from array to combiner box is $0.44 / ft. Not much needed on account of panels have their own wires for panel-to-panel connections. A Fronius 4KW inverter, which includes the DC and AC disconnects, is $2,945. Twenty Kyocera KD205 panels are $14,700.
Add all that up and the answer should be about $22K with $3K included for labor. Deduct the 30% Federal Tax Credit and the $1.50 / watt AC credit (believe that’s the current rebate) from PG&E (I assume you have them) and the cost is $9,400. Not sure what California sales tax rates are like, so I didn’t include sales tax — you can do that, I’m sure.
That system makes 517KWh per month, average (which is low — Fronius inverters are something like 94% efficient in the DC-to-AC conversion stage and Los Angeles has 5.6 hours insolation, average, per day). Life expectancy is about 20 years, or 124,080 KWh. $9,400 / 124080 Kwh is $0.076 / KWh. In truth, the panels last MUCH MUCH longer.
Care to tell me where I miscalculated, because those numbers are good enough that if you lived in Texas, I’d probably give you a contract at that price (I’d have to double check — I’m just typing off the cuff here).
Anne, your reference says the $7.4M does not include the $2.8M subsidy. The ancillary stuff was a bunch of macadam, paint, shrubs and light posts which probably takes very little (less than $1M easily) of the total cost. But you still do not accept this as a reasonable estimate example of mid-level PV systems?
RE: 1211
Hey FurryCat,
Here is a link to a 3.6kW kit and an expansion pack that would provide 7kW at a cost a bit less then your numbers.
http://www.northerntool.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/category_6970_770399+6228+784706_0_0_P-Price|1
Add in two $70 frame kits found in the Amphorous Cell product section and you would appear to be able to provide about 7kW average and 14kW peak for about $17k, installation not withstanding. (Yes, the 205w are choice and new discount panels can be obtained via e-auction sites at a similar price.)
Cheers!
Dave Cooke
#1211 Hi Furry
Your instructions fully demonstrate my point. You are fully capable of doing a good job of all this, but how many people do you know who will sign up to do the same?
I think my car concept is quite simple also, at least to drive, but I have to acknowledge that very few even remotely understand what I am talking about.
#1213 I David Cooke,
What happened to the Dave Cooke who wanted to scientifically work out system requirements for preserving the climate commons?
#1193 Anne van der Bom
Your say, “Any cost analysis based on the figures that Jim Bullis provided is useless.”
I reply: Ooch, ouch. I was only trying to illustrate a problem as it looks to me. By all means get better numbers.
I do not want to discourage innovation that can come from great enthusiasm, and I think that solar energy can be helpful, overall, in reducing CO2.
Just do the solar thing and stop. That is a good thing. It is a separate act from buying and plugging in an electric vehicle. That car will be driven by coal, no matter what you have done about solar.
I stand ready to hear that solar will work on a large scale basis.
Thanks again to our host gavin, AKA Dr. Schmidt, for the very useful metaphorical story and for your interest in looking for solutions, which to some degree these 1200+ comments hopefully represent.
J.S. McIntyre Says (4 juin 2009 at 2:19 PM):
“I think your representation is far too trusting of the intentions and goals of private research, to put it kindly.”
And I think yours is far too representative of a certain brand of politics. Opinions differ.
“First and foremost much of this research is about profit and profit sustainability, not the public good.”
Of effing course! Any research done by a private company is ultimately going to be about profit, even if the company is one of the few that supports pure research. For instance, one I used to work for was willing to let its researchers look into oddball things like GMR – and as a result has some key patents in a multi-billion dollar industry.
“…your mistaken assumptions in 1128 regarding the percentage of all research being conducted by public entities vs government.”
Which mistaken assumptions were those? The only mistake I see is your failure to understand that there is a difference between “all research” – your words – and “basic R&D” – my words.
#1216 Jim Bullis:
“Just do the solar thing and stop. That is a good thing. It is a separate act from buying and plugging in an electric vehicle. That car will be driven by coal, no matter what you have done about solar.”
Perhaps I get energy from an atypical corporation, but PG&E reports getting only 2 percent of their energy from coal. They do burn a lot of natural gas, but the majority of their power is derived from large hydroelectric, nuclear, and renewables.
A number of my neighbors have installed photovoltaic systems on their roofs, and they love to watch their meters run backwards most days. One family that didn’t find their meter running backwards during the day discovered that their family (mostly habits of their kids) left lights on in every room, had numerous computer peripherals running constantly, and had inefficient appliances. They changed their habits, and now they use less energy than they produce.
Across the street my neighbor (like FurryCatHerder) powers his electric motorcycle, which he uses locally when not riding his bicycle. At least in this climate, photovoltaics should be able to supply enough energy to run well-insulated homes as well as recharging electric vehicles.
Captcha: “It grunts!’
David Cooke @ 1213:
Uh, no. That’s a 960 watt system. Solar systems are rated by DC watts. It’s also a pointless system — the system Jim Bullis mentioned from that article produces about 17KWh / day. The system you referenced produces about 4.1 KWh / day.
Jim Bullis @ 1214:
Your governor announced a program in 2004 to install solar power on one million California roofs. I understand California is tracking fairly well to achieve that goal.
I looked at your roof using Google Maps a while back and saw that several of your neighbors have solar power already.
re 1212 was that 2.8M for the solar or for the entire thing (including the parking spaces, grounds, etc)?
I also note that you neglect to concede the multitudinous costs that figure was spent on.
“Still doesn’t make it a subsidy to the coal companies. It’s general research for (what some politicians see as) the public good. How about for example the funding for the Human Genome Project? Drug companies use the information from that project: does that make it a subsidy?” – James
Er, yes, clearly it is. Of course, I don’t have the ideological objection to subsidies many here share, because I don’t worship the great god Market. Sometimes subsidies are bad, sometimes they’re good.
RodB
4 June 2009 at 7:36 PM
The page says: “This is a $7.4M project initially funded with a $2.8M grant”
I can only interpret the ‘This is a $7.4M project’, as implicating the total cost is $7.4 million. But like I said before, it is not really important.
If you can give me a reliable cost breakdown instead of a shot in the dark… then still no. It is only 1 project. For a reasonably reliable estimate you must always analyse more than one project. Preferably a more recent project.
Douglas Wise posts:
And why should we trust your judgment?
Coal is only “cheap” because the huge costs of the damage it does to the environment isn’t charged to the utilities, mining companies, or customers. With any realistic scheme to internalize those costs, it won’t be “cheap” any more.
Jim Bullis
4 June 2009 at 10:21 PM
“Your say, “Any cost analysis based on the figures that Jim Bullis provided is useless.”
I reply: Ooch, ouch.”
Point taken. Although I do not retract the remark, I could have worded it less bluntly.
I would derive PV system cost by looking at the prices on offer by solar installers. Like this example. The page is in Dutch, but the table near the bottom shows the price range in euros/Wp for a residential installation as diy and turnkey. This price includes a 19% sales tax. The competition is usually in the same price range. I think it will not cost you a lot of time to find a similar price indication from a PV installer closer to where you live.
For a big solar installation, I would take one of the larger solar parks in Germany, like Waldpolenz. That 40 MWp installation cost 130 million euro, or 3.25 euro/Wp. About a third of your example.
4 June 2009 at 10:28 PM
I agree!
James
4 June 2009 at 1:23 PM
Of course it isn’t general research. It is very specific research that only applies to power plants, mostly the coal fired variety. You may prove to us that it is general research by giving a few examples of other applications of this technology, outside of the coal & power industry.
And you ingore my point that most of the money is payed directly to coal & power companies.
I’m gonna end this discussion. I’m getting bored and think have given all relevant arguments and information. Everybody should now be able to make up his own mind.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/03/renewables-energy
Maybe interesting, though not very clear if oil and nuclear are counted into these figures.
RE: 1215
Hey Jim,
Actually I had already done my homework; I was simply offering you the opportunity to share yours as well. The idea was that if we approached this first on the technical merits and then examined the economic impact the end result would be a benefit to all with an interest who are posting here.
As it has been clear that that is not the intent of the crowd gathered here, I have attempted to stay out of the fray. When I saw FurryCat’s reference I thought I would share a simple package that would provide a basis for the solar discussion. She is quite right that the (4) 170 watt panels or with an expansion kit (8) 170 watt panels is insufficient to meet the average modern homes demand for a family of four. In essence, I was expecting her response; however, at least we could start talking about implementation strategies and move this discussion forward. (Seems some get hung up on trivial things…)
From data I had gathered before (24) 170 watt panels would just about meet my homes daily electrical demand. However to meet peak load requirements would require 12 hours per day of charging and doubling the kits battery banks. Add in the use of Nat. Gas for heating and access to the grid to run the air compressor of the air conditioner and our foot print drops in half (we are already down near 20Kw/day now (down from a high of 33kW plus nat. gas)).
At a cost of $17k for 1350 watts/hr average or a roll your own based on (20) 205 watt panels you can order off the web at around the same price, add in a Gird Tie, and a synchronous 4kW inverter the price creeps up to around $24K with no battery bank. However, to replicate the potential 200 amps of energy supplied from the power utility would require around 100 panels.
Hence, this takes us full circle, no matter what system you install relying only on personal solar at this time is not practical. The use of the Grid for high current appliances such as Compressors, Clothes Dryers, Heaters and Stoves and using solar for most other demand seems reasonable.
As an alternative to the grid and in association with trying to be more efficient a personal Nat. Gas fired Alternator to power these devices would be slightly more efficient. The issue now is you have the cost and time of maintenance for your alternator. Generally, having a Utility to provide this service seems to make a lot of sense. In any case, that alternative would at a minimum move us away from coal. At it’s best it could move us to bio-diesel or Nat. Gas (Bio-mass Gas) and be carbon neutral.
The point being your thoughts of combining the transportation system and your alternate power source seems reasonable. At a minimum your “power plant” is mobile and can be taken to a professional service for maintenance and repair. On the other hand having a drop in power plant and slide in battery bank would go light years towards making the system reliable, though still costly…
Cheers!
Dave Cooke
RE: 1229
Hey Pekka,
That brings up the point that no one seems to be talking to the suppliers about their meeting the new fossil carbon reduction requirements. We keep harping on alternative energy that excludes them or beating up on the demand part of the market. What we fail to do is suggest that Coal or Coke suppliers insure that 20% of their carbon content by weight come from current biosphere sources such as compressed charcoal briquettes. Or that refined bio-diesel must be 20% of all diesel sold. Or that Bio-Gas must make up 20% of all natural Gas sold.
This all seems like everyone wants to challenge the weak and not the strong. That is what government is all about, if you are in the Energy Industry as a supplier what would happen if suddenly you faced legislation that 20% of your product had to be at a minimum carbon neutral? Does cap and trade drive suppliers to evolve their product? What happens to the costs, in essence we are already offering subsidies and offset taxes, what would happen if these went directly into the industry to help them “improve” the technology they offer?
Cheers!
Dave Cooke
1218: “I think your representation is far too trusting of the intentions and goals of private research, to put it kindly.”
JAMES: And I think yours is far too representative of a certain brand of politics. Opinions differ.
Really? And what ‘brand of politics’ would that be? Do you feel a need to engage innuendo re suggestions of agenda when replying to a criticism? You don’t need to be liberal or conservative to understand when someone is fudging data in a way that has knowing, detrimental outcomes for the public good in favor of profit.
‘Opinion’ has very little to do with this.
===========================
“First and foremost much of this research is about profit and profit sustainability, not the public good.”
JAMES: Of effing course! Any research done by a private company is ultimately going to be about profit, even if the company is one of the few that supports pure research.
But not necessarily about the public good …. And as demonstrated by several examples discussed in the links I provided, COUNTER to the public good.
============================
“…your mistaken assumptions in 1128 regarding the percentage of all research being conducted by public entities vs government.”
JAMES: Which mistaken assumptions were those? The only mistake I see is your failure to understand that there is a difference between “all research” – your words – and “basic R&D” – my words.
Oh, I didn’t misunderstand a thing. You should actually try and read the entire article, as opposed to cherry-picking lines from the first page. Your “point” re basic research is somewhat meaningless and ignores a more important understanding: basic R&D is a shrinking piece of the research pie. Or would you like to argue that basic R&D continues unabated at levels akin to 1965 in spite of the fact government research has been halved?
Private research is not picking up the slack, it is instead placing limits on how research is conducted and, as the report points out, innovation, which feeds advanced research, is being essentially stifled in favor of research/science “with an agenda.”
FurryCatHerder (1211), your analysis is accurate (and well done!) for an individual’s installation. But if analyzing and comparing generic project costs you have to include the subsidies that otherwise reduce a person’s out-of-pocket outlay. Subsidies are part of a project cost; funds are simply from a different source.
Re the previous:
James, could you clarify? You really seem to be saying regarding private research that as long as a profit can be made, to heck with the public good. Is that correct?
And I misspoke. You did not “cherry-pick” anything re the article. My apologies for that. Hazards of replying to something without being fully awake.
FurryCatHerder, so that’s why California is bankrupt! ;-)
Anne, maybe your referenced URL takes me someplace different, but your referenced article that I get does not have “$7.4M” in it anywhere. The phrase I see is “…The $11.9 million project cost was partially offset by a $2.8 million rebate…” But you’re right, it’s probably not important. Is the actual cost from one project better or worse from the myriad of estimates from zero projects that many often swear by? If I were assigned as Project Manager to build one I would absolutely want to know the details of the former, and would be slightly interested in the latter.
1235, nope that would be the mostly fossil-fuel-bound Enron scandal where the “Free Market” was left to fix everything that was wrong.
And instead people got rogered six ways to Sundays.
That bankrupted california.
#1188 Roderick W. Brick, Sr.
First, I’m unsure why James is offended by my real name, odd but unexplained. He wants me to ask him for clarification but I think he should be more clear in the first place rather than being obtuse.
Second, no, I’m not offended by literalism in general, but his (James) specific usage of it is misleading in some cases. He chooses not to accept the general understanding of the language and bias it towards his own reasoning and perspective. This lends to the various degrees of ambiguity James has surrounded his arguments with in such subtle ways.
But I do believe he thinks he is being super intelligent and wining all arguments with his version of reasoning from his version of moral perspective. That is easy when one ignores other relevant points, though they come from other versions (like holistically considerate reasoning, or dictionaries and relevant aspects of definitions) of what is considered moral.
In his version of moral, humans don’t matter, even though the human conscious idea of morality would not exist without us. He may want to take this to a chicken and egg argument if I understand his logic, but where does that get you, other than in rhetorical debates that are not so relevant to well, or more, considered reasoning.
#1198 James
It is best when constructing lines of reasoning and thought to connect all the dots rather than be myopically literal.
The two definitions should be taken together and also include the relevant understandings (including words and definitions) that surround them. This seems to be where you reasoning capability fails. You have trouble connecting some of the dots.
Effectively you are ignoring common sense relationships to favor your perspective which is generally not considered holistically reasonable. To be wholly reasonable you need to consider the definitions of moral and amoral along with all things related in context and with relevance. You can always spin the message in your own direction but that is merely being political.
Sort of like science. Science attempts to remove the spin. You are doing the opposite, you spin everything your way. You tend to use the ‘burying them in BS technique’ from the well of your perspective reasoning. IN this I mean that you are inconsiderate of other perspectives and seem to believe that your perspective is best. If you could eliminate your bias, then you may have a chance at holistic reasoning rather than limiting your statements to your own view. I at least try to reduce or eliminate my view bias and consider things holistically, I’m not confident you do.
You see, the subject of this thread is the climate commons, that means considering other perspectives as well.
> “For a big solar installation, I would take one of the larger solar parks in Germany, like Waldpolenz. That 40 MWp installation cost 130 million euro, or 3.25 euro/Wp. About a third of your example.”
Yes, claimed to be the biggest solar pv installation in 2008. Once finished later this year, it will deliver the already mentioned 40 MW peak and “up to” 40 million kWh per year. Lets put that into perspective. One of the nuclears we’re about to shut down here, is Biblis. It delivers a peak of 2,525 MW (63 times as much as Waldpolenz) and in 2004 pumped out 15,306 million kWh day and night. Even IF we could solve the storage problem somehow, it would take 383 Waldpolenz installations to fill the gap left by just that one nuclear plant. If (big “if”) Waldpolenz stays within budget and the storage facilities would come absolutely free of charge from heaven, these 383 installations would cost almost 50 billion Euro (> 70 billion US$). Biblis cost 1.8 billion Mark to build (around 3 billion Dollar including inflation since 1969). The whole thing would have to become either 24 times less expensive or 24 times more effective to compete (plus the storage thing would have to be solved, which is by far the biggest problem of all). And once you got there, you’d have to do it another 35 times just to cover the national demand. 2.4 trillion dollars for solar and the assumed free storage from heaven. That is a lot of money – almost our entire gross national product – and apart from not including the storage, it doesn’t even include any reserve capacity. So why should we waste so much money on energy we can have for a tiny fraction of that price and with comparable CO2 emissions?
#1198 James
It is quite handy to fall back on the my reasoning or understanding is different argument. You seem to be dismissing the fact that there are other perspectives to be considered. But in discussing the commons, perspective right and wrong is often a major part of constructing laws and rules as to operation in the commons. Agreement of some sort, such as consensus is important to a societal system. It is too easy to banter about perspectives. There may be no single right and wrong but it is not so difficult to see there is more right and wrong when one is considerate.
To disregard the commons is to miss the entire point unless of course you are arguing that the commons or the reasoning concerning care of the commons should be limited to a few plutocrats and oligarchs that don’t care about the people in the commons, even though the oligarchs and plutocrats may/are the reason for the struggles of the people in the commons. This is an extraordinarily arrogant position to take it that in fact is it is this your position? Please clarify.
You say you want reasonable discussion but that seems to be incorrect. You want a forum to espouse your brand of morality and reasoning, though it be amoral, or possibly even immoral. Not sure we have nailed that one down yet.
I’m not saying you don’t have a right to such arrogance, certainly you do. But how does that help the commons (including the people in the commons)?
#1198 James
Let us stop dilly dallying. To be more direct and in following the reasoning of your arguments, though it may(?) be academic depending on your true, or more fully explained, position, likely as yet unrevealed:
If as you say you do not hold humans exalted
and
the problem is overpopulation
and
nature is more important that humans (Chernobyl is a net positive event because of an abundance of life even though it killed some humans).
then
why don’t you commit suicide and become part of the net positive solution?
I mean, this is what you are talking about isn’t it? Please clarify. Or is it that you just think others should die so you can have a better life, even though you live in the country that has done the most damage to the global commons in relation to human survivability.
So to clarify, are you indicating that the innocent should pay for the crimes of the guilty and the guilty should continue to reap the benefits of cheap energy? You must be a big fan of the Keynesian economic model which is basically a resource eating machine.
Please clarify, I am anxious to hear your reasoning from your self proclaimed moral perspective.
And please note that I am talking about your perspective, not mine, so please don’t try to spin this. Just please tell us who, by extrapolation of your argument, should die; or are you just saying it to be dramatic and really don’t want anyone to die, thus reversing the point of your argument? Or are you saying you’ve got plenty of ammunition, just let it play out?
Does your argument still hold to your reasoning when it applies to you dying, as a more guilty party than someone in the middle of Africa that has never even seen a coal plant, but suffers the consequences nevertheless?
Mark, Rod, you’re both mistaken. While the Enron scandal helped, it happened because California’s population decided they wanted to behave like a direct democracy (via Propositions) instead of a representative one. Only problem: by and large, the voters were not competent to make budgetary decisions.
Uh-oh … I maybe in trouble for going OT.
reCaptcha: gavin province
One example for storage. Lets assume you get high quality batteries for rediculously low prices ($60 per kWh) and could load and unload them so effectively, that just twelve times the daily consumption would be enough to buffer the demand across an entire year (in reality it would be at least two times that much but lets be very, very optimistic here) then just buying the batteries would cost germany more than $ 1 trillion plus around $ 133 billion per year for replacement, assuming the batteries last 8 years.
Anne van der Bom Says (5 juin 2009 at 6:25 AM):
“Of course it isn’t general research. It is very specific research that only applies to power plants, mostly the coal fired variety.”
Just as for instance the 1930s NACA research into airfoils http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NACA_airfoil was very specific research which at that time applied only to airplanes. The research results weren’t given to one aircraft manufacturer, or a few. It could be used by anyone who wanted to build airplanes. Later on this research (or extensions) probably was used for designing wind turbines. So, was this 1930s program a subsidy for an industry that didn’t really get started until half a century later?
Anne van der Bom Says (5 juin 2009 at 6:25 AM):
“You may prove to us that it is general research by giving a few examples of other applications of this technology, outside of the coal & power industry.”
OK. Cement making is an often cited major source of CO2, as are lime & iron/steel refining: http://www.ghgonline.org/co2industry.htm Any of these industries could use a working CCS technology to sequester their emissions.
Rod B @ 1233 & 1235:
Those costs did include the subsidies. That was the reduction from $22,000 to $9,400.
As for bankrupting California, very unlikely that’s even on the radar as a cause. I’m sure you’re being tongue-in-cheek with that comment, but it’s a common misconception — energy costs WILL rise over the life of the system and the economic benefits, long term, will outweigh the costs. If I remember California’s electric situation correctly, there are transmission constraints north-to-south. Distributed Renewable Generation will also help with that.
Bobberger @ 1240:
Sure. That’s 10,000 4KW installations, or about 1/75th of what California is committed to doing.
Also, everything we do is ultimately “Energy”. It runs the plants that make the products, transports the people and materials that are used, powers the tools needed to get the products from wherever they come. This is why RENEWABLE energy is so important — without RENEWABLE energy there is no modern economy. The make matters worse, without heavy industry there is no shifting to renewable energy. Without the power to run the plants that make the turbines and solar panels, there will be none. This isn’t a choice. Every year it is put off, the more money and resources will need to be turned to the task.
J.S. McIntyre Says (5 juin 2009 at 8:40 AM):
“Really? And what ‘brand of politics’ would that be? Do you feel a need to engage innuendo re suggestions of agenda when replying to a criticism? You don’t need to be liberal or conservative to understand when someone is fudging data in a way that has knowing, detrimental outcomes for the public good in favor of profit.”
I didn’t mean that as innuendo, but as “gee, do I have to spell it out at this time of night?”. I meant, of course, the sort of leftist politics that sees anything done by a corporation as bad, pretty much by definition, and probably the product of some conspiracy.
I can partway agree about issue of fudging data, but why is it only a problem when corporations do it for a profit, and not when some advocacy group does it to further its notion of “the public good”?
“But not necessarily about the public good…”
The problem there is that while any good accountant ought to be able to nail down profit & loss, “the public good” is a far slipperier and often purely subjective matter. Who gets to define it, you or me?
“Your “point” re basic research is somewhat meaningless and ignores a more important understanding: basic R&D is a shrinking piece of the research pie.”
I think it rather indicates that you’ve still failed to understand the point I was trying to make, which is that “public” research usually works out the basics of an idea, then private research takes that and does more research to turn it into a commercial product. (Not infrequently the same researchers are involved: they get an idea at the university, see a potential product, and seek venture capital to develop it.) This has nothing to do with the relative sizes of the pie pieces.
“You really seem to be saying regarding private research that as long as a profit can be made, to heck with the public good. Is that correct?”
No, I’m saying that private research has to be concerned with making a profit, otherwise the company involved goes bankrupt. (Even those, like my former employer, that do basic research have learned to make it pay off in the long run.) As for the public good, first define it.
#1230 Dave Cooke
Hi Dave,
The kind of engine I would need would be more of an industrial quality engine that is built to run on a more continuous basis. Commercial grade diesels exist that meet this requirement.
Still I am talking about a size of engine that has to be developed, and it also has to meet NOx environmental standards that currently produced diesels do not.
Batteries may well be important in the system, but for starters, I am ok with just relying on the public utility for backup.
Best regards, Jim Bullis