Recent (and not-so-recent) climate change articles

[JeffG78]

Yes, I watched Off the Grid. While it was interesting, I thought it was rather funny that he used a helicopter to hoist the building materials onto his property when the road was snowed over. The air lifts probably cost him more in money and power used than he saved by being off the grid

Also, while their home was somewhat self sufficient, they had to make major lifestyle changes for that to happen. If they made the same sacrifices while living in their old home, they would have cut their energy usage in half and still could have kept the same address, circle of friends and schooling for the kids. Rather than drive to work and to the store, they could have walked or cross country ski'd to where they had to go. He probably ended up with a much farther drive to work after moving to the boonies. I know he did some work at home, but not all, I don't think. Rather than clear brush and cut firewood by hand, he had no problem firing up the gas powered chainsaw

[Shipwreck]

I've lived long enough to be very skeptical when politicians become scientist and scientists become politicians

Tim

Best line I have ever read about this subject.

[jseklund]

This thread reminds me of the NIMBY issues we are having on Cape Cod. It has been proposed that a shallow water wind farm be placed off of the coast of Nantucket. Electricity on Cape Cod has become incredibly high priced, and this wind farm would be cleaner while reducing our cost for power.

As many of you know, a lot of well-off people live on Nantucket and they don't really care about their electric bill. They do care about their view though. A certain member of the opposition against this wind farm, Ted Kennedy, constantly states, "We have to protect Nantucket Sound. It is a national treasure. We can't put a wind farm there." (Or something along those lines).

The other day, this article was run in a local paper...

http://www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/index.php/2008/03/13/kennedy_dumping_oil_itno_nantucket_sound?blog=53

On a serious note though- I think wind power for electricity is a great idea. I think hydro power is an even better idea. Nuclear power is the best idea.

It's hard to imagine how much we have received from petroleum products - especially fuel oil. We run our cars, lawnmowers, tractors, homes, etc. on this stuff. If we want to harvest food, we can do so because of oil that powers the machines. If we fight a war for our freedom, oil will power the tanks and helicopters. It's hard to fathom just how large the impact of fossil fuels is. But we need to take the next step and find something even more efficient and cheaper.

[JR]

The other day, this article was run in a local paper...

"Ted Kennedy (the larger shape in the Hyannisport Yacht Club Launch on right) " Priceless!

[docrowan]

Am I the only one who thinks those gigantic white propellers are incredibly ugly? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for reducing dependence on foreign oil, but those wind turbines look awful to me.

I believe much of the answer will come from incremental gains. Hybrids and other proven technology edging up fuel mileage eventually to the 70 MPG range. Fluorescents, on-demand water heaters, radiant barrier insulation, etc cutting average home energy use in half.

As far as Anna's original post on climate change, I've often felt there's much more politics than science playing out on both sides of the question. Throw in the mix the incredible amount of money involved in making drastic changes to the entire world's energy use - money that would be spent on new technologies and shifted away from established industries - and you have a recipe for very heated debate and tremendous temptation to spin, shade, and even fabricate scientific data.

[Anna]

I think that when the free market is allowed to find its own comfort level, technological hurdles solve themselves. If something is attractive enough, whether as an economic proposition (hybrids when gas prices are through the roof) or ease of use (iPods for portable music), innovation follows the market.

When enough people start buying solar technology, improvements and economies of scale ensue. When gas prices keep going up, fuel efficiency is improved upon. It seems like we just have to reach some critical mass, and the technology takes off. That's one reason I'm not too worried about the technological limitations of hydrogen production. Given the proper incentives, they will be overcome, too.

I was thinking of this philosophy when I read a "race" between a Prius and a Beemer in Europe to see which one is more fuel efficient in the real world. I think there will be even better solutions than just a straightforward hybrid in the future. Fuel cells and hydrogen cars (costing more than $100k at the moment) will come, if the technology is worth it at all.

As for climate change and science, here's another paper written by MIT's Richard Lindzen back in 1992. It describes very well the problems with the greenhouse gases theory and the political climate at the time that the whole global warming circus started. He states things factually; it's not just about opinions ("I believe in so and so") but the science which can be rebutted if necessary.

I have always been after the scientific basis (not just math models) for the anthropogenic warming theory, and I honestly can't find any; if I do, I'll be the first to post it here. Knowing the history of the movement can be very elucidating, though. For those who have the time and the inclination, I highly recommend reading Lindzen's paper.

[dlminehart]

The free market works for those who have the wherewithal, and where technology can devise cheap enough alternatives. If you live in a poor country hit by a protracted drought, how's the market going to help? Even if some clever technologist comes in with a whizbang super well driller or desalinator, you can't afford to buy the water he produces, especially after having lost your crops the past couple years. The market works on effective demand, not real need.

Adjust for a middle class society: OK, so once gas costs $10 per gallon and all prices for transported products are adjusted upward accordingly, and our real standard of living has slipped by a noticeable amount because we just can't afford to buy all that costly transported stuff, it becomes cost effective to substitute fuel cells for petroleum. Still the equivalent of $10 per gallon in terms of efficiency of transportation, so still the lower standard of living based on having to spend that much more just moving stuff.

What the free market will also do is compel those with real but not effective demand to migrate in the hope of surviving.

[dlminehart]

Anna's comment about the payback on a solar roof being 25 years reminds me of an initiative in Berkeley. Idea is that the city can get loans cheaper than individuals, and could finance the solar roof with the premium+interest payback added onto the house's property tax. If the house is sold, the roof and responsibility for its payments go to the buyer. Instead of having to wait 25 years to start actually making a return following a big, one-time, upfront payment, the return from solar would come immediately.

[JR]

There was in interesting progam on PBS tonight on the Now series. They highlighted an effort in Cambridge, MA to control energy usage, called the Camridge Energy Alliance. Apparently the city had discovered that 80% of the carbon footprint there was related to operating commercial buildings and homes.

The CEA is a city-sponsored coalition of enrgy consultants. They analyze the energy and water usage of a business or home, making specific recommendations for improvements. They also have banks as part of the coalition, willing to make loans to implement the changes.

The business highlighted on the program, a laundromat, needed ~$24K in capital improvements. The savings, mostly in water bills, would be paid off in seven years.

It sounded like an interesting twist on the Berkley model mentioned above.

JR

[Anna]

I think that as long as the improvements are voluntary, as opposed to mandated, it's probably okay. I'm mostly leery of mandated changes (low flow showers and toilets, banning incandescents, carbon taxes to fly out of Denver, etc). When something makes sense - in the case of the laundromat there are the water savings which offset the price of the improvements - eventually people will do it voluntarily anyway.

The Berkeley case is interesting. At the rate they're proposing for the loans to the homeowners, it comes down to about 1% per year loan rate. I don't know where they'll get the money to finance this endeavor for this price, unless it's more taxes or from commercial loans that will have higher rates than 1%. I read that it will take them about 6 to 8 months since approval of the plan in November to thresh out the details.

My guess: like most government programs, they have grossly underestimated the costs. I do wish them luck because if run properly, it should be a good idea (generally) as long as the taxpayers don't have to be shouldering the costs of the good intentions. Again.

[Shipwreck]

The only FACT that I know about global warming is :

The taller the snow banks got in New England this past winter, the more quiet Al Gore got.

[gjat]

Anna's comment about the payback on a solar roof being 25 years reminds me of an initiative in Berkeley. Idea is that the city can get loans cheaper than individuals, and could finance the solar roof with the premium+interest payback added onto the house's property tax. If the house is sold, the roof and responsibility for its payments go to the buyer. Instead of having to wait 25 years to start actually making a return following a big, one-time, upfront payment, the return from solar would come immediately.

This exemplifies one of the problems with government aid. The cost of borrowing money is real. Even government has to pay interest. In this scenario, it is Berkeley who is 'subsidizing' (read paying out of government pocket) the interest.

Who benefits from gov paying the cost of the loan? Only the persons who were able to install solar panels and share some of the cost by making the principal payments. Middle class and wealthy.

Who loses? The people who pay taxes but don't own homes and could never invest in solar. The lower middle class and poor get screwed again.