tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8628325.post578945207439718113..comments2024-03-15T05:59:53.929-07:00Comments on Ambivalent Engineer: Grove's planAmbivalent Engineerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16491915174390340818noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8628325.post-39999377342775187902008-10-10T16:53:00.000-07:002008-10-10T16:53:00.000-07:00The problem with both plans is the failure to reco...The problem with both plans is the failure to recognize that:<BR/>1 Even if the USA decided to adopt either plan immediately, the additional cost (supplied on credit?) and additional energy required to transform the current oil-based infrastructure in the USA into a clean, sustainable, and internally-supplied system is probably not achievable in the time-frame required.<BR/>2 Both plans are based on maintaining the current energy-hungry lifestyle of citizens of the USA-led 'western' world, i.e. retaining the root-cause of the problem.<BR/><BR/>My worry is that the rush to implement a "green" solution in a free-market environment could produce more "bio-fuel" type disasters - people in third-world countries burning down rain-forest to grow fuel for US cars.Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06057235890307102919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8628325.post-27104034826363783172008-09-19T02:02:00.000-07:002008-09-19T02:02:00.000-07:00All the gas-fired capacity that was just built was...All the gas-fired capacity that was just built was a bad investment, as gas prices are now high. Oops. The important thing there is that the investors in the companies that screwed up get stuck with the loss, rather than ratepayers.<BR/><BR/>The problem with ham-fisted government regulation, as you describe with "stranded" sunk costs, is that ratepayers end up paying for but not owning big assets like nukes. I guess I have not yet seen the right kind of free market for electric power producers, that properly aligns their best interests with those of the public. As it is I think the flat demand curve makes utilities' interests opposed to the public good.<BR/><BR/>It's not the gas we import from Canada that's a problem. It's the gas from Venezuela. And since LNG tankers make it a worldwide market, even the gas from Canada indirectly funds regimes with interests opposed, perhaps violently, to our own.<BR/><BR/>That said, gas imports don't fund Hezbollah or Al Queda, and oil imports do. So, it's a weaker link.<BR/><BR/>Re: capital vs labor<BR/><BR/>If I pay for a continuous average kilowatt of wind power, I'm mostly paying the interest on the $3,000 of capital used to purchase those windmills. I think this is your point.<BR/><BR/>However, that $3,000 largely went to people who had to manufacture and install wind turbines. Compare that to purchasing $500/year of natural gas. A fair bit of that money goes to governments which tax the gas and capitalists who own the production rights in various areas.<BR/><BR/>I can't form a good argument right now, but I'm pretty sure that there is a difference that I care about between the $3,000 loan and the government/private ownership of gas fields.<BR/><BR/>Re: kids<BR/><BR/>We're building a pool, doing our part to make the energy crisis worse. I'm driving the contractors nuts because everything is so different from what they are used to: it's a deep pool (10.5 feet), it has a diving board, the shell is insulated, the solar panels are metal and glazed, and the main pump is going to be running at 150 watts 24/7.<BR/><BR/>Kids are great, running around in bathing suits all the time because they think they're going swimming soon. As we're just digging, it'll be a few months yet. Kathleen has started kindergarten. Recently (16-Sep), she came up with this nugget:<BR/><BR/>"The tooth fairies take care of God. They tried to hold him but he was too big so they turned him into a fairy. Then they gave him wands for his hands and he became king of the fairies.<BR/><BR/>"When the earth falls we're all going to grow wings."<BR/><BR/>I wonder if someone's been reading the Bible to her.Ambivalent Engineerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16491915174390340818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8628325.post-85502688444465151222008-09-16T08:25:00.000-07:002008-09-16T08:25:00.000-07:00Hey Iain, interesting stuff. A few (non-comprehen...Hey Iain, interesting stuff. A few (non-comprehensive) comments:<BR/><BR/>Re natural gas: It’s also struck me that the big problem with all these plans is all that gas-fired capacity that was just built. I’m not convinced that it was a mistake (without that capacity, we would have had a lot more California-style power crises), but it’ll certainly make it harder to switch our power sector to renewables as per Pickens/Grove/Gore, wiping out all that capital investment. It’s ironic that, twenty years ago, when power deregulation was becoming popular, the fear was that gas-fired generation would wipe out sunk investments (esp in nukes) in a marginal price market. The solution then was to declare those sunk costs “stranded” and allow utilities to recover them in rate surcharges, thus negating many of the price benefits of deregulation. Similarly, if today we taxed carbon emissions or otherwise mandated a switch to renewables/nukes, we’d probably still have to pay for the capital already invested in fossil fuel generation. That doesn’t mean the carbon benefits don’t exist or are not worth it, but it would be damn expensive. Also, I don’t get the connection between gas-fired generation and war. It’s true that we import a lot of gas and will import much more in the future, but I don’t see us fighting with Canada about it. <BR/><BR/>Re wind: I think you meant to say that converting to wind power is like switching from imported fuel to domestic (or imported) capital, rather than labor. Capital is a much greater component than labor of the amortized cost of wind power. That still may be a good trade to make, since we have a lot of capital (less than a year ago, but still a lot) and we’re running out of fuel. <BR/><BR/>Re rail: Interestingly, some of the reforms you suggest have already been tried, as a part of the New Deal, but (I think) were rolled back in the 1970s. I don’t claim to be an expert in transport policy, but it’s fascinating how this debate ebbs and flows. <BR/><BR/>Re electric cars (not in response to your post, but a pet peeve of mine): if Grove or any other random billionaire thinks it’s a good idea to “switch” to electric cars, why don’t they just buy GM and do it? The whole company costs barely six bills. <BR/><BR/>PS: how’s the family?<BR/><BR/>GeorgeUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17907715632274593648noreply@blogger.com