Cap and Trade implications.

If polywell fusion is developed, in what ways will the world change for better or worse? Discuss.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Aero
Posts: 1200
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:36 am
Location: 92111

Cap and Trade implications.

Post by Aero »

Cap and Trade as I understand it, is a means where carbon emitting industries are regulated to limit their level of greenhouse gas emissions. If companies within the industry do not meet the regulation, said companies must either pay a severe penalty, shut down, or they may purchase unused greenhouse gas emission permits from other companies in their industry, (Maybe even from outside of their industry). If this scheme of regulation is enacted it will have a severe impact on the electric power generating industry. Obviously, electricity generated using BFRs will not be produced in conjunction with carbon emissions, but the owner of the BFR generator should receive an allocation of greenhouse gas emission permits. So what happens?

I speculate that, for example, the company owner of 40 coal fueled generating plants will build one or two BFR generating plants, and use the carbon emission permits for them to offset the excess carbon exhausted by his coal plants. It gets worse. As this company phases out coal (the existing plant wears out) and transfers to all BFR generators, maintenance on the carbon scrubbing equipment in the remaining coal generator's exhaust stacks is relaxed. After all, they have enough emission permits, and it is cheaper to exhaust carbon than fix a plant scheduled for shutdown in the relatively near future (years).
That's the way I see it, Cap and Trade will not encourage companies to do the right thing and eliminate carbon emissions where they can by building BFR generators, rather Cap and Trade will defacto set an amount of greenhouse gas that will be exhausted into the atmosphere each year.
How do you see it? Is this how it is intended to work? Does it make greenhouse gas emissions permits a profit center for BFR powered electric utility companies?
Aero

MSimon
Posts: 14332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

How do you see it?
A government program to add another tax to the system and more control of the economy.

Especially when you consider that CO2 has been rising for 10 years with no increase in global temps (with even warmist scientists saying that we have another ten years to go before temps start rising again). And the fact that solar scientists are predicting a little ice age due to lower solar output for 20 to 50 years.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Mike Holmes
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm

Post by Mike Holmes »

The question of the validity of global warming aside, I can't see why we shouldn't reduce emissions, generally. If it's economic to do so.

BFR does not exist as a viable energy source, nor any other fusion source. No energy source that can provide the majority of our energy needs economically is green. The carbon tax is a means to try and control emmissions with current technology. I'd expect the system to be revamped if a green technology becomes viable.

Call it a stopgap measure.

MSimon... would you be averse to the tax if, in fact, the monies from the tax were put into research for new energy technologies? Basically forcing companies to pay for research to replace current technologies?

Or should we just keep on burning coal? Even that will run out at some point, whether or not you buy the ecological or health arguments for converting to something more green. Is your interest in BFRs solely for space exploration?

Mike

blaisepascal
Posts: 191
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 3:57 am
Location: Ithaca, NY
Contact:

Re: Cap and Trade implications.

Post by blaisepascal »

Aero wrote:I speculate that, for example, the company owner of 40 coal fueled generating plants will build one or two BFR generating plants, and use the carbon emission permits for them to offset the excess carbon exhausted by his coal plants. It gets worse. As this company phases out coal (the existing plant wears out) and transfers to all BFR generators, maintenance on the carbon scrubbing equipment in the remaining coal generator's exhaust stacks is relaxed. After all, they have enough emission permits, and it is cheaper to exhaust carbon than fix a plant scheduled for shutdown in the relatively near future (years).
That's the way I see it, Cap and Trade will not encourage companies to do the right thing and eliminate carbon emissions where they can by building BFR generators, rather Cap and Trade will defacto set an amount of greenhouse gas that will be exhausted into the atmosphere each year.
How do you see it? Is this how it is intended to work? Does it make greenhouse gas emissions permits a profit center for BFR powered electric utility companies?
Yes, that's how I see it, almost. The two aspects I see differently is that (a) the number of carbon permits can be changed over time to reduce the defacto amount of greenhouse gasses exhausted each year, and (b) I had always assumed that the carbon permits were auctioned off annually, not simply "given" to industry. As such, there is an economic benefit to simply not buying more carbon permits when BFRs go on-line.

MSimon
Posts: 14332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

MSimon... would you be averse to the tax if, in fact, the monies from the tax were put into research for new energy technologies? Basically forcing companies to pay for research to replace current technologies?


No. I think we are doing just about everything we can do in the alternative energy arena with the current set up. These things take time. They are often built on interlocking increased capabilities.

So maybe the key is some biotech. Or nano tech. Or an improved industrial process.

There is no sure way to tell where the money should be spent. A tax might make sense if the path was clear (wind subsidies for example) where the end result could be expected to give a net gain. Or solar subsidies which seem to be bringing down costs by insuring a market.

However, a plan like: "let us collect and spend a lot of money and see where it gets us" is not really too helpful.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

David_Jay
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 2:49 pm
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan

Post by David_Jay »

Mike:

I agree with Simon, you are putting the government in the business of choosing winning and losing technology (though their research subsidies).

That's how you end up with an ITER...
not tall, not raving (yet...)

dch24
Posts: 142
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:43 pm

Post by dch24 »

It's possible that the costs of raw materials (copper, for one) and equipment will make coal plants seem expensive relative to a BFR plant. That depends on the operating cost of the BFR -- and I believe MSimon when he says the power supplies are a major part of that -- amortized over its lifespan.

If it turns out BFRs cost a lot less than coal plants (coal plants are the cheapest peak load plants, so they tend to be (over)used as stopgaps) -- BFRs might end up being the new "coal."

Helius
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Syracuse, New York

Post by Helius »

dch24 wrote:It's possible that the costs of raw materials (copper, for one) and equipment will make coal plants seem expensive relative to a BFR plant. That depends on the operating cost of the BFR -- and I believe MSimon when he says the power supplies are a major part of that -- amortized over its lifespan.

If it turns out BFRs cost a lot less than coal plants (coal plants are the cheapest peak load plants, so they tend to be (over)used as stopgaps) -- BFRs might end up being the new "coal."
Really?! I though a gas turbine was the cheapest peak load plant. I'll believe you. Thanks for my correction.

Aero
Posts: 1200
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:36 am
Location: 92111

Post by Aero »

Helius wrote:
dch24 wrote:If it turns out BFRs cost a lot less than coal plants (coal plants are the cheapest peak load plants, so they tend to be (over)used as stopgaps) -- BFRs might end up being the new "coal."
Really?! I though a gas turbine was the cheapest peak load plant. I'll believe you. Thanks for my correction.
Don't you mean coal plants are the cheapest "base" load plants? I believe Helius is correct regarding gas turbines being used for peaking loads, though I'm not sure that price is the factor, its more, "What is possible to fire up and get on line in time to power the air conditioners this extra hot afternoon."
Aero

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

MSimon wrote:A government program to add another tax to the system and more control of the economy.

Especially when you consider that CO2 has been rising for 10 years with no increase in global temps (with even warmist scientists saying that we have another ten years to go before temps start rising again).
Worse than that. The 1998-2008 trend line is NEGATIVE. Temperature isn't just stable, its been declining.
MSimon wrote:And the fact that solar scientists are predicting a little ice age due to lower solar output for 20 to 50 years.
Global Warming isn't about science. That's the reason they changed the wiggle word title to "Climate Change." The climate always changes by definition.

Science requires evidence. Science REQUIRES and CHAMPIONS skepticism. Both have been rejected by warmingists, with the putative scientist Hanson calling for kangaroo court trials last month. This isn't science. At best it's naked power grab politics, more likely its religious faith.

IMO however, we're seeing a new religion emerge for the secular elites who have embraced atheist humanism for the last five generations. Nothing but naked reason really isn't enough for most people, and the collapse of the Cathedral of the Faith 20 years ago (CCCP) left them bereft of fulfillment. But radicalized environmentalism offered the out. Now we see Gaianist Gnosticism.

Mother Gaia is now the transcendent focus, not True Communism. The method is Gnosticism, which is based on the sacred inner spark (see the cult of psychotherapy) pursued by the wise through special insight (Left think of themselves as "The Smart People"), and hates the outer physical world (no technology! 'population explosion!!!!').

Advanced human technology (beyond the hands of the "Smart" enlightened few, of course) is an insult to the Sacraments and Dignity of Gaia. 'Alternatives' are wonderful until they start working, at which point the Gaianist Gnostics reject them. Don't bet on BFRs being championed after they prove out. Might get plenty of funding until its waaaaaay to late to kill tho. :o

The up side is that this stupidity seems to be limited to the North Atlantic elites. Also, Gnosticism is always self-limiting and self-destructive. The down side is that the self-inflicted seppuku can take centuries.

Duane
Vae Victis

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

Mike Holmes wrote:The question of the validity of global warming aside, I can't see why we shouldn't reduce emissions, generally. If it's economic to do so.
Going on 40 years now of clean air, clean water, environmental impact statements and superfund cleanups. None of these are bad things, the first two especially, but we're already at the point of diminishing returns, arguably somewhat past it.

Duane
Vae Victis

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

djolds1 wrote:Worse than that. The 1998-2008 trend line is NEGATIVE. Temperature isn't just stable, its been declining.

Duane
Seriously. This pisses me off. Must both sides of this debate be equally misleading with their propoganda. Jeez! I guess when you are being beaten down with a hockey stick you just grab one of your own.

Do not take to heart any temperature "trend line" that starts in 1998.

1998 was a REALLY hot year! Talking about a trend that starts in 1998 is just silly. Seriously. I understand fighting fire with fire, but sheesh.

nuff said

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

seedload wrote:
djolds1 wrote:Worse than that. The 1998-2008 trend line is NEGATIVE. Temperature isn't just stable, its been declining.

Duane
Seriously. This pisses me off. Must both sides of this debate be equally misleading with their propoganda. Jeez! I guess when you are being beaten down with a hockey stick you just grab one of your own.
http://climate-skeptic.typepad.com/phot ... _08520.png

'98 was a significant high point, yes. The '98 - '08 trend is an obvious negative. Start in '02 however and the '02 - '08 trend is flat line. No increase whatsoever. Slightly negative actually, factoring in the delta-t of the last six months. Both contradict warmingist hysteria.

Warmingist mathematics are also "troubling:"

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2 ... ne-is.html

An assumed steady increase in positive feedback sensitivity when all evidence points to controlling negative feedbacks is... odd, doncha think? That those increases offset declines in the primary posited warming mechanism, reversing the trend from decrease back to predicted increase, even odder...

Duane
Vae Victis

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

djolds1 wrote:'98 was a significant high point, yes. The '98 - '08 trend is an obvious negative. Start in '02 however and the '02 - '08 trend is flat line. No increase whatsoever. Slightly negative actually, factoring in the delta-t of the last six months. Both contradict warmingist hysteria.
OMG. Seriously. 2002 you use to start the trend then? Can you find another peak to start your trend at.

This is what my human eye sees. Global temperature was pretty steady between 1979 and 1997, oscillating up and down a few tenths of a degree C. In 1998 there was a relatively abnormal temperature spike that caused a short lived temperature increase of about 0.6 degrees C from the average of the previous 20 years. After this event was concluded, there was a slight rise in temperatures between 1999 to 2002 and now temperatures seem to be hanging about 0.2 degrees higher than they were in 1979 when good data started to be gathered.

Slice it however you want to show whatever you want.

The truth is that that data is statistically insignificant for whatever period you (or they) artfully select.
djolds1 wrote: Warmingist mathematics are also "troubling:"
That is all I was saying. Your example is equally as troubling as theirs. I was pretty clear. Doing a visa versa smack down on me doesn't really change what I said. We are in agreement apparently.
djolds1 wrote:
An assumed steady increase in positive feedback sensitivity when all evidence points to controlling negative feedbacks is... odd, doncha think? That those increases offset declines in the primary posited warming mechanism, reversing the trend from decrease back to predicted increase, even odder...

Duane
Preach on, my brother.

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

I think the only honest answer is we don't really know if climate change is being driven by CO2 emissions -- and either way a billion Indians and a billion Chinese aren't going to remain in poverty to stop it so it doesn't really matter much.

FWIW, though, right or wrong Al Gore is getting rich of AGW, and Hansen's his right-hand man. And there is considerable evidence Hansen's NASA dept. is rigging their numbers by excluding areas that are cooling and applying algorithms to reduce temps recorded in earlier years.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/05 ... ermometer/

Anyways, cap-and-trade definitely helps Polywell.

Post Reply