How much for a degree?

[MSimon]

*

http://ecoworld.com/blog/2008/12/09/how ... -a-degree/

*

Good BOE analysis of CO2 reduction. However, their conclusion is what I like best.

The imperative to dramatically curtail fossil fuel use rests on the precautionary principle. Maybe the earth’s climate isn’t going to catastrophically tip because of CO2 emissions, but we should do it anyway just in case. But there are two sides to this argument. Our position is we should use those trillions to build roads, hospitals, power plants, reforestation, aquifer replenishment, and medical (and other scientific) research. We should nurture free trade, free markets, and entrepreneurship. We should deliver to humanity the universal prosperity that is the destiny of our generation. Then by sometime between 2025 and 2050, we will have created economic abundance, we will have advanced technology, and we will be well positioned to handle whatever the climate may throw at us.

[Nanos]

Its what I would/am do/ing, so it gets my vote.

[Mike Holmes]

Completely agreed.

I think that both of the far-flung sides tend to be short-sighted. That is the far liberal side says that we should fix things now by adopting poverty. As if we can't fix things in a way that will allow for continued prosperity. The far conservative side says that there's not even a potential problem. When we can go forward with win-win solutions that address the potential problem without impoverishing us.

It's not a zero-sum game.

Every technology that we develop to solve global warming will, if unneeded, have other benefits. Electric cars will, one day, be a part of the prosperity equation by being more economical than ones run on fossil fuels. We know the efficiency equations prove this is true, if we just make a couple of breakthroughs in storage technology that are far from fiction.

Every advancement in economic infrastructure will mean more wherwithal to create these new technologies and solutions. Or simply to buy our way out of the problem. The current economic blip not withstanding.

Both sides seem driven by fear. One of ecological disaster, one of economic disaster. What we want are solutions, not timidity. Don't retreat; attack. Fortune favors the bold. There will be failures along the way, and setbacks, sure. But when has that ever cowed us?

/rant

Mike

[Betruger]

That's the thing.. Attack what? If we want solutions, we need to properly define the problem first. Until then there's no telling attack from retreat.

[MSimon]

The far conservative side says that there's not even a potential problem.

I'm not one of those. I think there is a huge cooling problem.

[MSimon]

I promise to solve the problem.

I'll start driving a Tesla ASAP.

Send me the money.

[Nanos]

My solution is cheaper

I promise to solve the problem.

I'll start driving a homemade Velomobile ASAP.

Send me the money.

[Aero]

On this one I am inclined to agree with Simon. I live near the same latitude, and really not very far from him. I know that there is a short term cooling going on because it is -5 deg. C outside right now. Last winter was one of the coldest and snowiest on record, and the winter before that was miserable cold. Neither one of the summers were as hot as I remember them being in years gone by either. But of course this proves nothing about the climate, just that the weather is miserable cold outside today and that's the truth!
Oh, send me the money, I want it more than those other guys.

I had the temperature wrong, guess I need more money!

[Mike Holmes]

I think I'm contracting Seedload's paranoia, but worse. I come in with complete agreement, and feel like I'm getting lambasted.

What... you wanted my post to end with "Completely agreed"? Or if I post a response to a post by MSimon, it's automatically a debate?

Probably all in my head.

Mike

[Edited at the risk of further flagellation for agreeing, here's a strong statement from somebody who you might think would know something about the issue that capitalism and development are the road to peace (an important element in having a world stable enough that we might be able to tackle any environmental problems that come along): http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre4b9 ... bel-peace/

He basically says prosperity brings peace, and prosperity comes from private sector jobs.]

[Maui]

On this one I am inclined to agree with Simon. I live near the same latitude, and really not very far from him. I know that there is a short term cooling going on because it is -5 deg. C outside right now. Last winter was one of the coldest and snowiest on record, and the winter before that was miserable cold. Neither one of the summers were as hot as I remember them being in years gone by either. But of course this proves nothing about the climate, just that the weather is miserable cold outside today and that's the truth!

This message board confounds me. I would expect it to be filled with those that are scientifically inclined, yet instead its filled with people willing to accept conclusions based on isoloted anectodal evidence. Even false anecdotal evidence because, Aero, I live near you (Madison, WI-- but I am a Hawkeye) and though it was ridiculously snowy last year, it was not any colder that average:

07-08 Madison snowfall

07-08 Madison heating degree days (cumulative temp)

Anyway, certainly you undertstand that one year in one specific region of the world does not describe climate-- it describes weather. If you want statistics on climate, you can get them here.

The part I object to in the EcoWorld article is the assumption that moving away from fossil fuels costs anything at all in the long term. Yes, it requires an up-front investment (such as building a coal-burning power plant does), but in the end it will more than pay for itself. And, best of all, the money we do spend on "tomorrow's" energy will stay right here in the U.S. and not end up funding totalitarian regimes in the Middle East.

Fossil fuel is not in endless supply. We have no choice but to invest money in developing renewable sources of energy at some point. Why not do it now rather than later, so that we can reap the profits of the techology rather end up in another situation where the U.S. is licensing Japanese technology as happend with hybrid technology.

This is all despite the fact that we owe it to our children to treat the world we are passing on to them responsibly. If there is even a reasonable chance we are doing them harm, doesn't it make sense to at least make a token effort to address the issue?

[Aero]

Oh come on Maui, don't you know what that means? It means something like "tongue in cheek" or "take it with a large dose of salt." But I see from your data that you reealy got some snow last year. Here was only in the 70 inch range, and a new record, but nothing compared to your snow. I can see why you might be touchy about me complaining about snow, but I'm going to complain if I want to, anyway.
And speaking of kidding, I thought you were an Island in Hawaii

[hanelyp]

I don't think the data is good enough to be sure what kind of climate change we're facing, other than most likely not a whole lot. Given the uncertainty, the 'more tech and a strong, flexible economy' looks like the best bet.

[Maui]

Oh come on Maui, don't you know what that means? It means something like "tongue in cheek" or "take it with a large dose of salt."

Oh. I guess I would have used or . But I still probably should have figured out I suppose.

But I see from your data that you reealy got some snow last year. Here was only in the 70 inch range, and a new record, but nothing compared to your snow. I can see why you might be touchy about me complaining about snow, but I'm going to complain if I want to, anyway.

Actually, that wasn't a complaint about snow. I love ridiculous amounts of snow (no , or intended).

And speaking of kidding, I thought you were an Island in Hawaii

Just a nickname from H.S. (Iowa City City High) that ended up sticking as my online identity. Where in eastern Iowa are you?

[tomclarke]

Simon,

You reference:

Using our cheapest known alternative electricity, we will have to deploy wind generators at a cost of $2.5 million per megawatt at full output. With a yield of 35% (the percentage of time there is viable wind), this equates to a cost for wind generated electricity of $7.1 million per constant megawatt, or 7.1 billion per constant gigawatt.

This puts renewables cost at $7/watt (constant). It assumes that only one year of the output of wind generators should be counted, an elementary mistake but one which infaltes real figure by 10X or more.

Have a look at these costs for PV:
http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1704/

and a comparison with coal

Admittedly the real costs of PV or wind are higher because storage costs something and renewables are intermittent.

In fact this BOE calculation emphasises the point that sudden transition to non-fossil-fuel economy at some later date will be difficult - because of the large capital costs. It does not prove a very large overall cost as result of the shift.

Finally, no-one is advocating 100% shift away from fossil fuels now. With larger take-up of renewables costs go down - technological innovation has already driven this with PV though due to short-term silicon shortage we are not yet seeing all of what has happened. And much larger future volumes will lead to much cheaper PV from thin-film (many competing technologies currently available).

Maybe (outside possibility) fusion will become commercial

Maybe micro-fission or advanced FBR fission will become commercial.

But leaving these developments to free market without incentives or coercion will not give us the technology we need when we (may) need it.

Best wishes, Tom

[MSimon]

The capital costs of AE are declining and our capital stocks are building.

There is no need to act like the sky is falling.

In fact the optimum time to accelerate the shift is when AE costs are below other energy costs. Other wise we reduce the rate of capital accumulation below optimum.