Incredibly Carbonaceous

Tip Johnson  //  Mon, Dec 21, 2009, 3:34 pm

Oh yeah, and…Happy Holidays!

Hue Beattie  //  Mon, Dec 21, 2009, 4:37 pm

As Dillon said- the answer is blowing in the wind.

The Juan de Fuca straight is where it blows the most often.
B.P.A. would be capable of tapping into this energy stream and we would have power to the battery powered transportation of the near future.

Craig Mayberry  //  Mon, Dec 21, 2009, 10:00 pm

There is a structural issue with paying for the investment required for renewable energy.  Of course it is going to be more expensive in the short term, every investment is. Carbon trading will do nothing but line the pockets of corporations and the government. 

Most utilities are heavily regulated and operate on a cost plus basis.  Price increases have to be approved by panel based on the cost structure.  There is nothing in the calculation that allows the plus for renewable energy development and building new infrastructure. 

New investment is always paid for by the end consumer.  Back in the 80’s the automobile industry went through a heavy capital investment in automation.  This investment was funded by every person that bought a car and ultimately paid back to consumers through lower costs and therefore lower pricing.  Raising taxes and allocating will be incredibly inefficient (along the lines of TARP and the stimulus where the people who really need the money do not get it and the people who do not need the money will end up with it). 

At the end of the day we have to pay for the movement from fossil fuels to renewable energy.  It will help the environment, but it is far better economically.  Fossil fuel energy is expensive to build and then expensive to keep operating (you have ongoing, expensive input costs to keep them running).  Renewable energy is expensive to build, but then has very low operating costs once in place (the inputs are free).  Over the long term the cost of renewable energy will be far lower and better for everyone (economically and environmentally). 

The current arguments are getting us no where and the current “options” will not get us any further along.  At the end of the day the economic analysis needs to be done, the people need to be sold on it that the prices will come down and then the cost of the investment needs to be built into the purchasing price.  Markets deal with these issues all of the time, we have computers and other high tech gadgets because markets were allowed to work.  Trying to proxy it through cap and trade or taxes is a dead end that will get us no where.  It is our own stupid government rules that are getting in the way on this one, creating more rules is not going to get us out.

Tip Johnson  //  Mon, Dec 21, 2009, 10:34 pm

Craig, do you agree the cost of fossilized carbon for fuel should be higher?  Got any ideas on getting the price to reflect the true costs?  Do you believe artificially low prices limit entry of alternatives into the market?

Does it makes sense to eliminate subsidies on harmful technologies?  Is it reasonable to provide subsidies for helpful ones? Where is the balance, economically speaking?

Paul de Armond  //  Tue, Dec 22, 2009, 1:19 am

As Skeeter says, “Mother Nature bats last.”

There’s no market solution for the problem.  It will all sort itself out in the end.  Sorta like that dinosaur infestation, but slower.

Andy Rowlson  //  Tue, Dec 22, 2009, 9:18 pm

Can’t we keep it simple?  Impose a tax on the use of non-renewable fuel.  Say, for example, a $1 on a gallon of gas.  Or $2., or $3…  The more you use, the more tax you pay.  Increase the tax over time, allowing economies and people to adopt….

Invest the tax in alternative energy research and delivery.

Over time, alternative energy becomes more viable, non-renewable energy less so.

This seems so straightforward. Why is it then, that people simply do NOT support the increased tax on fuel?  Heck, we can’t raise the tax .09 cents a gallon in this state without great angst.  Unfortunately, it seems a waste of breath, or ink, to even discuss a $1 extra tax…

Craig Mayberry  //  Tue, Dec 22, 2009, 10:21 pm

Tip (and others),

First, you cannot increase the price of gas right now because there are not viable alternatives in most communities.  The mass transit system in Washington State (and most other states) is pathetic at best and not a viable option for almost everyone.  If you increase the cost of gas substantially, you end up punishing people because they do not have any other option.

I think you have to deal with this in stages.  First,  you need to fund and operate an efficient bus system (light rail is not an economically viable option).  Second, you need to deal with the energy from the electricity side first and have viable alternative energy to provide homes heat and electricity (this can be done concurrently with the first step).  Third, then you can deal with transportation energy, but not until the first two are completed. 

Frankly, right now there is not a great transportation alternative for cars.  Electrical vehicles are great, but if you are burning fossil fuel to charge the battery, have you really solved anything?  Ethanol is not an option because of the energy input into growing corn.  Government will have to fund research, which they should, but they need to take a portfolio approach and try many things and not try to pick a solution before they get started.

Externalities are a big deal with energy and certainly baking in the externality cost in the price would help people make better informed decisions, but again if they do not have any other option all it amounts to is a tax and makes it even more difficult for people to live.  Once options exist, then you can use subsidies to help drive behavior by eliminating subsidies of fossil fuels and increase them for renewable energy, but if you did that today it would lead to chaos and cause more problems than you solve.

Tip Johnson  //  Wed, Dec 23, 2009, 2:43 am

For quite a time, Dreadlock Doug kept babbling on about pneumatic vehicles as the perfect solution for urban/village driving.  OK, if you are going to Montana, or hauling a load, you might need fuel, but around town, blowing air around harms nothing. 

One of the big constraints for a lot of alternative energy is how to store it up for when you need it. Batteries are a toxic mess and long term environmental liability. Could we use sunshine, wind, tides and falling rain to compress air for later use?

I was intolerant of it until I spoke with a mining engineer who informed me that many mining locomotives were pneumatically powered for more than a century.  That got my attention because underground locomotives are not lightweight, light duty machines, often classified in 11 or 13 ton models.

Researching the topic, I learned that Paris long ran pneumatic streetcars, and that the first car to arrive in Seattle was pneumatic, having come from Chicago.  Moreover, pneumatic drive technology was all the rage in engineering schools for decades prior to the advent of carbon-based steam power and refined petroleum fuels.

Some suggest that petroleum profits were strategically invested into university programs to specifically expunge nearly a century of pneumatic engineering from college course works.

While inventorying an equipment yard in Arizona, I saw one of these pneumatic mining locomotives.  It’s a gigantic chunk of steel.  Imagining something like that moving even 100 yards makes it hard to believe there’s any reason anyone can’t travel all over town, no problem, moving a few folks and groceries.

Could our investments in automobile infrastructure and petro-fuels be blindng us to ready-at-hand alternatives?

Doug karlberg  //  Wed, Dec 23, 2009, 2:18 pm

Dreadlock Doug wishes to give some input on the externialities of Tip’s output.

You are dancing around with hot compressed air and avoiding the critical question which hold the key to this debate.

Let me subsidize your thought process. Energy is only created today by three sources. Nuclear, Fossil fuels, and renewables (which have their own environmental impacts). How we distribute and store is really secondary.

If we burn coal to fuel our electric cars or run an air compressor: What have we really solved? Answers which seem simple but turn out to be simplistic only slows down the progress toward real answer, which we all agree that we do need.

Turning off everyone’s light switch and having leaders give lectures about shared sacrifice, while they ride around in limos and corporate jets, doesn’t hold much promise in my opinion.

Taxing us more for gas, I can see the wisdom in, except for one very minor problem: This will generate a large pile of money and the gluttonous folks in DC, and their sucker fish groupies will steal most of it, and likely waste the balance.

Leaving a little funding for educational outreach.

Expecting miracles from a failing political systems, seems to be fantasy too far.

We all need to understand that it is okay to have a gradual transition. I don’t care how anxious people are, we are not going to give up our energy utilization systems we have built up over decades, overnight.

Don’t believe me? I just had to stop typing and put another log on the fire.

Humans have learned to really, really, like using energy a lot. Take it from them unfairly, arbitrarily, or by making dumb decisions, and they will revolt.

Making it easy to save wasted energy, seems to hold the most promise during this initial transition. Remember that lowering energy consumption lowers personal bills, and that is an incentive already in place.

Nuclear holds value during this transition.

I suspect that local solutions will be the quickest, most cost effective, and doable in the short run.

Maybe we should all turn off our computers during the holidays.

Merry Christmas