George Monbiot has come out for (limited) tradable carbon rations. He would apply these to direct purchases of power (exempli gratia, gasoline, electricity) while leaving companies to role their carbon use into their product prices. I've been promoting http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/trimming.html a full second currency in carbon, where you'd have to use rations for the whole chain of carbon use, say to cover the transportation of an apple from Washington state. My thinking is that when we have the information in front of us, we will be able to make clear decisions about carbon use. With regards to trade, if a chinese company can show that a DVD player was made at a factory that uses renewable energy (which is taking off in China) and whose workers also use renewable energy, then the only carbon tagging would be for the shipping (for now http://www.greenoptions.com/blog/2007/05/10/first_ ever_solar_crossing_of_the_atlantic_ends_in_nyc). If not, then you'd make an estimate based on China's emission. To me, this would have a greater benefit than just flat tariffs since you'd be acknowledging efforts to reduce fossil fuel use in other countries product by product. Sarkozy's position only acknowledges if a country has chosen to join a treaty system but not if the country
is actually accomplishing its goals, or that developed countries like to outsource their pollution.
Actually, gas gets much bigger subsidies but can't compete because it is getting scarse. Now, I'm a little suprised you think that a company has to
do it for retail, and obviously in terms of the cost of delivered electricity, solar is competitive. But the strangest thing is that you think everyone
needs $30K for something that is pretty obvious collateral. There is plenty of borrowing capacity to make this go pretty quickly: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/04/green-numbers. html, money that would be borrowed anyway to switch as fuels run out. I think you want to look
at the costs of some of these things, including fossil fuel and nuclear subsidies to get a clearer picture.
Hum, you seem a little confused. You want to go buy huge swaths of land to put up solar panels yet you seem also to understand that you could take you
house off-grid (a bit wasteful) with solar. PV at 15% efficiency will do 100% of most homes' use and fit on the roof. The swaths are swaths of roofs, not land. Wind does need land, but it also can be dual use. Wind is the cheapest power contract in parts of Texas right now since gas is past peak production. Coal is also seeing reduced energy production (though not reduced tonnage) http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/05/three-cornered -ghost.html. So, what is the ROI on a levy system? If we take steps to protect ourselves, do we always measure it against our electric bill? Well, just let the cost of coal go up and you'll see a much quicker return. In the mean time.... -- Easy Entry to Solar: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
The too big (or important) to fail argument has saved many a behind. Think fiscal bailouts of all sorts. To me, fair tariffs, those that equal what a
domestic industry has to pay to get into compliance make sense. Going with Kyoto would have obviated the need, but now EU industies have to pay to pollute and US industries don't. A reverse tariff that covers the health care costs that many EU industries don't have to pay might make sense as well. Trade isn't free if it isn't fair. -- Get solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
The new French president is already talking about tariffs against non-cooperative countries: http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/opinion/50811.p hp, mentioning China but the US and Australia would be in the same boat I think. FTA:
He promises to be a tough customer in global trade talks, saying Europe should only open its markets to those that open theirs. He wants an EU-wide tax on goods from countries - he has singled out China - that have not agreed to cap their greenhouse gas emissions.
The claim is that if biofuels can do 30% of transportation with an ICE then their factor of 3 (fuel cell mediated) boost in efficiency allows much closer to 100%. It is true that biofuels are causing a rise in corn prices now and may continue to do so. So, how far wrong can the DOE be? Is the 30% figure compatible with sound farm policy http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/05/juicing.html? To me is seems a stretch, but we have not, as Brazil has, looked all that hard at using less fertile land for fuel production. They are getting very close to 30% already and plan on doing more.
I suppose some consider Joseph's interpretation of Pharaoh's dream together with the preamble of the Constitution when setting the basic parameters
of farm policy. You could be right that more rancher would be better, but the cows in the dream were troubled as well.
In the Energy Balance measure you'd think that gasoline would not be plotable because it is the ratio of energy out to fossil fuel energy in. Since
gasoline is all fossil fuel energy out, your seem to be stuck. But, it can be calculated, at least according to some folks at the conference, and the
number comes in at less than 1 because some fossil fuel energy is used to refine and transport it. So, this is not EROEI but rather a measure of
how far away you are getting from fossil fuel dependence.
For energy density (by volume) you are correct that gasoline requires less volume. I don't know what happens to fuel tank weight though once you go
with hydrous ethanol. I see lots of folks happy to buy high proof booze in light weight plastic bottles, thinner that containers allowed for gas.
This was the predominent sentiment at the renewable fuels conference at the Aspen Institute on Monday, corn prices were too low and now we're seeing
something more realistic. Many people tried to point out that this does not translate into higher beef prices since many of the new ethanol plants
are built right next to feedlots so that the wet used mash can be fed right to cattle, saving on the energy cost of drying it. But, people were
worried about the bad press also I think. Some were worried that OPEC would boost production around harvest time too.
To me, we've had a wise policy of ensuring food surpluses so that famine can be avoided. The implementation might have been done a little differently,
but farm subsidies of some sort or another are going to have to be a part of it since people will only pay for about what they need but security against
famine requires producing more that what people need. So, shouting hoorray, now there will be an "undistorted" market in corn makes me think that we
might be losing a very wise policy of ensuring surpluses. -- Solar power: abundance is the only option: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
You don't get biodiesel from palm oil unless you live in the EU I think. US production in based on soy and cannola or waste streams. The EU countries
have gone with diesel in a big way but have not required local production for their blend. So, when the cheap biodiesel from palm oil started coming in,
they bought it and more land went into production. But, this land was a carbon sink before being converted and not it is carbon source, a big one. Suatainability standards for bio-fuels are being drafted now and will be a big help in letting people know if their source of biofuels makes sense or
not. -- Use silicon as your solar middleman! http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
Do it with oysters, they mature faster! All you have to do is be sure that all that up stream biofuel production does not increase the nitrogen load and
kill all the oyster/clam beds. If you do oysters you can also get value added in your sequestration by using the shells as a building material called tabby: http://www.bcgov.net/bftlib/tabby.htm. Biomineralization is one of the key sequestration methods and we need to make room for it through
nitrogen/phosphorous management. -- Rent solar power and save: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
At the renewable fuels conference I was at on Monday at the Aspen Institute, Alfred Szwarc spoke on Barazillian ethanol. He was at great pains to
point out that cane agriculture does not impact the rain forest areas there. But, latter, at the environmental break out session, he conceded that
there could be and issue with oil palm cultivation after Barbara Bramble from the International Wildlife Federation presented on this. He also said that
Brazil in interested in supporting sustainability standards for biofuels. I would note that rooted plants do produce oxygen even if they are also used as a biofuel feedstock. -- Solar! It's were it all comes from: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
I was at a renewable fuels conference at the Aspen Institute on Monday. I'll be blogging on it before too long. The first talk was given by
Paulo de Sousa Coutinho of Brazil Ecodiesel. The guy knows biofuels. Amazing talk.
Here is his take on Energy Balance for enthanol and biodiesel from various feed stocks:
Ethanol:
Corn (US) 1.3
Beet (EU) 1.9
Cane (Brazil) 8.3
Biodiesel:
Soy (US) 1.9
Rapeseed (EU) 3.0
Sunflower (EU) 3.2
Castor (Brazil) 10.5
So, what is energy balance? The ratio of renewable energy out to fossil energy in. How you do on GHG will depend on your fossil energy choice. Why is Brazil so high? Partly, they are bootstrapped: much of their energy in is renewable.
Now, here is something I also learned: Brazil flex fuel cars are different from US flex fuel cars. In Brazil, they burn E25 through hydrous ethanol
while we do straight gas through E85. Since I've never gotton a bottle of really strong stuff to actually freeze, I'm kind of thinking they are
in better shape with the way they do flex fuel. --
Electrons can be a renewable fuel: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
So, your WIFI is 1 meter away and the cell tower is 1 kilometer away, which delivers more power where you are at. Take the cell tower number and
divide by a million (1000^2) and you'll see that WIFI yields greater exposure. Doesn't mean there is a problem, but it is not just power level at
the antenna that is important. --
Fusion power from your roof: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
That's why I mentioned the block and tackle. Presumably you can load this stuff in a block, but it might be clumsy. Don't know what people might
come up with.
The hydrogen storage methods are still a little lacking so this looks competitive there. I don't know if refueling would be complex or easy. I just
changed ink in my printer and it seemed a little bit of a hassle though less so than fueling my car. But, I didn't need a block and tackle to do
either. It is an interesting idea, but I think it won't go far. It might spur some new thinking though.
Direct electrolysis would be simpler if you had a power source that you could carry around in a car to do it. Or, if you has a hydrogen storage method
that worked well in a car. This is kind of the point here. The volume needed to go 300 miles is the same as for gas. --
Think of the Sun as Mr. Electron: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
This is basically a "better" battery because the energy density is fairly high. You don't need much more volume than a gas tank. The mass is higher,
but that is probably OK because you still want traction even if you replace the engine with a fuel cell. However, recharging the battery does not
look to be all that efficient. I wonder if you could get a current rather than heat if you ran this on a diode? -- Get solar power at a grid competitive price: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
There was no restriction to overseas, it is just that the US market is shrinking. Maryland already took itself out of tobacco leaving room for
Virginia. If anti-smoking campaigns were as successful in Asia, you could not get much for Virgina tobacco.
Now it is clear that you have missed the point entirely. From the beginning, the idea was to use high gas prices (or rationing+substitution) to force low oil prices. Keep searching for that
clue.
Actually, I was taking this into account. The main number I'm thinking of is how long, given a suitable replacement, it takes to convert our transportation fleet to using renewable energy. This could go very quickly if we found a way to synthesize gasoline at below $30/barrel equivalent without
also impacting, say food prices, because we could just use the same fleet. Owing to limits on the efficiency of plants in converting solar energy
to hydrocarbons, this does not look all that feasible http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/photosynthesis .html.
So, I'm assuming we need a different kind of engine and the fleet has to be converted. This, period of time exhausts most of the really cheap to
extract oil so far as I can tell and the remaining oil needs more desperate measures.
I think you can operate as a loss in a portion of your production, but you can't do it in all of your production.
The thing is, supply is already manipulated to affect price in the oil sector, it is much much smarter to change the demand side to our benefit
especially since we know we need to stop using the stuff before it actually runs out. The way to get people to cap productive wells is to make
oil too cheap to meet payroll.
Slashdot Mirror
George Monbiot has come out for (limited) tradable carbon rations. He would apply these to direct purchases of power (exempli gratia, gasoline, electricity) while leaving companies to role their carbon use into their product prices. I've been promoting http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/trimming.html a full second currency in carbon, where you'd have to use rations for the whole chain of carbon use, say to cover the transportation of an apple from Washington state. My thinking is that when we have the information in front of us, we will be able to make clear decisions about carbon use. With regards to trade, if a chinese company can show that a DVD player was made at a factory that uses renewable energy (which is taking off in China) and whose workers also use renewable energy, then the only carbon tagging would be for the shipping (for now http://www.greenoptions.com/blog/2007/05/10/first_ ever_solar_crossing_of_the_atlantic_ends_in_nyc). If not, then you'd make an estimate based on China's emission. To me, this would have a greater benefit than just flat tariffs since you'd be acknowledging efforts to reduce fossil fuel use in other countries product by product. Sarkozy's position only acknowledges if a country has chosen to join a treaty system but not if the country
is actually accomplishing its goals, or that developed countries like to outsource their pollution.
Actually, gas gets much bigger subsidies but can't compete because it is getting scarse. Now, I'm a little suprised you think that a company has to do it for retail, and obviously in terms of the cost of delivered electricity, solar is competitive. But the strangest thing is that you think everyone needs $30K for something that is pretty obvious collateral. There is plenty of borrowing capacity to make this go pretty quickly: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/04/green-numbers. html, money that would be borrowed anyway to switch as fuels run out. I think you want to look
at the costs of some of these things, including fossil fuel and nuclear subsidies to get a clearer picture.
Get over it, fascism lost: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/05/scrooge.html.
Hum, you seem a little confused. You want to go buy huge swaths of land to put up solar panels yet you seem also to understand that you could take you house off-grid (a bit wasteful) with solar. PV at 15% efficiency will do 100% of most homes' use and fit on the roof. The swaths are swaths of roofs, not land. Wind does need land, but it also can be dual use. Wind is the cheapest power contract in parts of Texas right now since gas is past peak production. Coal is also seeing reduced energy production (though not reduced tonnage) http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/05/three-cornered -ghost.html. So, what is the ROI on a levy system? If we take steps to protect ourselves, do we always measure it against our electric bill? Well, just let the cost of coal go up and you'll see a much quicker return. In the mean time....s -selling-solar.html
--
Easy Entry to Solar: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
The too big (or important) to fail argument has saved many a behind. Think fiscal bailouts of all sorts. To me, fair tariffs, those that equal what a domestic industry has to pay to get into compliance make sense. Going with Kyoto would have obviated the need, but now EU industies have to pay to pollute and US industries don't. A reverse tariff that covers the health care costs that many EU industries don't have to pay might make sense as well. Trade isn't free if it isn't fair.s -selling-solar.html
--
Get solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Here are the preachers you requested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_ of_Evangelicals#Global_warming. But, Bush attends St. John's in DC so he might want to listen to this http://www.edow.org/diocese/governance/convention/ 2006pages/res-3.html.
We are granting may favors and subsidies to the fossil fuel industry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_ 2005. Eliminating these and shifting to your tax proposal might be helpful.s -selling-solar.html
--
Easy solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
--
US solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Sounds expensive. I expect they are working on eliminating the wascally middlewabbit. On the other hand, genetically modifying some micro-organism to produce enzymes that dissolve say paper and plastic rapidly sounds like a recipe for grey goo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_goo.s -selling-solar.html
--
Higher efficiency solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
The claim is that if biofuels can do 30% of transportation with an ICE then their factor of 3 (fuel cell mediated) boost in efficiency allows much closer to 100%. It is true that biofuels are causing a rise in corn prices now and may continue to do so. So, how far wrong can the DOE be? Is the 30% figure compatible with sound farm policy http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/05/juicing.html? To me is seems a stretch, but we have not, as Brazil has, looked all that hard at using less fertile land for fuel production. They are getting very close to 30% already and plan on doing more.
I suppose some consider Joseph's interpretation of Pharaoh's dream together with the preamble of the Constitution when setting the basic parameters of farm policy. You could be right that more rancher would be better, but the cows in the dream were troubled as well.
In the Energy Balance measure you'd think that gasoline would not be plotable because it is the ratio of energy out to fossil fuel energy in. Since gasoline is all fossil fuel energy out, your seem to be stuck. But, it can be calculated, at least according to some folks at the conference, and the number comes in at less than 1 because some fossil fuel energy is used to refine and transport it. So, this is not EROEI but rather a measure of how far away you are getting from fossil fuel dependence.
For energy density (by volume) you are correct that gasoline requires less volume. I don't know what happens to fuel tank weight though once you go with hydrous ethanol. I see lots of folks happy to buy high proof booze in light weight plastic bottles, thinner that containers allowed for gas.
This was the predominent sentiment at the renewable fuels conference at the Aspen Institute on Monday, corn prices were too low and now we're seeing something more realistic. Many people tried to point out that this does not translate into higher beef prices since many of the new ethanol plants are built right next to feedlots so that the wet used mash can be fed right to cattle, saving on the energy cost of drying it. But, people were worried about the bad press also I think. Some were worried that OPEC would boost production around harvest time too.
s -selling-solar.html
To me, we've had a wise policy of ensuring food surpluses so that famine can be avoided. The implementation might have been done a little differently, but farm subsidies of some sort or another are going to have to be a part of it since people will only pay for about what they need but security against famine requires producing more that what people need. So, shouting hoorray, now there will be an "undistorted" market in corn makes me think that we might be losing a very wise policy of ensuring surpluses.
--
Solar power: abundance is the only option: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
You don't get biodiesel from palm oil unless you live in the EU I think. US production in based on soy and cannola or waste streams. The EU countries have gone with diesel in a big way but have not required local production for their blend. So, when the cheap biodiesel from palm oil started coming in, they bought it and more land went into production. But, this land was a carbon sink before being converted and not it is carbon source, a big one. Suatainability standards for bio-fuels are being drafted now and will be a big help in letting people know if their source of biofuels makes sense or not.s -selling-solar.html
--
Use silicon as your solar middleman! http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Do it with oysters, they mature faster! All you have to do is be sure that all that up stream biofuel production does not increase the nitrogen load and kill all the oyster/clam beds. If you do oysters you can also get value added in your sequestration by using the shells as a building material called tabby: http://www.bcgov.net/bftlib/tabby.htm. Biomineralization is one of the key sequestration methods and we need to make room for it through nitrogen/phosphorous management.s -selling-solar.html
--
Rent solar power and save: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
At the renewable fuels conference I was at on Monday at the Aspen Institute, Alfred Szwarc spoke on Barazillian ethanol. He was at great pains to point out that cane agriculture does not impact the rain forest areas there. But, latter, at the environmental break out session, he conceded that there could be and issue with oil palm cultivation after Barbara Bramble from the International Wildlife Federation presented on this. He also said that Brazil in interested in supporting sustainability standards for biofuels. I would note that rooted plants do produce oxygen even if they are also used as a biofuel feedstock.s -selling-solar.html
--
Solar! It's were it all comes from: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
I was at a renewable fuels conference at the Aspen Institute on Monday. I'll be blogging on it before too long. The first talk was given by Paulo de Sousa Coutinho of Brazil Ecodiesel. The guy knows biofuels. Amazing talk.
s -selling-solar.html
Here is his take on Energy Balance for enthanol and biodiesel from various feed stocks:
Ethanol:
Corn (US) 1.3
Beet (EU) 1.9
Cane (Brazil) 8.3
Biodiesel:
Soy (US) 1.9
Rapeseed (EU) 3.0
Sunflower (EU) 3.2
Castor (Brazil) 10.5
So, what is energy balance? The ratio of renewable energy out to fossil energy in. How you do on GHG will depend on your fossil energy choice. Why is Brazil so high? Partly, they are bootstrapped: much of their energy in is renewable.
Now, here is something I also learned: Brazil flex fuel cars are different from US flex fuel cars. In Brazil, they burn E25 through hydrous ethanol while we do straight gas through E85. Since I've never gotton a bottle of really strong stuff to actually freeze, I'm kind of thinking they are in better shape with the way they do flex fuel.
--
Electrons can be a renewable fuel: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
So, your WIFI is 1 meter away and the cell tower is 1 kilometer away, which delivers more power where you are at. Take the cell tower number and divide by a million (1000^2) and you'll see that WIFI yields greater exposure. Doesn't mean there is a problem, but it is not just power level at the antenna that is important.s -selling-solar.html
--
Fusion power from your roof: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
That's why I mentioned the block and tackle. Presumably you can load this stuff in a block, but it might be clumsy. Don't know what people might come up with.
The hydrogen storage methods are still a little lacking so this looks competitive there. I don't know if refueling would be complex or easy. I just changed ink in my printer and it seemed a little bit of a hassle though less so than fueling my car. But, I didn't need a block and tackle to do either. It is an interesting idea, but I think it won't go far. It might spur some new thinking though.
The weight is not all that favorable compared to hydrocarbons. The volume is.
Direct electrolysis would be simpler if you had a power source that you could carry around in a car to do it. Or, if you has a hydrogen storage method that worked well in a car. This is kind of the point here. The volume needed to go 300 miles is the same as for gas.s -selling-solar.html
--
Think of the Sun as Mr. Electron: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
This is basically a "better" battery because the energy density is fairly high. You don't need much more volume than a gas tank. The mass is higher, but that is probably OK because you still want traction even if you replace the engine with a fuel cell. However, recharging the battery does not look to be all that efficient. I wonder if you could get a current rather than heat if you ran this on a diode?s -selling-solar.html
--
Get solar power at a grid competitive price: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
There was no restriction to overseas, it is just that the US market is shrinking. Maryland already took itself out of tobacco leaving room for Virginia. If anti-smoking campaigns were as successful in Asia, you could not get much for Virgina tobacco.
Now it is clear that you have missed the point entirely. From the beginning, the idea was to use high gas prices (or rationing+substitution) to force low oil prices. Keep searching for that clue.
Actually, I was taking this into account. The main number I'm thinking of is how long, given a suitable replacement, it takes to convert our transportation fleet to using renewable energy. This could go very quickly if we found a way to synthesize gasoline at below $30/barrel equivalent without also impacting, say food prices, because we could just use the same fleet. Owing to limits on the efficiency of plants in converting solar energy to hydrocarbons, this does not look all that feasible http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/photosynthesis .html.
So, I'm assuming we need a different kind of engine and the fleet has to be converted. This, period of time exhausts most of the really cheap to extract oil so far as I can tell and the remaining oil needs more desperate measures.
I think you can operate as a loss in a portion of your production, but you can't do it in all of your production.
The thing is, supply is already manipulated to affect price in the oil sector, it is much much smarter to change the demand side to our benefit especially since we know we need to stop using the stuff before it actually runs out. The way to get people to cap productive wells is to make oil too cheap to meet payroll.