39 replies to this topic

[eds]

A question that many people are asking these days:
. . . How do we get off of fossil fuels?
. . . How do we reinvent our energy system,
. . . . . . so that it doesn’t completely wreck our planet?

[Shortpoet-GTD]

David and Goliath come to mind. The oil/gas industries are behemoths, and will "not go quietly into the good night"
without a fight.

And the American public has to start demanding policy changes in earnest-not seen so far. Maybe we won't
see at all?
But people are also becoming more aware of the dangers of using fossil fuels-dirty air, dirty water, a warming
planet.
What  is needed is an "occupy movement" with only one focus-the environment i.e. the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
We are making progress but only in fits and starts=not enough.

[eds]

The answer to the BIG Question is,
. . . Follow the MONEY, Honey.

Renewable Energy has reached the Tipping Point and
. . . Annual Renewable Energy Investment, is set to Sky-rocket By 2030.

Specifically, the research stems from Bloomberg New Energy Finance’s Global Energy and Emissions Model,
. . . “which integrates all of the main determinants of the energy future, including
. . . . . . economic prosperity,
. . . . . . global and regional demand growth,
. . . . . . the evolution of technology costs,
. . . . . . likely developments in policies to combat climate change, and
. . . . . . trends in fossil fuel markets.”

Attached Files

•  Money.jpeg   10.43K   5 downloads

[eds]

JEREMY RIFKIN is president of the Foundation on Economic Trends which examines the
. . . . . . economic,
. . . . . . environmental,
. . . . . . social and
. . . . . . cultural impacts of new technologies introduced into the global economy.
Mr. Rifkin advised the government of Spain during its presidency of the European Union
. . . served as an adviser to:
. . . . . . President Nicolas Sarkozy of France,
. . . . . . Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany,
. . . . . . Prime Minister Jose Socrates of Portugal,
. . . . . . Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero of Spain, and
. . . . . . Prime Minister Janez Janša of Slovenia, during their respective European Council Presidencies,
. . . on issues related to the economy, climate change, and energy security.
He currently advises:
. . . . . . the European Commission,
. . . . . . the European Parliament, and
. . . . . . several EU heads of state.
His unique perspective and social commentary have made him a frequent guest on numerous TV programs, . . . . . . CNN's Crossfire and Face the Nation,
. . . . . . ABC's Nightline, 20/20, Larry King Live, The Today Show, and Good Morning America.
Mr. Rifkin is a highly sought-after speaker by many of the world's leading:
. . . . . . Fortune 500 companies,
. . . . . . hundreds of governments,
. . . . . . civil society organizations, and
. . . . . . universities seeking his perspective on the challenges and
. . . opportunities of globalization in the 21st century.

His final words on this video are
"IT's GAME OVER,
. . . FOR FOSSIL FUELS!  Now look at where the money is flowing.

Attached Files

•  Fossil.jpg   85.14K   0 downloads

[Shortpoet-GTD]

"If you build it, they will come."

[eds]

Fosil Fuel prices: California gets $4-a-gallon gas

Attached Files

•  gas.jpeg   12.26K   2 downloads

[eds]

After running "The Oil Drum" for 8 years,
. . . due to scarcity of new content caused by a dwindling number of contributors.
. . . Despite our best efforts to fill this gap,
. . . we have not been able to significantly improve the flow of high quality articles.
Because of this and the high expense of running the site,
. . . the board has unanimously decided that the best course of action is,
. . . to convert the site to a static archive of previously published material as of 31st July 2013.

Source:  The Oil Drum website ends

[Phil]

I think that graph is likely for the developed world only.  They developing world is still going after coal and will do so for decades.

It's clear people in this country and the world over are unwilling to sacrifice now for the future, that goes for economics as well as the environment.  Wish it wasn't so but in the end I'm a realist.  We are mortgaging our economic future with unsustainable debt, we are mortgaging our environmental future with unsustainable CO2 output.  Two sides of the same coin, unwilling to sacrifice.

What do you expect the government to do anyway, make gas $10/gal?   That would kill what's left of the middle class and ravage the poor while the 1% bought their Tesla's and waved out the windows at the new peasant class waiting in the soup line.

If you aren't willing to buy a roof full of solar and a BEV why would you expect government to do it?  They get their money through you and add a layer of bureaucracy on top for good measure.  Tax corporations?  They pass that on to you and you still pay.  Tax the rich?  They're leaving this country by the thousands already and it's you that will have to make up for their lost tax revenue.

I guess it's time for my standard screed again! :<O

The government will not save you.  You cannot spend other peoples money on this one, you'll have to spend your own.  The government has done it's part, they offer 30% off of solar and $7,500 off BEV's, the rest is up to you.  If you truly think the sky is falling, the time to do what you can is long past, time to step up to the plate and do what it takes.  Don't own a roof?  Find someone who does.  Can't afford it?  Take in a border and cut your rent/mortgage payment in half.  If those who are passionate about the environment are unwilling to sacrifice, why would they expect those who are not to?  The Leaf is now $21,800, solar is cheaper than ever!

Thus sayeth the green libertarian.  :<)

[Tom Butler]

I think it comes down to ideology. Just recently, I invested in Tesla Motors (TSLA) http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=TSLA. Earlier reports indicated a strong future for the company with a projected world market in 2014 for electric vehicles at around 20 million. See: Electric drive vehicle sales figures (U.S. Market) - EV sales and

Right now, a Tesla sports sedan has a range of around 250 miles per charge at around $3 and a price around $70K. That is around $600 for 50K miles. That comes to around $1.41 per mile.

Figure a Lexus hybrid sports sedan for around $60K, around 28 MPG to coast around $7.1K for 50K miles. that comes to $1.34 per mile.

These are really rough figures, but using them, driving a Tesla S Model sedan would cost around $3,500 more than driving a Lexus hybrid sedan. There are hundreds of Lexus in Reno, NV, the small town I live in, so I think the market is only waiting for a good publicist.

I am not trying to sell you a Tesla. My point is that the pundits on the Internet talking about investments loved Tesla, but suddenly, there was a group of people writing articles about how Tesla is way over valued: Tesla stock gets a serious downgrade amid EV skepticism from Morgan Stanley  and I Can't Justify Tesla Motors' Valuation

In my view, there is at least an unconscious push back against green by conservative thinking people who think the natural order is man doing with the world as he sees fit. Tesla stock has bounced back, but it was clearly talked down--a lot! Ownership of an all-electric car is a good investment on the merits, but I think the problem is that ideologically, the majority treats it like sacrilege, as if we are saying God really didn't give man the world to use as he wants.


Big pickup are selling like hot cakes here in the USA. Large vehicles like full-sized pickups, vans and SUVs make the road very unsafe for green, economy cars. We own a full-sized (relatively speaking) SUV as much for safety from the pickups (usually jacked up vehicles with nothing in the bed driven by aggressive drivers). The "big iron" mentality here is countercurrent to what needs to happen for green cars to safely use the highways and city streets.

[Tom Butler]

I should add that wide acceptance of electric cars would potentially represent a change in attitude about renewable energy in general. It is pretty clear that major societal changes like the industrial revolutions begin with some form of catalyst. We love our cars, so a major change in how we think of them could be the catalyst.

Another point I wanted to mention is that a carbon tax on cars not performing as well as electrics, or the most energy efficient cars in their class, would also provide important incentives for change. In the Lexus-Tesla example above, a $3,500 annual carbon tax on the Lexus would even the playing field. If that money were to be applied to medical care for people with breathing disorders and for dealing with climate and fish responses to climate change, then the tax would serve on two fronts.

Right now, Tesla is competing as a startup against other car manufactures and public opinion. There needs to be some kind of allowance for the marketing bias of public opinion.

[Phil]

Fiscal conservatives, (conservatives, libertarians), are not against green energy per se, they are against things that do not make economic sense.  There is a lot of wind and solar power in red states.  I also don't know one conservative who would turn down a Tesla if it was offered to them. :<)

I wanted solar for over two decades, it wasn't until a couple of years ago that they made economic sense so that's when I bought.  While liberals talk about green only one liberal friend even drives a hybrid, let alone a BEV, for the exact same reason conservatives don't buy, they don't make economic sense.

There is already a $7500 incentive for a Tesla or other BEV, the real challenge for BEV's is those with enough range, (Tesla), are to expensive for the average family, and those that are even remotely affordable, (Leaf, Focus Electric), are too limited in range and charge time.  Tesla does fill the need for a Lexus market niche, Leaf and Focus electric can fill a need for a second car if the price is right.  Supposedly Leafs have seen a big uptick in sales since they lowered their price.  They will sell if the price is commensurate with performance.

A carbon tax is highly regressive and punishes the poor the worst so I cannot support that.  As stated above, the rich will just buy their Tesla's and the poor will be stuck subsidizing the rich with their carbon tax.  A carbon tax is essentially a tax cut for the rich.  Even the $7,500 incentive is a tax cut for the upper middle class, if not the rich.

[Tom Butler]

Nearly all taxes are regressive, but combined with competition tend to drive products in the desired direction.

The only way you are going to get some of the people in my part of the country out of their jacked up pickups is to make them cost too much but the manufactures make a lot of money off of them, so that is not going to happen based on economic pressure alone.

I think that is my point. Tesla is just an example of how the credibility of an alternative technology seemed to be talked down. The language is much the same as I have seen in people talking down climate change. Certainly, there is a conservative school of thought that seems to be praying wind power will flop.

Economic dynamics are a large part public opinion. Gray water systems in American homes is a hard sell largely because that is not the way we have always done it. Yet, as we run out of potable water in desert areas, gray water may end up being economically sensible because of the cost of water and watering restrictions will become too high for the average person to maintain a few plants around their home. As a utility, a water bill is a regressive tax. The same argument can be made about recycling and the use of air conditioners during peak times.

Of course, the argument always goes to carbon pollution, a lot of which comes from cars--gas fueled cars that only economic pressure will take off the road. You call it economic sense, but it cannot be economics alone. I own a hybrid that costs me more to own and run than its "normal" counterpart. Here, "normal" needs to be reversed and carbon tax is one of the ways to do that. I own the car because my sense of "normal" is changing. I used gray water for years and always recycle. My AC is on only when we have guests. For me, "normal" is such that I think it is time to pry even poor people out of their old ways.

Back to your original question, It is really the other way around as I see it. We are already wrecking the planet and the "normal" is not sustainable just like it is not sustainable for my community to waist drinking water. Take a look at this from the EPA: Future Climate Change. The estimates for sea level rise this century only goes up and it is going to put millions of people out of their homes. Globally, that is a pretty high regressive tax for millions of people who probably do not own a car.

The answer to your question is that the deed is done, now we are trying to fix the damage. Doing that is all about public opinion.

[Phil]

The economy rules, people prefer food on the table today vs. climate change a decade in the future.  That is the hard sell to overcome.  As I mentioned, we are going down the economic rabbit hole as well as the climate one, in neither case is the average person willing to sacrifice.

Most everybody agrees our debt and deficits are out of control, nobody wants to cut anything.  Most everybody agrees our environment is out of control, nobody wants to cut anything.  Note as the economy tanked all those paying big feed in tariffs< (Germany, etc.), reversed course.  (There are likely as many debt/deficit deniers as there are climate deniers, both are wrong).

Ultra conservative Texas in one of the top wind producers, has solar, and is planning 1800 miles of hydrogen infrastructure.  Meanwhile, liberal Illinois relies heavily on coal.  Ignore the propaganda on both sides and gauge results, that's where the rubber meets the road.

I don't even have AC, didn't in central California when I lived there either.  Guests can just suck it up! :<O

The only solution is to make alternatives price competitive with fossils.  Doing it by making fossils more expensive will kill the economy and NOTHING will get done.  Only by lowering the price of alternatives can we keep the economy going.  I'd support higher incentives, making the 30% credit a 30% rebate, making the $7500 go to $15000.  I know, dream on, but that would cause some movement! :<)

Higher taxes kill the economy, tax reductions spur it.  We need to shrink government to allow more people to keep what they earn.  Then they can better afford LED bulbs, energy star appliances, insulation upgrades, and even solar.  Taking more money out of peoples pockets means less of the above is affordable.

[Tom Butler]

We have fundamentally different views. I agree that the economy is an issue, but the fact is really simple that 100 years from now, people are not going to give a damn about our economy today if they are fighting for a dry place to live or struggling to find fresh water and edible food. The only people who can help them are people consuming the resources today.

[eds]

E3 wise, on 11 February 2012 - 07:03 PM, said:

To quote Jeremy Rifkin- I do not appose centeralized utility electric production, but it will not be enough to stop global climate change.  Why use centalized power plants when every square inch of this planet has alternative energy avalible in some form everywhere.  The sun, wind, water, geothermal, biofuel, biowaste- my God how much energy do we need and why are we not using every building and every home as micro-powerplants to mitigate climate change and save this planet.

"My God how much energy do we need and why are we not using every building and every home as micro-powerplants to mitigate climate change and save this planet?"

[Phil]

It's not like I want the economy to be #1, it's that it is.  Being a scientist I'm a big fan of reality.    This isn't just the US or third world either:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/04/16/eu-refuses-to-resuscitate-its-dying-carbon-market/

In the end I think Rifkin is right, distributed energy is the answer.  It will take some time to get there and it is hoped hydrogen will be a big enabler as a storage medium, but I think it's inevitable.   The problem is it has to be cost competitive, that takes time.

I agree, 100 years from now they won't be worried about todays economy but todays people obviously don't care about the economy or the environment 100 years from now.

Regardless, the free market will slowly move us to where we need to be.  Gas will continue to increase in cost while renewables will continue to come down.  What you want to do is move the crossover forward artificially, even faster than we are already going with current subsidies.  However the laws of economics are unyielding, taking more money out of peoples pockets means they can spend less.  With our economy being 70% consumer driven that is not a good thing.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.  History will unfold as it will, both of our opinions be damned.  One final example I'll give, Planet Green - Renovation Nation morphed into Destination America - Barbeque Pit Masters.  That tells you all you need to know!

[Dingo]

Rifkin - "Why use centalized power plants when every square inch of this planet has alternative energy available in some form everywhere."

Sounds good if we power down significantly. I just don't see sun and wind being a major player in the area of heavy industry and hydro is pretty much played out. Maybe that is just a lack of imagination.

[Tom Butler]

Here is the kind of news that brings me back to realizing that the USA cannot very long behave as if it is the only economy that matters: Arctic Methane Release Due To Climate Change Could Cost Global Economy $60 Trillion, Study Reports.

I think it is important that we feed our own people and that we educate our own children. After competing with a bunch of Iranian students in engineering school who were paid to get good grades (and willing to cheat to stay in school), I have become pretty much of a nationalist in that regard.

At the same time, I know we will go out and take over another country in a heartbeat if we think it is in our national interest, so I am confused about what the politicians consider our national interest when we have to import skilled people (who wave their own flag) while our kids cannot afford to go to college. Economically, we tend to give our competitors our sward.

The problem is that we are not free to do what we want because it is an international economy. We saw that in the past few years as our stock market suffered with every failing economy in Europe.

The above article is just one data point but the real issue is that the climate has long-term momentum and some damage is already locked in no matter what we do. Economies will suffer, and as the article points out, it will be the poorer ones who suffer the most. We can ignore them individually but collectively, they potentially represent a powerful block. It is hard to image a world in which that block will not act in its best interest by using economic pressure to enforce change in USA policy that our citizens in their myopic view will not implement.

The reason we have a national government is to do things local governments cannot. I hate the idea of foreign nations telling us what to do so I have been expecting our national government to balance our internal needs with our national interest--that is, getting along with the rest of the world. Thanks to a short-sighted policies, that has not happened and is not likely to in this current political environment.

[eds]

Is the BIG Question?  
. . . Are you part of the Problem or part of the Solution and
. . . what is the right Solution.

PS: Remember what Winston Churchill said about the USA.

[Dingo]

eds, on 25 July 2013 - 09:40 AM, said:

Is the BIG Question?  
. . . Are you part of the Problem or part of the Solution and
. . . what is the right Solution.

MORE TREES, LESS PEOPLE for starters.