Poll

Do we need aggressive climate change policy?

Absolutely!
Maybe something modest.
No clue.
Not yet. Let's wait and see for a bit.
Nope. This will be resolved on it's own through economic forces / This isn't an issue for humanity..

Author Topic: US Climate Change Policy  (Read 45947 times)

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #300 on: March 04, 2019, 01:21:13 PM »
How was the second article one-sided? To me it was very clear on the unintended consequences of not studying the lifecycle of a system before declaring it a carbon-neutral fuel source. By the EPA's logic, fossil fuels are carbon neutral as well because we will regenerate the stores in another half billion years or so.

There's a fundamental difference between burning recent plant growth (eg 'wood') and fossil fuels.  While were formed from essentially the same process (photosynthsis, or the biological conversion of atmospheric carbon into carbon-compounds) - the time scale is important.  As Sol suggested, fossil fuels come from plants the lived hundreds of millions of years ago, and that carbon has been sequestered from the atmosphere since then.  If it weren't for humans digging it up and setting it on fire it wouldn't be released except for subduction, which is a painfully slow process that happens on the order of millennia.

Burning wood, in contrast, is carbon that was largely pulled out of the atmosphere just a few years ago and (critically) if left to rot on the forest floor would largely re-enter the system as it rots and gets eaten by a lots of other critters. A small percentage will be sequestered on larger timescales (centuries) but by most estimates >98% stays in the system (we plant ecologists call it 'nutrient cycling).  That's why using wood to heat your house has a lower carbon footprint than using coal or natural gas (though passive solar beats all of them by a large margin).

But if you'll indulge my swing-for-the-fences scientific lunacy for a moment, I suggest that we should be making oil reserves today, artificially.  Oceanic uptake of atmospheric CO2, converted to biomass and then buried in shallow stillwater environments, is still the most effective way to reduce greenhouse gas concentrations.  The only problem is geography.  We no longer have good tropical stillwater basins, thanks to plate tectonics reshuffling everything, and I don't think the folks in the middle east would be too happy if we were to convert the Red Sea into a giant sewage lagoon. 
I've always seen great potential in doing this in the deep sea, where very little of what's deposited ever comes back into the system.  The challenge has been getting particles to sink deep enough without i) dissolving, ii) being consumed by other species on their way.  It's fairly easy to create phytoplankton and zooplankton blooms in nutrient poor (oligotrophic) waters far offshore, but very little of that productivity sinks below the photic zone (~200 meters), let along makes it 4,000m to the ocean floor.

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1429
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #301 on: March 04, 2019, 02:03:53 PM »
How was the second article one-sided? To me it was very clear on the unintended consequences of not studying the lifecycle of a system before declaring it a carbon-neutral fuel source. By the EPA's logic, fossil fuels are carbon neutral as well because we will regenerate the stores in another half billion years or so.

There's a fundamental difference between burning recent plant growth (eg 'wood') and fossil fuels.  While were formed from essentially the same process (photosynthsis, or the biological conversion of atmospheric carbon into carbon-compounds) - the time scale is important.  As Sol suggested, fossil fuels come from plants the lived hundreds of millions of years ago, and that carbon has been sequestered from the atmosphere since then.  If it weren't for humans digging it up and setting it on fire it wouldn't be released except for subduction, which is a painfully slow process that happens on the order of millennia.

Burning wood, in contrast, is carbon that was largely pulled out of the atmosphere just a few years ago and (critically) if left to rot on the forest floor would largely re-enter the system as it rots and gets eaten by a lots of other critters. A small percentage will be sequestered on larger timescales (centuries) but by most estimates >98% stays in the system (we plant ecologists call it 'nutrient cycling).  That's why using wood to heat your house has a lower carbon footprint than using coal or natural gas (though passive solar beats all of them by a large margin).


Help me understand my confusion then. All of the points in the Professor Emeritus's report seem to indicate this is a poor solution to the current problem: http://www.perspectivesecologiques.com/telechargements/SOSFSUD%20Myth%20of%20Carbon%20Neutrality%20of%20Biomass%20Pr%20William%20Moomaw%20Tufts%20University.pdf.

Basically, his points are as follows:
1) With wood, just like other fossil fuels, we're adding carbon dioxide immediately into the environment.
2) The growth rate for new wood is less than the growth rate for old wood, thus in the short term wood is an even worse fuel than fossil fuels (since the bigger trees would have sucked out more CO2).
3) In the long-term (generations), a new equilibrium of the system will occur (carbon-neutrality), but the new equilibrium will be very, very bad given the amount of fuel needed.

(He also discusses the waste material and notes that again the timeframes are much longer for this process to occur.)

partgypsy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5207
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #302 on: March 04, 2019, 02:23:07 PM »
I didn't read the article but I would guess the answer (re: burning wood and burning fossil fuels) is that they are both bad, but fossil fuels are worse because they were a long term store of c02 that is now released into the environment versus being stored.

Of course if you burned down all the trees on the planet that would be bad as well, for multiple reasons.

LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3681
  • Location: Germany
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #303 on: March 04, 2019, 03:54:17 PM »
You guys are all pretty smart.  It is not either / or.  Each energy situation has it's own solution.

So - How about geothermal?

If you live on Island - fantastic! Because you can just catch the hot water when it comes out of the earth.
For 99% of the other people... meh. You need to go extremely deep to get an amount and temperature that is cost-efficient. 400m is the minimum for a normal area, and this can double for big installations, the reason is that you need at least 80°C to produce electricity, and more is better. It is not unusual to go below 4km in Germany. That makes it extremely expensive, way more than solar or wind, and it is unlikely those costs will go down much. Digging is digging after all.

And geothermal can cause earthquakes (fun fact: why exactly is still not known, just that earthquakes happen very often near geothermals, and sometimes necessitated to close them down.)

You can use a similar low-temperature, non-industrial size installation for heating your house (or cooling in the summer), using heat pumps. You don't need to dig very deep for that. But you need electricity for this...

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #304 on: March 04, 2019, 05:33:59 PM »
How was the second article one-sided? To me it was very clear on the unintended consequences of not studying the lifecycle of a system before declaring it a carbon-neutral fuel source. By the EPA's logic, fossil fuels are carbon neutral as well because we will regenerate the stores in another half billion years or so.

There's a fundamental difference between burning recent plant growth (eg 'wood') and fossil fuels.  While were formed from essentially the same process (photosynthsis, or the biological conversion of atmospheric carbon into carbon-compounds) - the time scale is important.  As Sol suggested, fossil fuels come from plants the lived hundreds of millions of years ago, and that carbon has been sequestered from the atmosphere since then.  If it weren't for humans digging it up and setting it on fire it wouldn't be released except for subduction, which is a painfully slow process that happens on the order of millennia.

Burning wood, in contrast, is carbon that was largely pulled out of the atmosphere just a few years ago and (critically) if left to rot on the forest floor would largely re-enter the system as it rots and gets eaten by a lots of other critters. A small percentage will be sequestered on larger timescales (centuries) but by most estimates >98% stays in the system (we plant ecologists call it 'nutrient cycling).  That's why using wood to heat your house has a lower carbon footprint than using coal or natural gas (though passive solar beats all of them by a large margin).


Help me understand my confusion then. All of the points in the Professor Emeritus's report seem to indicate this is a poor solution to the current problem: http://www.perspectivesecologiques.com/telechargements/SOSFSUD%20Myth%20of%20Carbon%20Neutrality%20of%20Biomass%20Pr%20William%20Moomaw%20Tufts%20University.pdf.

Basically, his points are as follows:
1) With wood, just like other fossil fuels, we're adding carbon dioxide immediately into the environment.
2) The growth rate for new wood is less than the growth rate for old wood, thus in the short term wood is an even worse fuel than fossil fuels (since the bigger trees would have sucked out more CO2).
3) In the long-term (generations), a new equilibrium of the system will occur (carbon-neutrality), but the new equilibrium will be very, very bad given the amount of fuel needed.

(He also discusses the waste material and notes that again the timeframes are much longer for this process to occur.)

It's in my comments above.  Basically he's correct that burning wood is not carbon neutral, and I didn't claim that it was - see comment about how both are inferior to passive solar.  But its far better than burning, say, coal, because virtually all of the carbon in coal (or petrol or natural gas) is carbon that had been sequestered out of the system. Forests, on the other hand, are continously cycling the carbon.  Where we get into trouble is when secondary growth replaces climax species, or when the forest is clearcut and no new forests emerge.
How you harvest matters a great deal - cutting down deadwood will have a much lower impact than heavy logging.  Around here most firewood comes from trees downed by storms or cut during construction. Done sustainably (yes, you can log sustainably) you can actually accelerate the growth (and thereby CO2 uptake) of surrounding trees, as they no longer compete for sunlight, nutrients and water.

It's worth noting that New England is currently one of two major carbon sinks on the planet, as the forests have been expanding since the late 19th century when ~75% of northern New England was farmland (currently it's the opposite, about 75% forest). 

ChewMeUp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #305 on: March 05, 2019, 06:26:36 AM »
As for my question for CheezM - I think it still stands.  If you're going to link some articles and say "it's relevant..." some commentary is warranted.

I'd be happy to respond.  The moderator keeps banning my account, however.  Apparently anyone who holds an alternate view is a troll deserving of banishment.

So this will probably be a throwaway account as well, unless the moderator would like to chill out a little bit.

I think what made the first article stand out is the author.  Someone who is/was on the front lines of renewables over the last decade.  Which is why I shared it.  The second article was interesting as well.

I have solar panels, I'm not totally against renewables, but the points are well stated.  It does seem like nuclear is the cleanest and most efficient form of on demand energy.  I was hoping the article would spark some conversation, as it did.  Geothermal seems to be a solution that provides on demand energy and not simply limited to when it's windy or sunny, and the earth is seemingly always hot at it's core.

As for disposing of nuclear, the author did address this as well - nuclear just doesn't take up all that much space, a basketball court sized area.  I wish we could just send it off in to space, but the risk of a rocket failure/explosion creating a nuclear holocaust is probably too big. 

ChewMeUp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #306 on: March 05, 2019, 06:33:30 AM »

On the other hand it shows that if you really want it politically, you could even now reach the 1.5 degree goal of the IPCC.

Of this I have no doubt, though politically (and practically) it seems like a pipe dream.  Entire national economies are based on petroleum sales, and even as wind and solar become less expensive to produce when all factors are considered incentives remain to continue drilling. 
How to get from there to here, and quickly?

Have you seen this article yet?  It's notable because of who wrote it.

https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-the-planet/

I thought this one was interesting, too:

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/3/4/18216045/renewable-energy-wood-pellets-biomass


Is renewables really the answer to climate change or should we be much more focused on nuclear?

As Nereo said, both articles are extremely one sided. Yes, those problems exist. But they are small in comparison. For example here most solar "fields" are build on old industrial land that is no longer used and cannot be used to live on or grow on because of the former industry's pollution. In other countries like Spain there are often build on unused land - too stony to grow somethign on for example, or too dry.

And that large masses of wood are transported across the ocean is something new for me. I don't even know a single (big trunk) wood using biogas plant. All I know work with either cow and pig shit or plants from fields (which in itself is problematic, but that is a different point).
There was a lot of research going into using wood waste (unusable for buildings, furniture, paper), that I know. But afaik they still haven't solved the problems with those gen 2 fuels, mainly the low speed of the gassing process.
I would say the devastation of tar sands oil extraction are far worse than this could ever be.

It wasn't just the space required for solar and wind.  But compare how much space is needed for solar compared to nuclear?  And what do you do to generate electricity when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining?  You STILL have to store it somehow.

How renewable is solar when the panels don't last forever?  How efficiently can the panels be recycled and reused.

ChewMeUp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #307 on: March 05, 2019, 06:42:45 AM »
How was the second article one-sided? To me it was very clear on the unintended consequences of not studying the lifecycle of a system before declaring it a carbon-neutral fuel source. By the EPA's logic, fossil fuels are carbon neutral as well because we will regenerate the stores in another half billion years or so.

There's a fundamental difference between burning recent plant growth (eg 'wood') and fossil fuels.  While were formed from essentially the same process (photosynthsis, or the biological conversion of atmospheric carbon into carbon-compounds) - the time scale is important.  As Sol suggested, fossil fuels come from plants the lived hundreds of millions of years ago, and that carbon has been sequestered from the atmosphere since then.  If it weren't for humans digging it up and setting it on fire it wouldn't be released except for subduction, which is a painfully slow process that happens on the order of millennia.

Burning wood, in contrast, is carbon that was largely pulled out of the atmosphere just a few years ago and (critically) if left to rot on the forest floor would largely re-enter the system as it rots and gets eaten by a lots of other critters. A small percentage will be sequestered on larger timescales (centuries) but by most estimates >98% stays in the system (we plant ecologists call it 'nutrient cycling).  That's why using wood to heat your house has a lower carbon footprint than using coal or natural gas (though passive solar beats all of them by a large margin).


Help me understand my confusion then. All of the points in the Professor Emeritus's report seem to indicate this is a poor solution to the current problem: http://www.perspectivesecologiques.com/telechargements/SOSFSUD%20Myth%20of%20Carbon%20Neutrality%20of%20Biomass%20Pr%20William%20Moomaw%20Tufts%20University.pdf.

Basically, his points are as follows:
1) With wood, just like other fossil fuels, we're adding carbon dioxide immediately into the environment.
2) The growth rate for new wood is less than the growth rate for old wood, thus in the short term wood is an even worse fuel than fossil fuels (since the bigger trees would have sucked out more CO2).
3) In the long-term (generations), a new equilibrium of the system will occur (carbon-neutrality), but the new equilibrium will be very, very bad given the amount of fuel needed.

(He also discusses the waste material and notes that again the timeframes are much longer for this process to occur.)

It's in my comments above.  Basically he's correct that burning wood is not carbon neutral, and I didn't claim that it was - see comment about how both are inferior to passive solar.  But its far better than burning, say, coal, because virtually all of the carbon in coal (or petrol or natural gas) is carbon that had been sequestered out of the system. Forests, on the other hand, are continously cycling the carbon.  Where we get into trouble is when secondary growth replaces climax species, or when the forest is clearcut and no new forests emerge.
How you harvest matters a great deal - cutting down deadwood will have a much lower impact than heavy logging.  Around here most firewood comes from trees downed by storms or cut during construction. Done sustainably (yes, you can log sustainably) you can actually accelerate the growth (and thereby CO2 uptake) of surrounding trees, as they no longer compete for sunlight, nutrients and water.

It's worth noting that New England is currently one of two major carbon sinks on the planet, as the forests have been expanding since the late 19th century when ~75% of northern New England was farmland (currently it's the opposite, about 75% forest).

What I found interesting about the VOX article was the statements that biomass is going to make climate change worse, while at the same time also stating it's not settled science.  It's a good, thought provoking article.

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2793
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #308 on: March 05, 2019, 06:48:44 AM »
As for my question for CheezM - I think it still stands.  If you're going to link some articles and say "it's relevant..." some commentary is warranted.

I'd be happy to respond.  The moderator keeps banning my account, however.  Apparently anyone who holds an alternate view is a troll deserving of banishment.

So this will probably be a throwaway account as well, unless the moderator would like to chill out a little bit.

I'm sure your account wasn't banned based on your last comment. My guess is that it was done in error, I think I've heard of a few cases of that happening. I would notify a moderator.

Quote
I think what made the first article stand out is the author.  Someone who is/was on the front lines of renewables over the last decade.  Which is why I shared it.  The second article was interesting as well.

I have solar panels, I'm not totally against renewables, but the points are well stated.  It does seem like nuclear is the cleanest and most efficient form of on demand energy.  I was hoping the article would spark some conversation, as it did.  Geothermal seems to be a solution that provides on demand energy and not simply limited to when it's windy or sunny, and the earth is seemingly always hot at it's core.

As for disposing of nuclear, the author did address this as well - nuclear just doesn't take up all that much space, a basketball court sized area.  I wish we could just send it off in to space, but the risk of a rocket failure/explosion creating a nuclear holocaust is probably too big.

Nereo pointed out why this is incredibly misleading. Fitting the waste into the area of a basketball court is entirely theoretical, not based in reality. It doesn't account for security, waste other than just the spent fuel, or the fact that the storage is indefinite even after the plant is no longer producing energy.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #309 on: March 05, 2019, 07:10:28 AM »
As for my question for CheezM - I think it still stands.  If you're going to link some articles and say "it's relevant..." some commentary is warranted.

I'd be happy to respond.  The moderator keeps banning my account, however.  Apparently anyone who holds an alternate view is a troll deserving of banishment.

So this will probably be a throwaway account as well, unless the moderator would like to chill out a little bit.

The forum rules are posted here.  Moderators here are very open to alternative views and willing to let discussions continue, but do not tolerate attacks on other posters (ie #2. Attack an argument, not a person).
Creating alternative accounts is another way to get banned, so you might want to PM a moderator first to plea your case if you don't want this to keep happening.  Some accounts are banned accidentially (e.g. when IP addresses are shared)


I think what made the first article stand out is the author.  Someone who is/was on the front lines of renewables over the last decade.  Which is why I shared it.  The second article was interesting as well.
Many of us are "on the front lines". As I said, the author has taken a very hostile stance to wind and solar, sits on the board of numerous lobbying groups who's sole purpose is to prevent the closure of specific nuclear plants (and who receive funding from said agencies) and has been called out by a wide swath of people for being counterproductive.  His arguments are filled with hyperbole and false equivalence.

As for disposing of nuclear, the author did address this as well - nuclear just doesn't take up all that much space, a basketball court sized area.  I wish we could just send it off in to space, but the risk of a rocket failure/explosion creating a nuclear holocaust is probably too big. 
The author addressed it **incorrectly**.  As I've outlined numerous times, the size of the actual material is not what matters - it's the total area dedicated to its containment.  In the case of spent fuel rods, the entire plant remains a no-go zone for decades after power-down, and a typical plant can take up over two square miles.  I know this because I've served as an decommissioning analyst for three different nuclear reactors. But don't take my word for it - go look up any decommissioned nuclear plant and do a google-earth flyover.  It remains an off-limits, high security zone because we can't let 'bad hombres' dig up some spent fuel.  Security (both from meltdown and from terrorist attack) is actually the dominant cost for a plant, and the primary reason why they are so 'effing expensive: you're building a super-max prison in reverse and keeping it open long after you stop generating power.

Your idea of shooting it into space has less to do with risk of rocket explosion and more to do with the infeasibility of the whole idea.  Putting a golf-cart sized satellite into low-earth orbit (LEO) costs upwards of $100MM and these orbits will still decay over time.  If you want to push a few thousand kilos out of Earth's gravity well the price-tag would be in the billions.

It wasn't just the space required for solar and wind.  But compare how much space is needed for solar compared to nuclear?  And what do you do to generate electricity when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining?  You STILL have to store it somehow.
In case you missed my point earlier - the footprint of a nuclear reactor is the entire plant, which (largely for security reasons) stretches for several square miles.  In contrast, you can build economic solar arrays on less than an acre.  We are extremely limited on where we can build new nuclear plants based on politics, security and feasibility (eg a large cooling source like a river or lake or ocean).

Again, the various technologies are not diametrically opposed; we can (and probably should) have both constant-generation stations including nuclear, hydro and LNG, in addition to substantial wind and solar.

How renewable is solar when the panels don't last forever?  How efficiently can the panels be recycled and reused.
Nuclear reactors have a similar and (IMO) more substantial problem - most reactors are built to last 30-50 years, whereas spent fuel (as discussed above) persists for millennia unless we develop better Gen IV consumer reactors.  Disposal of PV panels is certainly a consideration, but it pales in comparison to the issues surrounding nuclear reactors which have reached their end-of-life.  My guess is that automated recycling plants will develop to break down the more valuable, rare and toxic elements from spent panels (though see comments about disposal upthread).
Worth noting that while current panels carry a 25-30y 'lifespan', this is based on what's believed to be 80% power efficiency at the 25y mark.  Most panels will likely remain in service for far longer, until they are no longer functional. Its too early to tell when exactly that will be from the latest crop of PVs.

ChewMeUp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #310 on: March 05, 2019, 07:20:51 AM »
The forum rules are posted here.  Moderators here are very open to alternative views and willing to let discussions continue, but do not tolerate attacks on other posters (ie #2. Attack an argument, not a person).
Creating alternative accounts is another way to get banned, so you might want to PM a moderator first to plea your case if you don't want this to keep happening.  Some accounts are banned accidentially (e.g. when IP addresses are shared)

Can't discuss with a moderator once the account is banned.  A simple warning would have been much more reasonable.

Again, the various technologies are not diametrically opposed; we can (and probably should) have both constant-generation stations including nuclear, hydro and LNG, in addition to substantial wind and solar.

We can definitely agree on this point.

Nuclear reactors have a similar and (IMO) more substantial problem - most reactors are built to last 30-50 years, whereas spent fuel (as discussed above) persists for millennia unless we develop better Gen IV consumer reactors.  Disposal of PV panels is certainly a consideration, but it pales in comparison to the issues surrounding nuclear reactors which have reached their end-of-life.  My guess is that automated recycling plants will develop to break down the more valuable, rare and toxic elements from spent panels (though see comments about disposal upthread).
Worth noting that while current panels carry a 25-30y 'lifespan', this is based on what's believed to be 80% power efficiency at the 25y mark.  Most panels will likely remain in service for far longer, until they are no longer functional. Its too early to tell when exactly that will be from the latest crop of PVs.

This is probably the view I'd take as well.  Does the underlying material of the solar panel actually decay to the point where it can't be recycled/remanufactured?  I'd be curious how much of the panel can be reused efficiently.  And my thoughts were similar, if the panels last even 50 years before power efficiency drops to unreasonable levels, then that's a pretty big win.  But the point remains, if you can't recycle or remanufacture the materials for a solar panel, is it really renewable?  While the sun may be renewable, if the panels are not, then does it matter?  Or do we have such abundance of the materials that it's a moot point?

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #311 on: March 05, 2019, 07:36:48 AM »

This is probably the view I'd take as well.  Does the underlying material of the solar panel actually decay to the point where it can't be recycled/remanufactured?  I'd be curious how much of the panel can be reused efficiently.  And my thoughts were similar, if the panels last even 50 years before power efficiency drops to unreasonable levels, then that's a pretty big win.  But the point remains, if you can't recycle or remanufacture the materials for a solar panel, is it really renewable?  While the sun may be renewable, if the panels are not, then does it matter?  Or do we have such abundance of the materials that it's a moot point?

I think you are confusing terminology here.  "renewable energy" says nothing about the underlying materials but refers only to whether the source of the energy is not depleted.  That said, currently modern silicone PVs have a recyclable component of ~95%, though whether it can be recycled and if it actually is are two different questions.  That depends both on market forces and regulations.

Personally I'm curious what will happen with the new mega-blades on turbines, some of which now exceed 200ft.  They lack any real toxicity, but after ~25years they need replacement.  I'm guessing we'll see some creative uses for used turbine blades, like making up roof trusses or foot bridges.

You can ask moderators questions, as you have created a new account.  But even viewing as a guest you can contact them.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2019, 07:57:59 AM by nereo »

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #312 on: March 05, 2019, 07:55:22 AM »
There are solar panels from the 1960s and 70s that are still in service.  We're already at 50 years of PV history.

And if we're suddenly worried about recycling the materials from old solar panels, why aren't we also worried about recycling all of the equipment and structures at nuclear plants?  I can speak with some professional authority on the catastrophic consequences of nuclear facilities, having spent more time than I would like at Hanford.  Even the old office buildings there are radioactive waste, and don't get me started on the purex plant.  The long term plan for that place is "pay men with guns to guard it for the next 80,000 years." 

A facility that makes solar panels can be retooled to make something else.  A facility that makes nuclear fuel is forever off limits to any other user.  It consumes that land in perpetuity, and costs billions and billions of dollars before you even start counting the environmental and human health impacts.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #313 on: March 05, 2019, 08:08:44 AM »
The length of time that some types of radioactive waste remain dangerous is a real concern.  High level waste remains dangerous for longer than any containment vessel ever built by human hands has lasted.  That should give you a little bit of pause to consider.

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1429
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #314 on: March 05, 2019, 08:11:38 AM »
On the topic of renewables, what is the feasibility of a pricing structure that coincides with getting the majority of our electric power from renewables? For example, would it be feasible to charge, say, 10x for electricity at night when solar isn't available? I know my recent provider (APS) changed its daily pricing structure to better accommodate the increase in solar (https://www.aps.com/en/residential/accountservices/serviceplans/Pages/saver-choice.aspx), but nowhere near to this degree.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #315 on: March 05, 2019, 08:40:28 AM »
On the topic of renewables, what is the feasibility of a pricing structure that coincides with getting the majority of our electric power from renewables?

That will vary for different parts of the country, depending on the current power mix.  Also on what you count as "renewable".

Here in the PNW we get roughly 70% of our electricity from hydropower already.  My local utility is over 80% hydropower, 7% wind (mostly near Ellensburg), and 6% nuclear (mostly the Hanford reactors).  Natural gas and coal are only about 2% of their power supply, so phasing those out entirely would be relatively easy here.  There are already plans in motion to decommission the state's last (commercial) coal-fired power plant, in Centralia. 

There are cascading side effects, of course.  All of those hydropower dams have their own sets of environmental problems, which in this corner of the country are intimately tied up with treaty violations.  The local Native American tribes still wield political power here, and they are by treaty entitled to half of the salmon in the rivers.  Courts have ruled that "half" means half of what was there when the treaty was signed, not half of whatever is left after we kill all the fish, so the State is in a constant balancing act between paying money to increase the number of fish, and paying money to fight lawsuits for killing too many fish.  It's a purely economic decision at this point, unfortunately, because we long ago gave up on actually trying to honor our treaty obligations.

When you consider all of that, it kind of makes sense why so many places are still happy to burn coal.  The people most affected by the immediate pollution around coal mines and plants are the ones most likely to be economically dependent on the success of coal, so they don't complain, and the longer term climate impacts are thus far not politicized enough to cause any backlash.  You can basically pollute the atmosphere for free right now, if you're a coal company of some sort, and nobody will sue you.  Hydropower is much cheaper to generate once your dams are built, but it comes with its own set of ongoing (legal challenge) costs.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #316 on: March 05, 2019, 08:55:04 AM »
On the topic of renewables, what is the feasibility of a pricing structure that coincides with getting the majority of our electric power from renewables? For example, would it be feasible to charge, say, 10x for electricity at night when solar isn't available? I know my recent provider (APS) changed its daily pricing structure to better accommodate the increase in solar (https://www.aps.com/en/residential/accountservices/serviceplans/Pages/saver-choice.aspx), but nowhere near to this degree.

I've often wondered whether more aggressive rate schedules would trigger behavioral shifts we currently don't have.  Currently our expectation is that electricity should always be there, it's relatively cheap and costs about the same regardless of the time of day or season.  Our knee-jerk solution anytime there is a power shortage is to increase the power! (rather than decrease usage).

As hypothetical examples, charging 2x more at night might push people to charge EVs during the daytime and increase demand for at-work charging stations.  'Smart' thermostats might start considering when power is cheapest (and possibly encourage the inclusion of thermal-mass heat sinks in people's homes). Making winter power 3x more expensive in cold climates could fuel increased building energy efficiency.

Regardless of any behavioral shifts, I don't think we should assume that we can solve our climate problems solely by creating more power based on renewables.  Instead we should take the mindset that we are replacing more polluting solutions with less envirormentally damaging ones while reducing per-capita energy consumption overall.

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1429
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #317 on: March 05, 2019, 09:09:12 AM »
When you consider all of that, it kind of makes sense why so many places are still happy to burn coal.  The people most affected by the immediate pollution around coal mines and plants are the ones most likely to be economically dependent on the success of coal, so they don't complain, and the longer term climate impacts are thus far not politicized enough to cause any backlash.  You can basically pollute the atmosphere for free right now, if you're a coal company of some sort, and nobody will sue you.  Hydropower is much cheaper to generate once your dams are built, but it comes with its own set of ongoing (legal challenge) costs.

I agree, if your livelihood depends on burning coal, it is going to be way more important than a 2°C rise in temperature. But this affects a very small subset of the U.S. population (with an over-representation of senators, but that's another thread). Everyone else likes coal because it's cheap power on demand (and you're right of course, it's cheap because we ignore externalities). Though the lawsuits are beginning to spring up against the carbon polluters, and it will be interesting to see how much traction they get in the courts.

RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 20746
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #318 on: March 05, 2019, 09:12:49 AM »
I can speak a bit to behavioural shifts.  Our billing rate is time of day based.  Right now my electricity is at the shoulder rate.   Peak winter demand (7-11 AM, 5-7 PM) is highest rate.  Low rate is 7 PM to 7 AM.  I know many people (including me) who do their peak energy use at night.  Rural residential with Hydro One is expensive enough that this makes a noticeable difference.

This is not always ideal.  The pool maintenance people I know hate it, because the best time to run a pool pump is during the day, but people do it at night because that is when the rates are lowest. 

I use some electricity at peak because otherwise I have no water (well) and meal prep is not always done best at off times.  But my use is usually about 14:3:2::low:shoulder:high.

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1429
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #319 on: March 05, 2019, 09:20:15 AM »
I can speak a bit to behavioural shifts.  Our billing rate is time of day based.  Right now my electricity is at the shoulder rate.   Peak winter demand (7-11 AM, 5-7 PM) is highest rate.  Low rate is 7 PM to 7 AM.  I know many people (including me) who do their peak energy use at night.  Rural residential with Hydro One is expensive enough that this makes a noticeable difference.

This is not always ideal.  The pool maintenance people I know hate it, because the best time to run a pool pump is during the day, but people do it at night because that is when the rates are lowest. 

I use some electricity at peak because otherwise I have no water (well) and meal prep is not always done best at off times.  But my use is usually about 14:3:2::low:shoulder:high.

That is how we lived life in Arizona. AC didn't come on until off-peak (yeah we'd be comfortable outside in late afternoon 105°F), all of the other major energy hogs were performed on the weekends (washing clothes being the big one (and no, we didn't line-dry)). Our energy bill was hundreds (plural) of dollars cheaper during summer months than most other people I discussed the topic with.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #320 on: March 05, 2019, 09:42:53 AM »
When you consider all of that, it kind of makes sense why so many places are still happy to burn coal.  The people most affected by the immediate pollution around coal mines and plants are the ones most likely to be economically dependent on the success of coal, so they don't complain, and the longer term climate impacts are thus far not politicized enough to cause any backlash.  You can basically pollute the atmosphere for free right now, if you're a coal company of some sort, and nobody will sue you.  Hydropower is much cheaper to generate once your dams are built, but it comes with its own set of ongoing (legal challenge) costs.

I agree, if your livelihood depends on burning coal, it is going to be way more important than a 2°C rise in temperature. But this affects a very small subset of the U.S. population (with an over-representation of senators, but that's another thread). Everyone else likes coal because it's cheap power on demand (and you're right of course, it's cheap because we ignore externalities). Though the lawsuits are beginning to spring up against the carbon polluters, and it will be interesting to see how much traction they get in the courts.

Well, given that a former coal lobbyist is now in charge of the EPA, and he is actively reducing both the regulations on fossil fuels as well as the scope of what the EPA tries to penalize - I'd say its unlikely to get a lot of traction with this present administration.
From what I've seen, few coal miners want their children to be in the industry - there's just a scarcity of jobs. I'd support a massive taxpayer funded bailout of these coal towns in exchange for shuttering the industry entirely.  But that's currently a pipe-dream...

ChewMeUp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #321 on: March 05, 2019, 09:46:42 AM »
On the topic of renewables, what is the feasibility of a pricing structure that coincides with getting the majority of our electric power from renewables? For example, would it be feasible to charge, say, 10x for electricity at night when solar isn't available? I know my recent provider (APS) changed its daily pricing structure to better accommodate the increase in solar (https://www.aps.com/en/residential/accountservices/serviceplans/Pages/saver-choice.aspx), but nowhere near to this degree.

I've often wondered whether more aggressive rate schedules would trigger behavioral shifts we currently don't have.  Currently our expectation is that electricity should always be there, it's relatively cheap and costs about the same regardless of the time of day or season.  Our knee-jerk solution anytime there is a power shortage is to increase the power! (rather than decrease usage).

As hypothetical examples, charging 2x more at night might push people to charge EVs during the daytime and increase demand for at-work charging stations.  'Smart' thermostats might start considering when power is cheapest (and possibly encourage the inclusion of thermal-mass heat sinks in people's homes). Making winter power 3x more expensive in cold climates could fuel increased building energy efficiency.

Regardless of any behavioral shifts, I don't think we should assume that we can solve our climate problems solely by creating more power based on renewables.  Instead we should take the mindset that we are replacing more polluting solutions with less envirormentally damaging ones while reducing per-capita energy consumption overall.

That's not a direction I'd want to go down, personally.  I feel like having reliable, inexpensive electricity 24/7 is a problem that should be relatively solved at this point.  Starting to highly regulate which time we should do laundry is just kind of shitty and feels like we are moving backward.  And it starts with that.  Before you know it, 180% tax on cars - which I know a lot of mustachians would like, lol.  But really, it's a level of government intrusion and behavioral control that I'm not comfortable with.

ChewMeUp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #322 on: March 05, 2019, 09:51:53 AM »
There are solar panels from the 1960s and 70s that are still in service.  We're already at 50 years of PV history.

And if we're suddenly worried about recycling the materials from old solar panels, why aren't we also worried about recycling all of the equipment and structures at nuclear plants?  I can speak with some professional authority on the catastrophic consequences of nuclear facilities, having spent more time than I would like at Hanford.  Even the old office buildings there are radioactive waste, and don't get me started on the purex plant.  The long term plan for that place is "pay men with guns to guard it for the next 80,000 years." 

A facility that makes solar panels can be retooled to make something else.  A facility that makes nuclear fuel is forever off limits to any other user.  It consumes that land in perpetuity, and costs billions and billions of dollars before you even start counting the environmental and human health impacts.

I don't know enough about it to form an opinion.  But I understand the point you are making.

Why can't we be both? Being curious about recycling of solar panels and even making solar panels - do we have the materials and land to legit go in that direction?  And also concerned about nuclear structures?  It's not one or the other.

Obviously wind and solar are not 24/7 - if not nuclear, than what are we going to use to maintain steady electric service without all of the carbon emissions?

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #323 on: March 05, 2019, 09:53:59 AM »
On the topic of renewables, what is the feasibility of a pricing structure that coincides with getting the majority of our electric power from renewables? For example, would it be feasible to charge, say, 10x for electricity at night when solar isn't available? I know my recent provider (APS) changed its daily pricing structure to better accommodate the increase in solar (https://www.aps.com/en/residential/accountservices/serviceplans/Pages/saver-choice.aspx), but nowhere near to this degree.

I've often wondered whether more aggressive rate schedules would trigger behavioral shifts we currently don't have.  Currently our expectation is that electricity should always be there, it's relatively cheap and costs about the same regardless of the time of day or season.  Our knee-jerk solution anytime there is a power shortage is to increase the power! (rather than decrease usage).

As hypothetical examples, charging 2x more at night might push people to charge EVs during the daytime and increase demand for at-work charging stations.  'Smart' thermostats might start considering when power is cheapest (and possibly encourage the inclusion of thermal-mass heat sinks in people's homes). Making winter power 3x more expensive in cold climates could fuel increased building energy efficiency.

Regardless of any behavioral shifts, I don't think we should assume that we can solve our climate problems solely by creating more power based on renewables.  Instead we should take the mindset that we are replacing more polluting solutions with less envirormentally damaging ones while reducing per-capita energy consumption overall.

That's not a direction I'd want to go down, personally.  I feel like having reliable, inexpensive electricity 24/7 is a problem that should be relatively solved at this point.  Starting to highly regulate which time we should do laundry is just kind of shitty and feels like we are moving backward.  And it starts with that.  Before you know it, 180% tax on cars - which I know a lot of mustachians would like, lol.  But really, it's a level of government intrusion and behavioral control that I'm not comfortable with.
Actually, it's government intervention that's prevented the kind of rate-pricing that I'm talking about.
If left to market forces, privately held utilities would almost certainly charge based on the current cost of generating electricity.  Only they can't, because of governmental regulations.

...but the rest of my post is more philosophical.  Consuming more should not be a society's measure of progress.  Efficiency IMO is a much better metric.

chaskavitch

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1029
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Fort Collins, CO
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #324 on: March 05, 2019, 10:07:19 AM »
Our city also recently moved to Time of Day pricing for electricity.  Peak hours are charged at 22 cents/kWh, and non-peak at 7 cents.  Peak for winter is 5-9 pm on weekdays, peak for summer is 2-7 pm on weekdays.  A LOT of people were angry.  We're already paying an extra 2.65 cents/kWh for renewables, but so far neither change has altered our costs appreciably.

I've tried to adjust our usage a little, but we have gas heat and a gas water heater, so there's not much I can do in the winter - I try to only start the clothes dryer or dishwasher after 9 pm, and if I can I bake on the weekends, but I can't just never cook dinner after work. 

Summer could be interesting, but luckily we have a large deciduous tree on the south side of our house, and it stays fairly cool most of the time even without the AC on.  My DH works from home, but he also works in our basement, so it shouldn't bother him too much. 

I'm interested to see if the city will actually give any sort of report about whether it changes the overall usage of electricity in the next year.  I'd love to see that data, if they have it.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #325 on: March 05, 2019, 10:26:13 AM »

I don't know enough about it to form an opinion.  But I understand the point you are making.

Why can't we be both? Being curious about recycling of solar panels and even making solar panels - do we have the materials and land to legit go in that direction?  And also concerned about nuclear structures?  It's not one or the other.

Obviously wind and solar are not 24/7 - if not nuclear, than what are we going to use to maintain steady electric service without all of the carbon emissions?

Crap - internet ate my earlier response...
In short - having multiple sources of electricity generation is exactly what many of us have been arguing for, but the article you linked is against expansion of wind/solar in favor of nuclear.

To answer your question, yes - we have the materials and land to 'legit go in' the direction of dramatically increased solar and wind production. As I've mentioned, an actual advantage of solar is that you can plop solar arrays onto very small segments of land (< 1 acre) and generate tens of kilowatts.  These areas can be found just about everywhere, from office-building roofs to defunct fields to along roadsides.  Similarily, turbines can be 'mixed use' (eg farming) and the best place for them is actually offshore... which is whwere most the greatest gains in wind turbine power generation has occurred in the last decade.  We've got a ton of great locations available near large energy demands, such as the proposed windfarm off Cape Cod (less than 50 miles from Boston, ~120 miles from NYC).  The author of the article you linked tried to make this sound all scary, like we'd need to plaster over all of WV, but the truth is good spots are very easy to find - it's funding and permitting which are the problem.

Nuclear can't even out the bumps in the mid-term (within, say, 15-20 years) simply because we can't build out our nuclear capacity that quickly.  Even if we could overcome the political obstacles and community objections, building a new nuclear plant faces two major obstacles; 1) they cost billions in construction costs and 2) they take 10+ years to build once a project has been approved.  We could possibly take care of #1 by providing federal subsidies and grants (controversal), but there' no safe way to tackle #2.  So we aren't likely to see a massive influx in power from nuclear before, say, 2035 or 2040 at the earliest.  I'm actually in favor of adding some more Gen IV reactors to our portfolio - but we shouldn't think that's somehow going to save us in the mid term.  Also, worth noting that a number of medium & small reactors have gone offline in recent years precisely because only large reactors can produce power at a rate that's competitive with other forms of energy generation - and that's almost entirely due to the fixed security and construction costs inherent to all plants.

In comparison you can build an LNG plant in ~3 years, a wind turbine in under a year and a PV array in a few weeks. I'm fine with LNG as a medium-term fix as long as it's replacing coal plants, and we continue to build out other renewables.  As I've said, mechanical storage is a facinating area where I expect to see a lot of development in the coming years. The technologies (there are multiple) are sound and tested - the challenge is doing it economically while reducing energy loss.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #326 on: March 05, 2019, 10:36:11 AM »
I've often wondered whether more aggressive rate schedules would trigger behavioral shifts we currently don't have.

I suspect that changes to the rate structure for electricity will be far less motivational than most of us hope.

There are still millions of homes in the eastern US that are heated in the winter with fuel oil, which costs roughly twice as much heating with natural gas and closer to 3x as much as using a heat pump.  People don't switch because it costs thousands of dollars up front to redo the entire house hvac system, and that's money they don't have on hand. 

But really, it's a level of government intrusion and behavioral control that I'm not comfortable with.

At least government control is responsive to voters.  What we have right now is 100% unrestricted corporate control, motivated by short term profit seeking at the cost of our shared resources, with zero oversight and no way to object to the harm being done.  That's the current state of affairs, and compared to that I think some "government intrusion" at the behest of voters would be a huge improvement. 

Remember, the government is you!  It's all of us!  We have the power, if we just choose to use it.  Conservative/corporate politicians like to talk about "government intrusion" as if listening to the will of the people were a bad thing.  What they care about is keeping people complacent while they strip mine our public lands for private profits.  Don't fall for their distorted rhetoric.  Government exists to serve you, not corporations.  You should never feel bad about using the power bestowed upon you in the Constitution.

if not nuclear, than what are we going to use to maintain steady electric service without all of the carbon emissions?

Nuclear plants exist, and they work.  I don't know how clear it is that we need any more of them, though, to provide peak leveling services to a fully built-out renewable generation grid supply.  What IS clear to me is that we have huge untapped wind and solar resources at cost competitive pricing, with lower environmental and health impacts, in a distributed generation model that minimizes required grid upgrades.  Every single US state would benefit from ten times as many solar panels as it has right now.  It's such an obvious answer that it shocks me we're still arguing about it, as a nation.

Germany is a good example of how renewables can be comfortably integrated into the grid at ratios up to 30% with only minimal upgrades required.  Current US solar production is creeping up on 2%.  We have a long way to go, and the solar industry could sustain 20% growth per year for the next decade before worrying about approaching current solar integration capacity limits.

ChewMeUp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #327 on: March 05, 2019, 10:42:48 AM »
On the topic of renewables, what is the feasibility of a pricing structure that coincides with getting the majority of our electric power from renewables? For example, would it be feasible to charge, say, 10x for electricity at night when solar isn't available? I know my recent provider (APS) changed its daily pricing structure to better accommodate the increase in solar (https://www.aps.com/en/residential/accountservices/serviceplans/Pages/saver-choice.aspx), but nowhere near to this degree.

I've often wondered whether more aggressive rate schedules would trigger behavioral shifts we currently don't have.  Currently our expectation is that electricity should always be there, it's relatively cheap and costs about the same regardless of the time of day or season.  Our knee-jerk solution anytime there is a power shortage is to increase the power! (rather than decrease usage).

As hypothetical examples, charging 2x more at night might push people to charge EVs during the daytime and increase demand for at-work charging stations.  'Smart' thermostats might start considering when power is cheapest (and possibly encourage the inclusion of thermal-mass heat sinks in people's homes). Making winter power 3x more expensive in cold climates could fuel increased building energy efficiency.

Regardless of any behavioral shifts, I don't think we should assume that we can solve our climate problems solely by creating more power based on renewables.  Instead we should take the mindset that we are replacing more polluting solutions with less envirormentally damaging ones while reducing per-capita energy consumption overall.

That's not a direction I'd want to go down, personally.  I feel like having reliable, inexpensive electricity 24/7 is a problem that should be relatively solved at this point.  Starting to highly regulate which time we should do laundry is just kind of shitty and feels like we are moving backward.  And it starts with that.  Before you know it, 180% tax on cars - which I know a lot of mustachians would like, lol.  But really, it's a level of government intrusion and behavioral control that I'm not comfortable with.
Actually, it's government intervention that's prevented the kind of rate-pricing that I'm talking about.
If left to market forces, privately held utilities would almost certainly charge based on the current cost of generating electricity.  Only they can't, because of governmental regulations.

...but the rest of my post is more philosophical.  Consuming more should not be a society's measure of progress.  Efficiency IMO is a much better metric.

Are you suggesting the utilities are losing money?  If anything I think regulation has prevented them from gouging.  These are publicly traded companies, right?  They obviously can't be operating at a loss.

ChewMeUp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #328 on: March 05, 2019, 10:50:56 AM »
At least government control is responsive to voters.  What we have right now is 100% unrestricted corporate control, motivated by short term profit seeking at the cost of our shared resources, with zero oversight and no way to object to the harm being done.  That's the current state of affairs, and compared to that I think some "government intrusion" at the behest of voters would be a huge improvement. 

Remember, the government is you!  It's all of us!  We have the power, if we just choose to use it.  Conservative/corporate politicians like to talk about "government intrusion" as if listening to the will of the people were a bad thing.  What they care about is keeping people complacent while they strip mine our public lands for private profits.  Don't fall for their distorted rhetoric.  Government exists to serve you, not corporations.  You should never feel bad about using the power bestowed upon you in the Constitution.

You and I are just going to have to disagree on this one.  My wife is Danish, I spend a LOT of time there.  It's not at all a system I would want to live under and it's pretty much the movement you seem to be describing (sorry if I'm reading you incorrectly).  To me, it feels a lot like "Eventually you run out of other peoples money."  A bunch of
 government intervention at the behest of voters is obnoxious and it really sucks.  I think we have it pretty damn good the way things are in the US.


Nuclear plants exist, and they work.  I don't know how clear it is that we need any more of them, though, to provide peak leveling services to a fully built-out renewable generation grid supply.  What IS clear to me is that we have huge untapped wind and solar resources at cost competitive pricing, with lower environmental and health impacts, in a distributed generation model that minimizes required grid upgrades.  Every single US state would benefit from ten times as many solar panels as it has right now.  It's such an obvious answer that it shocks me we're still arguing about it, as a nation.

Germany is a good example of how renewables can be comfortably integrated into the grid at ratios up to 30% with only minimal upgrades required.  Current US solar production is creeping up on 2%.  We have a long way to go, and the solar industry could sustain 20% growth per year for the next decade before worrying about approaching current solar integration capacity limits.

I've been a fan of rooftop solar.  It seems so obvious.  Not a fan of wind generators all over the place.  I can deal with them off shore, however, or out in the desert.  But I've seen first hand when government decides to put them all over and it sucks.  Solar is not intrusive at all.  I have a rooftop array and it seems to work out great.  My bill for last month was $17 or so.

Anyways, your comment is about integrating renewables in to the grid.  Good to know about the 2% stat, seems we do have a long ways to go until integration issues, which is great.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #329 on: March 05, 2019, 10:54:52 AM »


Are you suggesting the utilities are losing money?  If anything I think regulation has prevented them from gouging.  These are publicly traded companies, right?  They obviously can't be operating at a loss.
No, I'm not suggeting that at all. How did you come to that notion?
Utilities are regulated by local and state agencies, many of which require the utility to maintain a certain price structure and place limits on when and how they can adjust their rates.  Most certainly make money, but I have no idea why you'd think "obviously [they] can't be operating at a loss".  Many do, at least for months and years, despite being defacto regional monopolies, precisely because they are so heavily regulated.

No, not all utilities are publicly traded private corporations.  A great number of utilities are coops or municipal-run.

As Sol poitned out, we ARE the government, and these laws are in place precisely because we don't want our utility to suddenly triple the cost of our electricity just becayse they had a bad quarter and the shareholders want to pay out more dividends.  His comment has little to nothing to do with the Dutch system, and I'm not sure how you jumped to that.

ChewMeUp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #330 on: March 05, 2019, 11:12:49 AM »


Are you suggesting the utilities are losing money?  If anything I think regulation has prevented them from gouging.  These are publicly traded companies, right?  They obviously can't be operating at a loss.
No, I'm not suggeting that at all. How did you come to that notion?
Utilities are regulated by local and state agencies, many of which require the utility to maintain a certain price structure and place limits on when and how they can adjust their rates.  Most certainly make money, but I have no idea why you'd think "obviously [they] can't be operating at a loss".  Many do, at least for months and years, despite being defacto regional monopolies, precisely because they are so heavily regulated.

No, not all utilities are publicly traded private corporations.  A great number of utilities are coops or municipal-run.

As Sol poitned out, we ARE the government, and these laws are in place precisely because we don't want our utility to suddenly triple the cost of our electricity just becayse they had a bad quarter and the shareholders want to pay out more dividends.  His comment has little to nothing to do with the Dutch system, and I'm not sure how you jumped to that.

You most definitely implied it.  "If left to market forces, privately held utilities would almost certainly charge based on the current cost of generating electricity.  Only they can't, because of governmental regulations." - and you were talking about jacking up utility pricing previously.

As for my comments with Sol, he clearly was talking about our "system" that we have (corporate controlled) and took it political as well.  I used a relevant comparison to suggest it's not always roses going completely the other way.  For what it's worth, I don't in any way agree that we are 100% corporate controlled in the States.  So I don't agree with the premise anyways.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #331 on: March 05, 2019, 11:19:04 AM »


Are you suggesting the utilities are losing money?  If anything I think regulation has prevented them from gouging.  These are publicly traded companies, right?  They obviously can't be operating at a loss.
No, I'm not suggeting that at all. How did you come to that notion?
Utilities are regulated by local and state agencies, many of which require the utility to maintain a certain price structure and place limits on when and how they can adjust their rates.  Most certainly make money, but I have no idea why you'd think "obviously [they] can't be operating at a loss".  Many do, at least for months and years, despite being defacto regional monopolies, precisely because they are so heavily regulated.

No, not all utilities are publicly traded private corporations.  A great number of utilities are coops or municipal-run.

As Sol poitned out, we ARE the government, and these laws are in place precisely because we don't want our utility to suddenly triple the cost of our electricity just becayse they had a bad quarter and the shareholders want to pay out more dividends.  His comment has little to nothing to do with the Dutch system, and I'm not sure how you jumped to that.

You most definitely implied it.  "If left to market forces, privately held utilities would almost certainly charge based on the current cost of generating electricity.  Only they can't, because of governmental regulations." - and you were talking about jacking up utility pricing previously.

As for my comments with Sol, he clearly was talking about our "system" that we have (corporate controlled) and took it political as well.  I used a relevant comparison to suggest it's not always roses going completely the other way.  For what it's worth, I don't in any way agree that we are 100% corporate controlled in the States.  So I don't agree with the premise anyways.

Then you aren't understanding what I am saying because it was not implied.
I was not talking about jacking up utility pricing, nor was I talking about utilities operating at a perpetual loss.  I was talking about rate-based price structuring. Big difference.

ChewMeUp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #332 on: March 05, 2019, 11:23:51 AM »


Are you suggesting the utilities are losing money?  If anything I think regulation has prevented them from gouging.  These are publicly traded companies, right?  They obviously can't be operating at a loss.
No, I'm not suggeting that at all. How did you come to that notion?
Utilities are regulated by local and state agencies, many of which require the utility to maintain a certain price structure and place limits on when and how they can adjust their rates.  Most certainly make money, but I have no idea why you'd think "obviously [they] can't be operating at a loss".  Many do, at least for months and years, despite being defacto regional monopolies, precisely because they are so heavily regulated.

No, not all utilities are publicly traded private corporations.  A great number of utilities are coops or municipal-run.

As Sol poitned out, we ARE the government, and these laws are in place precisely because we don't want our utility to suddenly triple the cost of our electricity just becayse they had a bad quarter and the shareholders want to pay out more dividends.  His comment has little to nothing to do with the Dutch system, and I'm not sure how you jumped to that.

You most definitely implied it.  "If left to market forces, privately held utilities would almost certainly charge based on the current cost of generating electricity.  Only they can't, because of governmental regulations." - and you were talking about jacking up utility pricing previously.

As for my comments with Sol, he clearly was talking about our "system" that we have (corporate controlled) and took it political as well.  I used a relevant comparison to suggest it's not always roses going completely the other way.  For what it's worth, I don't in any way agree that we are 100% corporate controlled in the States.  So I don't agree with the premise anyways.

Then you aren't understanding what I am saying because it was not implied.
I was not talking about jacking up utility pricing, nor was I talking about utilities operating at a perpetual loss.  I was talking about rate-based price structuring. Big difference.

Thank you for clarifying, but you did, in fact, talk about jacking up utility pricing.

"As hypothetical examples, charging 2x more at night might push people to charge EVs during the daytime and increase demand for at-work charging stations.  'Smart' thermostats might start considering when power is cheapest (and possibly encourage the inclusion of thermal-mass heat sinks in people's homes). Making winter power 3x more expensive in cold climates could fuel increased building energy efficiency."

2X and 3X increases is jacking up the price, right?  Then you said that utilities are not able to charge based on current cost of generating electricity, keeping the pricing artificially low due to regulation.  As in, they are not able to actually charge based on the cost of generating electricity.

Anyways..... again, thank you for clarifying because you confused me.  Not that it's a hard thing to do.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #333 on: March 05, 2019, 11:35:31 AM »

Thank you for clarifying, but you did, in fact, talk about jacking up utility pricing.

"As hypothetical examples, charging 2x more at night might push people to charge EVs during the daytime and increase demand for at-work charging stations.  'Smart' thermostats might start considering when power is cheapest (and possibly encourage the inclusion of thermal-mass heat sinks in people's homes). Making winter power 3x more expensive in cold climates could fuel increased building energy efficiency."

2X and 3X increases is jacking up the price, right?  Then you said that utilities are not able to charge based on current cost of generating electricity, keeping the pricing artificially low due to regulation.  As in, they are not able to actually charge based on the cost of generating electricity.

Anyways..... again, thank you for clarifying because you confused me.  Not that it's a hard thing to do.
Ok, I can see how you would be confused, but you are missing the crux of the conversation.

I was not implying that utilities are losing money. I'm not implying they implement price-gouging stategies, either in real life or in this hypothetical.  I am not talking about 'jacking up the price' at all, but rather having peak-demand costs being 2-3x more than off-demand, which is the same as saying  off-demand could be 1/2 to 1/3 as much as peak.

I'm directly refuting your idea that regulations would cause such behavior, when in fact they often prevent it.  I also never said they cannot charge based on the cost of electricity, but that they were often limited to when and how often they could make such changes. Where I live they can only make adjustments once per quarter, and there is only two-tiered pricing.  A similar example would be the USPS - they can raise the cost of stamps and services, but they can only do so at set times and constrained by the cost of doing business. They are heavily regulated.

An un-regulated utility could do all of the things you mentioned - increase prices for any reason and by any amount. Ergo, regulation prevents such activities.

RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 20746
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #334 on: March 05, 2019, 12:27:45 PM »
Since I seem to have started this side discussion about time of use prices, can I point out that Hydro One was trying to even out demand?  It changes peak hours for summer, when everyone wants to put on the AC in the afternoon.  It isn't really any different than a parking lot in the middle of a city's downtown charging more for daytime parking when demand is high, than for evening parking when demand is low. Or any other situation where demand fluctuates.  Hydro One has nuclear, water, fossil fuel and a bit of solar/wind, all feeding into the grid.   Less demand at peak means less fossil fuel burning.  It also means the grid can function on a smaller overall capacity, which means fewer times when we basically give away excess electricity because we are producing more than we use.

ChewMeUp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #335 on: March 05, 2019, 12:38:49 PM »

Thank you for clarifying, but you did, in fact, talk about jacking up utility pricing.

"As hypothetical examples, charging 2x more at night might push people to charge EVs during the daytime and increase demand for at-work charging stations.  'Smart' thermostats might start considering when power is cheapest (and possibly encourage the inclusion of thermal-mass heat sinks in people's homes). Making winter power 3x more expensive in cold climates could fuel increased building energy efficiency."

2X and 3X increases is jacking up the price, right?  Then you said that utilities are not able to charge based on current cost of generating electricity, keeping the pricing artificially low due to regulation.  As in, they are not able to actually charge based on the cost of generating electricity.

Anyways..... again, thank you for clarifying because you confused me.  Not that it's a hard thing to do.
Ok, I can see how you would be confused, but you are missing the crux of the conversation.

I was not implying that utilities are losing money. I'm not implying they implement price-gouging stategies, either in real life or in this hypothetical.  I am not talking about 'jacking up the price' at all, but rather having peak-demand costs being 2-3x more than off-demand, which is the same as saying  off-demand could be 1/2 to 1/3 as much as peak.

I'm directly refuting your idea that regulations would cause such behavior, when in fact they often prevent it.  I also never said they cannot charge based on the cost of electricity, but that they were often limited to when and how often they could make such changes. Where I live they can only make adjustments once per quarter, and there is only two-tiered pricing.  A similar example would be the USPS - they can raise the cost of stamps and services, but they can only do so at set times and constrained by the cost of doing business. They are heavily regulated.

An un-regulated utility could do all of the things you mentioned - increase prices for any reason and by any amount. Ergo, regulation prevents such activities.

I have no problem with regulating.  Government serves a vital role, and this is one of them.  The point I was making, is that I don't like when government so aggressively tries to modify behaviors of tax payers.  I don't even like peak/off-peak pricing.  I think it should be flat rate.  Rate it accordingly to make the numbers work.  This is what my Denmark comment was about, basically.  Once the government goes down this path, they often get carried away.  We don't want you driving cars... wham, 180% car tax.  We want you using electricity at certain times, wham, 3X rate increase during peak times.  It's just not a lifestyle that I personally like.  You may feel differently.  We each have a vote.  Neither of us is correct, it's just a preference.

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1429
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #336 on: March 05, 2019, 12:46:46 PM »
That's not a direction I'd want to go down, personally.  I feel like having reliable, inexpensive electricity 24/7 is a problem that should be relatively solved at this point.  Starting to highly regulate which time we should do laundry is just kind of shitty and feels like we are moving backward.  And it starts with that.  Before you know it, 180% tax on cars - which I know a lot of mustachians would like, lol.  But really, it's a level of government intrusion and behavioral control that I'm not comfortable with.

As Nereo mentioned, nobody is regulating what time you do laundry (or the price of cars (though there is the chicken tax...)). What would be regulated is the great pollution crisis of our generation, carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases). In order to do this, regulations need to be put in place to encourage renewables (tax-and-dividend is my preferred approach), and based on the inherent reality of how renewables operate, they will generate more electricity at certain times of the day. Simple supply-and-demand economics (not government regulation) would then force energy companies to price energy lower when renewables are at full capacity and higher when they need to be running power stations that pollute using fossil fuels.

These are all free-market solutions, with the sole tweak that carbon dioxide will be priced to account for the social damages it is causing. (Similar to how cigarettes were taxed in the late nineties / early oughts to account for the health dangers.)

LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3681
  • Location: Germany
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #337 on: March 05, 2019, 12:48:35 PM »
From what I've seen, few coal miners want their children to be in the industry - there's just a scarcity of jobs. I'd support a massive taxpayer funded bailout of these coal towns in exchange for shuttering the industry entirely.  But that's currently a pipe-dream...
This is actually happening now here ein eastern Germany. It is a multi-billion project to create new jobs in other fields.
Of course if we started with all this back in 1991 when we basically agreed to stop coal power it would have been a lot easier than now. But the lobbyists were very successful.

Quote
Germany is a good example of how renewables can be comfortably integrated into the grid at ratios up to 30% with only minimal upgrades required.  Current US solar production is creeping up on 2%.  We have a long way to go, and the solar industry could sustain 20% growth per year for the next decade before worrying about approaching current solar integration capacity limits.
In the summer days solar is actually doing more than 50% of energy production.
On a cloudy winter day of course its down to nearly nothing.

And that is the real problem. Not the short-term storage of day/night. You could do it with car batteries if you must. But the seasonal storage, that is the crucial point. Maybe there will be big water tanks storing heat in the future. That at least is easy and cheap tech. But still very expensive if you only use a single storage cycle per year...

ChewMeUp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #338 on: March 05, 2019, 12:57:57 PM »
That's not a direction I'd want to go down, personally.  I feel like having reliable, inexpensive electricity 24/7 is a problem that should be relatively solved at this point.  Starting to highly regulate which time we should do laundry is just kind of shitty and feels like we are moving backward.  And it starts with that.  Before you know it, 180% tax on cars - which I know a lot of mustachians would like, lol.  But really, it's a level of government intrusion and behavioral control that I'm not comfortable with.

As Nereo mentioned, nobody is regulating what time you do laundry (or the price of cars (though there is the chicken tax...)). What would be regulated is the great pollution crisis of our generation, carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases). In order to do this, regulations need to be put in place to encourage renewables (tax-and-dividend is my preferred approach), and based on the inherent reality of how renewables operate, they will generate more electricity at certain times of the day. Simple supply-and-demand economics (not government regulation) would then force energy companies to price energy lower when renewables are at full capacity and higher when they need to be running power stations that pollute using fossil fuels.

These are all free-market solutions, with the sole tweak that carbon dioxide will be priced to account for the social damages it is causing. (Similar to how cigarettes were taxed in the late nineties / early oughts to account for the health dangers.)

Hence why I support nuclear.  We can disagree on it.  I think the inherent reality of renewables is not all that compatible with progress, in a sense.  I support BOTH, but to a limited extent.

I would note that "free market" tends to lean towards ridiculous SUV's and dirty power as cheap as possible.  The government HAS to step in and I think we probably disagree on to what extent that should happen.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #339 on: March 05, 2019, 01:03:14 PM »


I have no problem with regulating.  Government serves a vital role, and this is one of them.  The point I was making, is that I don't like when government so aggressively tries to modify behaviors of tax payers.  I don't even like peak/off-peak pricing.  I think it should be flat rate.  Rate it accordingly to make the numbers work.  This is what my Denmark comment was about, basically.  Once the government goes down this path, they often get carried away.  We don't want you driving cars... wham, 180% car tax.  We want you using electricity at certain times, wham, 3X rate increase during peak times.  It's just not a lifestyle that I personally like.  You may feel differently.  We each have a vote.  Neither of us is correct, it's just a preference.

Ok, I see that we have differences in opinion here, and that's fine. 
It's just when you say something like "it should be a flat rate" - that seems to require government regulation, which is the opposite of what you say you want. As is the cost to generate electricity is not uniform, so why should the rate stay flat?

Using government policy to influence behavior is a much deeper subject which could warrant its own thread. Specifically with regard to the topic of this thread I'll say that we've been very bad at prioritizing long term savings over short-term costs (eg properly insulated homes) that g'vt incentives seem appropriate to me.

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1429
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #340 on: March 05, 2019, 01:04:17 PM »
I don't even like peak/off-peak pricing.  I think it should be flat rate.  Rate it accordingly to make the numbers work.

You do understand that nothing in the world has flat rate pricing (except perhaps the air we breathe)? The big difference is that most rates don't fluctuate on a daily basis. You look at gas, which has a well-known seasonality demand and cost: https://www.coursera.org/lecture/oilandgas/short-term-constraints-on-prices-5IhKb?authMode=signup. Free-market economies tend to do the best at letting the market price goods, whereas price controls have had very unfortunate side-effects (e.g., https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/remembering-nixons-wage-price-controls).

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #341 on: March 05, 2019, 01:04:49 PM »
In the summer days solar is actually doing more than 50% of energy production.

I think it should be closer to 500%, with the surplus being used to generate storage.  Charge every electric car.  Heat every water tower.  Fill every reservoir. While you're at it, go ahead and run every AC unit, foundry or smelting plant at full capacity to put that free energy to good use.  Solar power is virtually free once you build it, so if you build enough you don't need to worry so much about the efficiencies of your storage solutions, and even cloudy days could provide a majority of your instantaneous power needs.

I literally can't think of a single alternative energy source that has no operating fuel costs whatsoever, after you build it.  Wind is also free, but has higher ongoing maintenance costs.  How can anything else possibly be cost competitive with free sunshine, making power in a system with no moving parts?
« Last Edit: March 05, 2019, 01:18:37 PM by sol »

ChewMeUp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #342 on: March 05, 2019, 01:17:02 PM »
I don't even like peak/off-peak pricing.  I think it should be flat rate.  Rate it accordingly to make the numbers work.

You do understand that nothing in the world has flat rate pricing (except perhaps the air we breathe)? The big difference is that most rates don't fluctuate on a daily basis. You look at gas, which has a well-known seasonality demand and cost: https://www.coursera.org/lecture/oilandgas/short-term-constraints-on-prices-5IhKb?authMode=signup. Free-market economies tend to do the best at letting the market price goods, whereas price controls have had very unfortunate side-effects (e.g., https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/remembering-nixons-wage-price-controls).

My water service is flat rate.  Internet.  Phone.  Electricity is a utility similarly.  I think the debate would center around whether a utility like electricity should be flat rate.  I have no issue with supply and demand in general.  Parking more expensive during events.  Hate me for it, but I even support price gouging during emergencies (it helps keep supplies available).  But when it comes to electricity as a basic utility, I prefer a flat rate approach.

I am swaying a bit though, to be honest.  Sol makes a good point about solar practically being free once built and there are some realities and benefits to renewables that are undeniable.  And by the way, Sol, I loved your post about the Leaf.  We are leaning towards picking one up later this year when my retarded, expensive car lease is over.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #343 on: March 05, 2019, 01:24:33 PM »
My water service is flat rate.  Internet.  Phone.  Electricity is a utility similarly.

What do you mean by "flat rate"? 

Because there are flat rate cell phone plans, where you pay a fixed price for unlimited usage, but water and electricity are typically billed with a combination of a flat connection fee, then a per-unit consumption charge.  Without that second part, you just encourage waste. 

If you could get unlimited electricity for a flat rate, the way you sort of can with cell phone minutes, what's to stop you from building an aluminum smelter and taking over the global aluminum market with your lowest production costs?  Flat rate charges either need to be capped somewhere (like "unlimited" cell phone minutes are), they need to cover a service that has no per-use cost (much like cell data), or the flat rate needs to be so exorbitantly high relative to what they provide as to cover all possible excessive uses (also like cell phones, hmm, I'm seeing a pattern here).

ChewMeUp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #344 on: March 05, 2019, 01:31:07 PM »
My water service is flat rate.  Internet.  Phone.  Electricity is a utility similarly.

What do you mean by "flat rate"? 

Because there are flat rate cell phone plans, where you pay a fixed price for unlimited usage, but water and electricity are typically billed with a combination of a flat connection fee, then a per-unit consumption charge.  Without that second part, you just encourage waste. 

If you could get unlimited electricity for a flat rate, the way you sort of can with cell phone minutes, what's to stop you from building an aluminum smelter and taking over the global aluminum market with your lowest production costs?  Flat rate charges either need to be capped somewhere (like "unlimited" cell phone minutes are), they need to cover a service that has no per-use cost (much like cell data), or the flat rate needs to be so exorbitantly high relative to what they provide as to cover all possible excessive uses (also like cell phones, hmm, I'm seeing a pattern here).

I should have written that better.  Water is flat rate based on usage.  I don't pay peak.  I feel energy should generally be similar.  Internet/Phone is fixed priced.

I would be fine with a higher tier for those who use excessive energy.  However, it would need to be similar to cell phone plans where a vast majority of reasonable users wouldn't exceed it.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2019, 01:34:16 PM by ChewMeUp »

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2793
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #345 on: March 05, 2019, 01:42:34 PM »
I don't even like peak/off-peak pricing.  I think it should be flat rate.  Rate it accordingly to make the numbers work.

You do understand that nothing in the world has flat rate pricing (except perhaps the air we breathe)? The big difference is that most rates don't fluctuate on a daily basis. You look at gas, which has a well-known seasonality demand and cost: https://www.coursera.org/lecture/oilandgas/short-term-constraints-on-prices-5IhKb?authMode=signup. Free-market economies tend to do the best at letting the market price goods, whereas price controls have had very unfortunate side-effects (e.g., https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/remembering-nixons-wage-price-controls).

My water service is flat rate.  Internet.  Phone.  Electricity is a utility similarly.  I think the debate would center around whether a utility like electricity should be flat rate.  I have no issue with supply and demand in general.  Parking more expensive during events.  Hate me for it, but I even support price gouging during emergencies (it helps keep supplies available).  But when it comes to electricity as a basic utility, I prefer a flat rate approach.

I am swaying a bit though, to be honest.  Sol makes a good point about solar practically being free once built and there are some realities and benefits to renewables that are undeniable.  And by the way, Sol, I loved your post about the Leaf.  We are leaning towards picking one up later this year when my retarded, expensive car lease is over.

Just like with electricity, water rates are only flat rate because of government regulation. If it was left up to free market pricing, utilities would charge more during times of high usage or times of drought.

I think you may still be stuck on the idea that someone is suggesting the government step in to influence our behavior which no one has suggested.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #346 on: March 05, 2019, 01:50:57 PM »

I should have written that better.  Water is flat rate based on usage.  I don't pay peak.  I feel energy should generally be similar.  Internet/Phone is fixed priced.

I don't know how to reconcile your statements.
If you want flat rates, the only mechanism I know of is government regulation. Water, the eletricity grid and (yes) even phones (ie telecoms) are heavily regulated industries, which allows the flat rates you so desire.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #347 on: March 05, 2019, 02:46:20 PM »
If you want flat rates, the only mechanism I know of is government regulation. Water, the eletricity grid and (yes) even phones (ie telecoms) are heavily regulated industries, which allows the flat rates you so desire.

What we currently have is kind of a hybrid system.  Yes these marketplaces are heavily regulated, but different places have different types of regulation.  In Anchorage, water is absolutely free because they have lots more supply than they have demand, so you can use all you want.  Where I live water is seasonally adjusted, priced higher in the summer when it is scarce than it is in the winter when it is abundant, but my power is the same cost all day all year.  In California power is typically priced higher during peak usage hours, but water usage is only priced higher by total consumed, not when you use it.

Different pricing schemes, under different regulatory environments, allow different market forces to play out to accomplish different goals in different places.  NONE of these are true free markets, though.  They are absolutely dependent on the local government deciding, via the voters, how to best control these markets to meet their specific local needs. 

If you don't want government intervention in your power or water supplies, then you don't really want to have a water or power supply.  You want every person to be individually responsible for making their own power and water, ensuring it is safe and clean, and dealing with cleanup and downtime issues? 

Why not improve reliability and safety, and reduce costs, by banding together with a handful of your neighbors to share operation of a water well?  How will you decide how to operate it?   Why not band together with your whole city?  We could call it a "government" and maybe every person could get to vote on how your water system is operated...


LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3681
  • Location: Germany
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #348 on: March 05, 2019, 03:05:22 PM »
Free-market economies tend to do the best at letting the market price goods,
Yeah, and there is the main problem: Market price is seldom (or never) the price of all costs. Quite contrary markets tend to externalize as many costs as possible because that is the inherent logic.
And that leads directly to the problem of climate change.

It is often said that regenerative energies are more expensive than fossil fuels. But that is only because nobody produces fossil fuels (they are just there) or pays the full costs for them. Health costs? Climate costs? Sometimes we re-internalize those costs (acid rains), but it is always a big fight.


Quote
Why not improve reliability and safety, and reduce costs, by banding together with a handful of your neighbors to share operation of a water well?  How will you decide how to operate it?   Why not band together with your whole city?  We could call it a "government" and maybe every person could get to vote on how your water system is operated...

You just shocked 533 voluntaryists! LOL

ChewMeUp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #349 on: March 05, 2019, 03:09:55 PM »
I think you may still be stuck on the idea that someone is suggesting the government step in to influence our behavior which no one has suggested.

Isn't that exactly what is being suggested?  Modifying peak times to encourage daytime usage through regulation?