tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post1513319422947438618..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: The Problem and the Problem with the ProblemMichael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-46578244148623349762009-03-28T04:01:00.000-07:002009-03-28T04:01:00.000-07:00Raven, it goes like this on the open Nordpool mark...Raven, it goes like this on the open Nordpool market:<BR/>When there's wind, hydro goes off.<BR/>When there's enough demand and little enough production so the electricity is expensive, hydro goes on.<BR/><BR/>The hydro produced *during the year* is exactly similar, as in the "without wind" case.<BR/><BR/>Mostly natural gas is replaced, since that is the most expensive (the most expensive is always cut first in an open electricity market), but some coal probably too, especially that coal whose waste heat is not used.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I do not think "green jobs" solves things - building sandcastles would give people jobs too, and it doesn't help. (Actually building huge houses just for speculation is pretty much equivalent to building sandcastles, and it might seem for a while that everything is fine while you're taking more and more debt, but it's ultimately just a wasted effort.)<BR/><BR/>My view of a working near future energy mix:<BR/>1 baseload always-on nuclear (at the bottom)<BR/>2 hydro for load balancing (at the top)<BR/>3 wind and solar in between, depending on how much hydro there is to allow them so that production still meets demandAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-23792728416732358502009-03-27T14:40:00.000-07:002009-03-27T14:40:00.000-07:00Michael,My understanding in the Denmark case it is...Michael,<BR/><BR/>My understanding in the Denmark case it is the hydro power that goes offline when the wind blows because the cost of stopping/restarting coal/nuke production is too expensive. This means that you cannot assume that the -4c/KWh is actually resulting in a reduction of GHGs. <BR/><BR/>As for the fleets of car batteries being charged at night: a nice idea once we have the cars. Until then the electrical grid needs to match current consumption patterns.<BR/><BR/>The wind infrastructure being built in Texas is probably impressive to look at but the rated capacity is only 4GWh which is equivalent to 8 coal plants (the US alone has 600 coal plants). Once you factor in the intermittant nature of wind it is unlikely that those turbines replace more than 2 coal plants. <BR/><BR/>Sure its progress, but I am arguing there are more cost effective ways to get more progress faster.Ravennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-63422297425587601112009-03-27T14:04:00.000-07:002009-03-27T14:04:00.000-07:00Yeah I just came across article that myself. -$40/...Yeah I just came across article that myself.<BR/><BR/> -$40/MWhr = -4c/KWhr; this may be a perverse behavior compared to shutting off the device economically, but only very slightly so, and only insofar as you neglect externalities. They do it because the subsidy covers the four cents. So long as that power still replaces carbon emissions the subsidy is perfectly reasonable. <BR/><BR/>If we move to an electric vehicle fleet, cars by day can be powered by wind power generated at night: the car batteries become the storage device we need. It's a win-win. <BR/><BR/>A drive through the territory south of Abilene is required to get a feel for the enormous scale of the wind deployment to date in Texas. <BR/><BR/>That said, I agree that nukes probably need to be in the mix. It certainly needs to be on the table. Everything except non-CCS coal is on the table, including economic decline and abstention from meat.<BR/><BR/>I wish I could say "nobody said this was going to be easy" but unfortunately people say that all the time. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, I say this is not going to be easy. <BR/><BR/>Green jobs, yes please. Green jobs magically fix everything, um, no I don't think so. Constraints are always a net cost, and anyway, Humpty will never be quite the same again, sorry.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-77825965223465539882009-03-27T13:42:00.000-07:002009-03-27T13:42:00.000-07:00Michael,Denmark has invested heavily in wind and p...Michael,<BR/><BR/>Denmark has invested heavily in wind and produces close to 40% of its domestic power consumption with wind. The trouble is the Danes can only use 6-10% of the power because the wind does not blow at the right times. The rest is sold at a loss to its neighbors. In order to make up the difference Denmark buys more electricity at market rates from coal and nuclear plants in Sweden and Germany.<BR/><BR/>The Danes have to sell their wind power at a loss because the wind often blows at times when nobody really needs it so the price has to attractive enough to convince the operators of nuclear/coal/hydro plants to reduce production in order to allow the extra power into the grid. These economics will doom wind power no matter where it is deployed.<BR/><BR/>In fact here is a story about how wind turbines in Texas often *pay* the grid operator to take the power that they produce:<BR/><BR/>http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/texas-wind-farms-bring-free-energy-and-cash-bonuses--5347.html<BR/><BR/>"Because of intense competition, the way wind tax credits work, the location of the wind farms and the fact that the wind often blows at night, wind farms in Texas are generating power they can't sell. To get rid of it, they are paying the state's main grid operator to accept it. $40 a megawatt hour is roughly the going rate."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-80972968020614263432009-03-27T13:28:00.000-07:002009-03-27T13:28:00.000-07:00Grackle, "we already know that wind can't be deplo...Grackle, "we already know that wind can't be deployed effectively at large scales". Oh? And how do we know this?Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-56609557964464675132009-03-27T13:24:00.000-07:002009-03-27T13:24:00.000-07:00Bi, Perhaps a concrete example:10 years ago politi...Bi, <BR/><BR/>Perhaps a concrete example:<BR/><BR/>10 years ago politicians jumped on the corn-to-ethanol bandwagon because it gave them way to pander to key constituants while claiming it was a positive move for the environment. That move created a legion of vested interests which still command a significant portion of the 'green funding' from the government despite the fact that corn-to-ethanol contributes very little towards dealing with the GHG problem.<BR/><BR/>We are seeing similar issues with wind power and I fully expect to be talking about the wind power boondoogle in 10 years that costs huge sums of money but does nothing for GHGs. Yet wind power is attractive to politicians because it is visible and provides a way to spread the green wealth around to important rural constituancies.<BR/><BR/>If we want to deal with the GHG issue then we should be putting every available cent into building nuclear plants. We need 1000s of them by 2050 if we want to have any serious chance at meeting targets demanded by the IPCC. Investment in other technologies has to be limited to R&D and pilot projects until we know they can be deployed effectly at large scales (we already know that wind can't be deployed effectively at large scales).<BR/><BR/>Of course, you could argue that the job creation schemes don't need to actually do anything for GHGs but with that attitude you are simply enabling politicians that are more than happy to delay concrete action while claiming environmental virtue due to all of the 'green jobs' that they created.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-60006952834725262142009-03-27T08:00:00.000-07:002009-03-27T08:00:00.000-07:00"Green jobs are a 'more' policy while sustainabili..."Green jobs are a 'more' policy while sustainability would call for 'less'."<BR/><BR/>You're just engaging in word-play.<BR/><BR/>-- <A HREF="http://frankbi.wordpress.com/" REL="nofollow">bi</A>bi -- International Journal of Inactivismhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03030282249404084578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-43965239816035586812009-03-27T07:28:00.000-07:002009-03-27T07:28:00.000-07:00In order for green jobs to solve the unemployment ...In order for green jobs to solve the unemployment problem (what you mean, quantitatively?) you'd need a policy to do that as well as patience. There's no such policy obviously. Every green job still does its little bit.<BR/>I'm not sure what market green jobs are supposed to take over.<BR/><BR/>I'm afraid there's no road to sustainability in sight, with or without green jobs. Green jobs are a "more" policy while sustainability would call for "less".<BR/>As to the climate crisis, let's not kid ourselves: green jobs aren't even addressing it. A comprehensive global policy is required.<BR/>But yeah, green jobs are supposed to have added value as compared with random make-work. And I would expect at least a modicum of success on that front.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-5513905519851022162009-03-27T06:16:00.000-07:002009-03-27T06:16:00.000-07:00Raven:"Showing any preference for higher cost tech...Raven:<BR/><BR/>"Showing any preference for higher cost technologies that happen to create domestic jobs will hurt the economy in the long run."<BR/><BR/>Stop repeating that straw man.<BR/><BR/>* * *<BR/><BR/>Anonymous 1:34am:<BR/><BR/>"(anybody get what 'else it would have happened already' means?)."<BR/><BR/>In brief, 'if green jobs are so good and great, then why haven't they solved the current unemployment problem and started taking over the market already?'<BR/><BR/>As I mentioned, one possible cause is the systemic gridlock in the current scheme of things.<BR/><BR/>"The first policy goal in a depression is to keep people solvent. It's not the way I favor and I find this 'job creation' business quite depressing"<BR/><BR/>It is, but what if the crisis you're looking at is the <I>climate</I> crisis, and the first policy goal is simply to create a sustainable energy regime? It's not just make-work, it's useful work that also <I>happens to</I> mitigate the unemployment problem.<BR/><BR/>-- <A HREF="http://frankbi.wordpress.com/" REL="nofollow">bi</A>bi -- International Journal of Inactivismhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03030282249404084578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-22777259467685391792009-03-27T04:23:00.000-07:002009-03-27T04:23:00.000-07:00Anonymous,Money, like any other resource, is finit...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>Money, like any other resource, is finite and the govenment needs to make sure that any spending provides a good return on investment. If the government wastes this money non-productive short term job creation schemes then the country will be in worse shape once the bills come due.<BR/><BR/>Money is finite even if the central bank is printing new money by buying government debt because this will eventually lead to high inflation and collapsing currency. <BR/><BR/>That is why I think that any spending be focused on the number one priority: minimizing the costs associated with the switch to higher cost renewables. Showing any preference for higher cost technologies that happen to create domestic jobs will hurt the economy in the long run.<BR/><BR/>That said, investments in straight R&D into green technologies or defence spending are a special case because the ROI of some future technology can be quite high. But even then there is a limit to how fast R&D money can be spent effectively.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-87680150265657068412009-03-27T03:22:00.000-07:002009-03-27T03:22:00.000-07:00Once two people meet, politics start. Actually, po...Once two people meet, politics start. Actually, politics starts already with one people motivating him/herself with various thought models.<BR/><BR/>The larger an organization, idea or movement grows in terms of people, the larger share of mental power it uses for internal politics, and the less for the actual issues.<BR/><BR/>So, the greens and green party in a sense suffers from the fact that it has grown so large. But since this seems to be inevitable, it's possible one can't do anything about it. <BR/><BR/>If one were to found a new movement and new parties based on very tightly chosen core values, they would all the same very quickly be a collection of peripheral issues.<BR/><BR/>That's just a reality and practical way things go when individual humans work together. <BR/><BR/>We can't agree on everything and we are strongly disagreeing on many things and still can help each other forwarding our goals if we see it better than not.<BR/><BR/>That's not to say that it's completely inevitable or should not be talked about.<BR/><BR/>Over here the green party has all kinds of politicians nowadays, almost nobody cares about nature protection (that the whole party was founded on in the eighties), but it's more about multiculturalism and no nuclear power and some other things that I see as not entirely well based (although I can understand the thought model, I just don't think the assumptions are valid or that the logic leading from assumptions to actions is).<BR/><BR/>What is the green party's strategy over here? Well, they want to get more places in the parliament so they are openly trying to become more of a general party, not really that much into green issues. There are three big ones and a few smaller ones and then a few tiny ones.<BR/><BR/>I still think they have managed to do something useful, and their lesser usefulness has mostly not been because of wrong values, but because of being too damn timid, passive, listening, unsure and non-credible.<BR/><BR/>Of course, Mamet's principle plays into all this too. The truth can not retreat or advance, the truth is self critical. At the same time the truth is an unattainable concept and always approximate and probable.<BR/><BR/>In that light, this is a very interesting discussion in the comments.<BR/>http://www.scruffydan.com/blog/?p=2095<BR/><BR/>Of course, it would take huge resources to have this discussion with every "sceptic" - to make them realize how they actually are not sceptics.<BR/>Someone should probably make a movie. <BR/><BR/>The world deserves a lot better than Al Gore's stuff. (And it is politically impossible to view for about half of the US populace.) This is just a practical view. The film should be carefully made and pre-checked so that a million really stupid errors would not creep in.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-18674582271199471562009-03-27T01:34:00.000-07:002009-03-27T01:34:00.000-07:00Raven is doing little more than rehasing the argum...Raven is doing little more than rehasing the arguments from the wingnut link Michael Tobis posted. Yet that's borderline off-topic and whatnot... because?<BR/>As far as I'm concerned, Raven is making more sense by the way (anybody get what "else it would have happened already" means?).<BR/><BR/>The multiplier works quite well and doesn't require the money to be spent productively. Policy makers the world over are working from that premise.<BR/>The first policy goal in a depression is to keep people solvent. Make-work is indeed a way to do this. It's not the way I favor and I find this "job creation" business quite depressing but I'm afraid discussion of the underpinnings of our economic system would be off-topic.<BR/>Please note that green jobs do not have a monopoly on pork or make-work. If you really have a problem with that, please look into defense spending.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-6688669372542972402009-03-26T23:18:00.000-07:002009-03-26T23:18:00.000-07:00Raven, it is a very close call.Raven, it is a very close call.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-24873378692354249412009-03-26T22:59:00.000-07:002009-03-26T22:59:00.000-07:00Steve,Michael said:"I am interested in debating th...Steve,<BR/><BR/>Michael said:<BR/><BR/>"I am interested in debating the proposition that "green jobs" will "revive the economy" in the short run."<BR/><BR/>I am contributing to that debate without wasting time on the question about whether action is necessary in the first place.<BR/><BR/>I will leave to Michael to indicate whether my contributions along these lines are unwelcome.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-68498092491838345072009-03-26T22:18:00.000-07:002009-03-26T22:18:00.000-07:00Frank, kindly ignore our feathered friend. Comple...Frank, kindly ignore our feathered friend. Completely.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-14924966208511061442009-03-26T21:35:00.000-07:002009-03-26T21:35:00.000-07:00Bi,If politicians use green jobs as a way to sell ...Bi,<BR/><BR/>If politicians use green jobs as a way to sell the investments you can bet that companies with products to sell will use the number of jobs created as a lobbying tactic. And you can bet that politicians will listen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-55167698545830215422009-03-26T21:08:00.000-07:002009-03-26T21:08:00.000-07:00Raven:Nobody's proposing to select green technolog...Raven:<BR/><BR/>Nobody's proposing to select green technologies based on the number of jobs created. But it is a fact that even beginning the switch to green energy will require quite a lot of work upfront, whichever way you cut it.<BR/><BR/>-- <A HREF="http://frankbi.wordpress.com/" REL="nofollow">bi</A>bi -- International Journal of Inactivismhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03030282249404084578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-59982166814388666802009-03-26T17:53:00.000-07:002009-03-26T17:53:00.000-07:00The problem with the problem.Yup.The problem with the problem.<BR/><BR/>Yup.David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-87369141783113782172009-03-26T16:51:00.000-07:002009-03-26T16:51:00.000-07:00Anonymous,If the multiplier effect was so effectiv...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>If the multiplier effect was so effective then the government can forget about building roads and other infrastructure with trucks and heavy equipment since many more people could be employed if they used shovels and wheel barrows. In fact, why stop there? Think of all of the jobs that could be created if we had crews of people digging ditches with spoons!<BR/><BR/>If you think about you will realize that digging ditches with spoons would not benefit the economy much because it is an unproductive use of labour. <BR/><BR/>That is why selecting renewable technologies based on the number of jobs created is a bad idea. If the government is going to invest money it needs to make choices that provide the best return on investment and that will generally mean that technologies which require less labour are better.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-55439786146698713182009-03-26T16:04:00.000-07:002009-03-26T16:04:00.000-07:00Your economics are even stranger than your epistem...Your economics are even stranger than your epistemology, Raven.<BR/><BR/>What basic economics has been saying since the lase depression is that this kind of government spending in such a circumstance creates indirectly creates even more jobs. Look up "multiplier".<BR/><BR/>Money is a social convention. It's managed by the government in the US nowawdays so the government gets to spend as much as it feels like. Look up "monetization".<BR/>What matters is concrete productive capacity. This being a depression, there's plenty of unemployment, much capacity laying fallow and cheap commodities. The time is right for ambitious programs.<BR/><BR/>That said, I find this selling of "green jobs" repellent as well. The greenwashing bothers me bit but my beef is really with the paternalism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-24354837407109519672009-03-26T14:41:00.000-07:002009-03-26T14:41:00.000-07:00"Green Jobs" is a nice buzz word but trying to sel..."Green Jobs" is a nice buzz word but trying to sell "Green Jobs" as a benefit of acting on the GHGs will undermine any effort in the long run.<BR/><BR/>The reason is basic economics.<BR/><BR/>Technologies that require more labour to deploy are going cost more and this money has to come from somewhere. These extra costs will result in lost jobs elsewhere. <BR/><BR/>To make matters worse, governments that try to use "green jobs" as a way to sell "green" policies will likely favour technologies based on the number of potential jobs instead of the cost/joule. This would simply exacerbate the pain created by the higher energy costs. <BR/><BR/>There is also a huge danger of "green wash" where unsustainable technologies such as corn-to-ethanol are favoured despite the fact that they offer no real reductions in GHG production.<BR/><BR/>If the real goal is a mass conversion to rewewable energy technologies then we have to focus on minimizing the cost/joule instead of the jobs/joule.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-538881492920162352009-03-26T13:35:00.000-07:002009-03-26T13:35:00.000-07:00Michael,you are very articulate as always. Great ...Michael,<BR/><BR/>you are very articulate as always. Great post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-72153601595372354822009-03-26T11:44:00.000-07:002009-03-26T11:44:00.000-07:00Ok, so I just off-handedly write "Canadian Gristmi...Ok, so I just off-handedly write "Canadian Gristmill" above. And then <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZwkxHYM7lI" REL="nofollow">this song</A> started endlessly looping in mind. Arrrgh!!!<BR/><BR/><I>Set my compass north, I got winter in my blood<BR/><B>"Canadian gristmill"</B>, gypsy tail wind<BR/>They call my home the land of snow<BR/>Canadian cold front movin' in<BR/>What a way to ride, oh, what a way to go</I>tidalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08979480547719289608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-80181012382920413802009-03-26T10:53:00.000-07:002009-03-26T10:53:00.000-07:00The point about encouraging direct citizen action ...The point about encouraging direct citizen action was supposed to link <A HREF="http://www.powerupcanada.ca/take_action/" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<BR/><BR/>That is really an interesting group of founders... hmmm...tidalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08979480547719289608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-80483065427086376152009-03-26T10:44:00.000-07:002009-03-26T10:44:00.000-07:00Good old mom sent a heads up to this new site alon...Good old mom sent a heads up to this <A HREF="" REL="nofollow">new site</A> along. I'm surprised I missed it. <A HREF="http://www.zerocarboncanada.ca/in-the-fight-over-clean-energy-will-environmentalists-stand-with-science" REL="nofollow">Here is a contribution</A> from IPCC member Dr. Andrew Weaver that I think is germane to mt's post w.r.t. content/message.<BR/><I>"There are many depressing things about being a climate scientist these days. The emerging data is going from bad to worse and the political leadership is still acting as if we have all the time in the world to deal with global warming... The scientific community has a very solid understanding of what is causing global warming: it is overwhelmingly because of the combustion of fossil fuels. Thus, the primary solution to the problem is as simple as it is daunting: the elimination of fossil fuel use in our economies... Few people outside the scientific and engineering community have yet come to terms with the immensity of that task...<BR/>The public debate has become a caricature. People complain about windmills blocking their view. Kayakers complain about seeing a transmission line on their weekend excursions. The public dialogue is riddled with outlandish and demonstrably false assertions such as windmills will devastate local bird populations or a hydro project will create more greenhouse emissions than it will displace by eliminating a coal-burning power plant. Some of the most insidious arguments attempt to slow things down: that we should do more planning, that we should do energy conservation first and build renewable energy later, that we shouldn’t do anything until China does... These arguments are fundamentally not serious. They come from groups and spokespeople that have simply not grappled with the math — with the scale and speed at which we must eliminate fossil fuel emissions..."</I>cont'd...<BR/><BR/>So, it is a scientist taking it directly to the public (next day the article in the Vancouver Sun). <BR/><BR/>I am curious what exactly the mission/founders are here, and who the content contributors are likely to be. Chris Hatch is, or was, with Environmental Defence Canada. Tyler Hamilton looks to be involved. Bill McKibben contributed a cross-posted article today. Actually, poking around, it becomes clearer <A HREF="http://www.powerupcanada.ca/look_whos_powering_u" REL="nofollow">here</A>. So it is a coaltion of advocacy groups (e.g. EDF, Pembina, etc.), and other interested groups and individuals are joining. They are encouraging <I>direct political pressure from citizens</I>. <BR/><BR/>I hope this is supposed to more than just "Canadian Gristmill". On the other hand, it's not "The Green Party", so I suspect a lot of ideas will be tolerated... Except a certain type. They have an interesting comment policy!:<BR/><I>We're here to debate issues and generate action on global warming, the green economy and climate politics in Canada. These issues are deadly serious so be forewarned: we will delete rude or abusive comments, comments not about global warming, and those aimed at individuals. <BR/><BR/>We have a lot of work to do so if you want to reject the science and regurgitate long-debunked arguments against global warming, go elsewhere. Same goes for comments rejecting the scientists' solutions without offering realistic alternatives. <BR/><BR/>ATTN climate change denier trolls: you are cooking our kids and will be deleted.</I><BR/><BR/>Anyway, I know that's not exactly what mt has in mind (and I still don't know how you get paid!) but there are some interesting aspects to it. Eh? You hosers.tidalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08979480547719289608noreply@blogger.com