CAP AND TRADE-FOR IT/AGIN IT?

EMISSIONS CONTROL for stationary sources is a developed technology that needs the cojones of Congress to make it happen. There are several technologies available and new ones being developed. However there are so many damn loopholes for EXISTING facilities that implimentation of pollution control technologies will probably never happen until a plant just deteriorates from use.

Since energy is THE prime eample of fungibility, it will never achieve the mantra of "Energy Independence". Its not that AMericans are aligned politically, its that BOTH sides of the aisle use the "energy independence" kaka poopoo as an anthem. There is a really good book on the entire industry and how international energy trade actually works. Its by a guy named Robt Bryce and has the unfortunate title of "Gusher of Lies". Its about the delusions of energy independence and agrees with most of the issues of how energy fungibility works.

However, having said that, I am totally against the importation of LNG (liquified Nat Gas) because its a waste of energy in the conversion of natural gas to liquid natural gas, a wholly inefficient and energy wasting process. Its reportedlyalmost as inefficient as the production of fuel grade ethanol.

Actually, the Mexican gas was supposed to have been brought in by pipeline. The "energy tsar" of the mid-70s (don't remember the clown's name) cut a deal for Canajun NG at $2.25 per thousand cubic feet (i think that was the deal, once again, at more than 30 years ago, i don't remember the specific detail, but the price differences struck me, and stuck in my memory). He then turned around to cut a deal with the Mexicans, and offered them $2.10 per mcf. Well, the Mexicans are neither stupid nor illiterate, so they told him they would be happy to sell the US their NG for $2.25 per mcf, exactly what the Canajuns were getting. He told them no way, so they erected a large stack near Tampico and began burning off the NG as an unwanted waste product of their petroleum operations. I didn't keep track, so i couldn't say if the pipeline ever got built, or if we buy NG or LNG from the Mexicans.

There is some really good energy humor that a competent stand up could mine for its richness of content.

I also remember in the Carter years when both the Jimmies were promoting alternative energy. Tohether They visited a really scuzzy biker bar in Denver just because the guy used a solar powered dish washer.(I was in Denver at the time and would hang out at that bar, Its amazing how shitty that place was and how the papers jsut crucified Carter for visiting)
SChlesinger used to make these ops for Carter and many of them were just stupid and did much to tarnish Carters forward looking energy programs. The country just wasnt ready for that kind of vision and Carter wound up being the stooge.

Schlesinger . . . thanks, i couldn't call that clown's name to mind.

and he was deserving of the title.

What's worse is that he was previously Secretary of Defense . . . yikes ! ! !

Well, here's hoping Congress develops some cojones sooner rather later or never. Cleaner air has got to be better no matter what side you (as in anyone not you in particular) come down on with the issue of global warming and the like.

In 2004 theNixonian/Kissingerian plan for invading and holding Saudi,Kuwait and AbuDabai was finally made public. SChlesingers paws were all over it for "strategic" thinking.
Double Yikes.

agree but cojones and congress arent things that Id hold my breath over. I think all Congressmen have to check theirs in at the claok room before taking oaths of offices

Definately NOT

Although I have seen environmentalist warn of the dangers of every alternative energy source, I've no fundamental objection to any of them, and would love to see our foreign policy break free of the shackles of oil.

What I'm not particulary fond of though is investing huge sums of taxpayer dollars into dead end energy sources that create greater problems than any they solve: Ethanol.

I am also not fond of throwing money away to deploy technology that is not sufficently developed to make economic sense.

Your knowledge on this subject seems greater than my own and so I credit your comment that alternative energy technologies are viable, but what do you mean by viable?

I have read that in addition to current costs, the difficulties of night time storage and winter energy reduction, the efficacy of solar power is limited by the sheer space demands it imposes. Is it realistic to imagine enormous fields of solar cells or, for that matter, wind turbines?

Is there any reason (hope) to believe there can be a breakthrough in battery technology in the relativey near future or have we simply run up against an immutable physical limit?

TO me , total system viability is a combined effectiveness of
1 engineering suitability

2Life cycle that is of a duration that generates more than it costs through time

3cost effectiveness where the entire project is economically positive throughout its life cycle.

Solar power is suitable for "at source" applications. I dont think that it would be desirable for huge grid power trains cause there is aloss on transmission and storage, the total field size is huge (as youve stated). However, the solar technology is so mature now that the cost per kilowatt (UP TO SOME SIZE LIMITING POINT) is waay down compared to 20 years ago. Solar power,is ideal for servicing a single home or , at most , a small community. (Sort of like a sewer water authority for a population of less than say 2000 homes. One of the big problems of solar is just a deterioration of efficiency due to dust and scouring of the PV cells. SO, the system is usually sized at a +1.20% of the planned output.



Never use the "immutability" term when dealing with things scientific or engineering. I hear that battery tech is due for a big leap soon. (I cannot Define "soon"). Ive always liked those electric sporty cars. They have a zero to 60 time of like 2 seconds. The only drawback is that they only run for about 40 miles. Thats not too good when youre asking 60 Grand for a car.

Sen. Inhofe Calls for Inquiry Into 'Suppressed' Climate Change Report

"He came out with the truth. They don't want the truth at the EPA," Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla,
a global warming skeptic, told FOX News, saying he's ordered an investigation. "We're going to expose it."

In referance to electric cars could not the price be reduced if they were mass produced?

I dont think price of the cars is the issue. No matter what a car costs, its ability to only drive for 40 to 60 miles without a battery recharge is unacceptable no matter how cheap theymake em.

Large amounts of coal is burnt to generate most of the electricity in this country.
More electric cars will require more coal to be burnt... Obama is against the coal industry.

Tesla has been building their roadster (244 miles range per charge) for quite a while, and recently announced a sedan:



Here's a link to their website: http://www.teslamotors.com/

The $57,400.00 base price makes it affordable to everyone.

I would not oppose a carbon tax if it was uniformly applied. However, I regard a cap and trade system as merely a technique for the government to evade the appearance that they have created a tax. More importantly, such a convoluted system enables the government to quietly distort the process, choosing winners and losers in the familiar, sordid way of politicians everywhere. The process adds unneeded complexity to economic life while empowering political functionaries and restricting individual freedom. We are already seeing these effects in the legislative process, and analogous events in the government's management of the failing automobile manufacturers.

There is also another factor. It is merely unfortunate that the favored "renewable" technologies that will benefit from all of this (chiefly wind and solar) are MUCH more expensive than their alternatives (by at least a factor of two). Moreover there are no likely technical innovations that will seriously alter that fact. We already have overt and hidden subsidies that replace about 35% of the real cost of wind power, transferring it to other sources. Right now wind & solar amount (despite all the hoopla) to only about 1% of our electrical power production, and, as a result the cost differential doesn't matter much. In fact just the capital cost of new wind power facilities and the transmission lines required to support them, is about 50% greater than that of a new nuclear power plant that delivers the same output - on a per Kw-hr basis for power actually delivered.

I forgot about the Tesla. In fact it seems to have fallen off the map. Is this for real? Im wondering how sensitive the weight to power ratio is with people on board. Does the range become affetced with, say, 3 people on board plus lugage. HQAlf hour charge is t 120 20?.


GEORGEob, Ive been saying that a solar/or wind turbine is applicable to on site use to power up a typical homes needs, rather than a large generating facility to serve a region. I feel t5hat nuclear or gas generators are some of the best and cleanest. Ive worked on the siting of an 850 meg gas fired combined cycle power station near the SUsuquehanna. The site is beautifully designed and with a very small footprint. Its water use has been designed to discharge into a huge manmnade wetland.
My neighbor and I are looking into solar PV supplemented by an all gas hot water system with a tankless gas water heater. The doability of this type system looks like a 40000$ otal capital but in Pa theres, besides the 30% Fed Tax credit, a 35% alternative energy GRANT for systems of >90% efficiency and as alternative or green energy. Thats a 65% immediate return in actrual credits and grants. Wowee. We are used to tax credits and tax free investments in farming, but this is a new quicker return energy investment.