Comments on: Debunking Shellenberger & Nordhaus — Part III, What Californians know that S&N don’t

By: John Mashey

John Mashey — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 04:41:13 +0000

Yes, Earl has it right, and the CA info is a reminder that there are no instant fixes, but especially, changing any large installed base takes time, which means you can’t delay. A lot of towns in CA are trying to do something now (mine is, even though it’s tiny), and people are getting more aware of Peak Oil and realizing that getting off it earlier is a a Good Thing for places that can do it.

Regarding making money: the VCs are investing, and so are big, conservative engineering companies like Applied Materials (AMAT). Their chief solar guy, Charlie Gay, gave a nice talk over at SLAC earlier this year, including expected cost-reductions – no sudden drops, just the usual higher-volume => lower cost, over time.

http://www.appliedmaterials.com/products/solar_3.html
is a good place to start.; the machinery is very cool.

As a reminder, anyone who’s ever done serious R&D management knows:

1) First you do research, and forget about scheduling breakthroughs.
This gets funded by government and sometimes big industrial R&D groups … although sadly, Bell Labs isn’t what it was when I worked there. Bunches of small efforts are usually better than one big one. Although Stanford takes flak for taking money from ExxonMobil … I’m personally glad GCEP is there.

2) Then you do development, and VCs will fund some of that.

3) And then you do deployment.

Sometimes startups fail because they are doing research, not development, but didn’t realize it. Bad idea; VCs don’t usually invest in those (on purpose).

By: Earl Killian

Earl Killian — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 17:59:48 +0000

Dano asks, “How do we engage the doers? We must allow them to make money while we decarbonize.” If you look at Joe’s 8-point program from Hell and High Water, it seems like it does engage the doers and let them make money while we decarbonize. Point 1 has already happened in places like California, and construction has been thriving here. Point 2 is similar to 1 for heavy industry. Points 3-5 are directed at the existing electric utilities. As regulated entities, they will make money on such a program, as will the companies like GE that supply them the technology. Points 6 and 7 are directed at the car companies, which have been losing money because they have made the wrong strategic decisions of late; this should help get them back on the right track. Only point 8 seems hard to turn into a money making opportunity.

By: Earl Killian

Earl Killian — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 17:43:51 +0000

Dano writes, “Socolow and Pacala’s wedges tell us (pg 2) that, for policy-making, there are a number of things we must do to stabilize CO2 output. Energy Efficiency & Conservation is one wedge of 7.” I don’t think anyone here disagrees with this. Indeed, I hope that efficiency might be even more than 1/7th of the answer. Please read Joe’s book, Hell and High Water, where he sets out his own program:
1. Launch a massive performance-based efficiency program for homes, commercial buildings, and new construction.
2. Launch a massive effort to boost the efficiency of heavy industry and expand the use of cogeneration (combined heat and power).
3. Capture CO2 from 800 new large coal plants and store it underground.
4. Build it 1 million large wind turbines (or the equivalent in renewables such as solar power).
5. Build 700 new large nuclear plants while shutting down no old ones.
6. Every car and SUV achieves an average fuel economy of 60 miles per gallon.
7. Every car can run on electricity for short distance before reverting to biofuels.
8. We stop all tropical deforestation, while doubling the rate of new tree planting.
This is a very sensible program. The only one that looks difficult to do today is number 8.

By: Earl Killian

Earl Killian — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 17:37:18 +0000

Dano writes, “S&N’s original thesis, remember, is that policy and regulation alone won’t do it.” I won’t speak for Joe, but my interpretation of his posts is that “policy and regulation” are necessary (and perhaps sufficient). That is the source of his obvious discontent with what S&N have written, since they basically argue against the one thing that is strictly necessary to solve the problem. I agree with this interpretation because (1) I believe the necessary technology to solve the problem has already been developed–only deployment is required, not further research, and (2) that without policy and regulation, business as usual will not produce either (a) deployment of the already-developed technology, or (b) deployment of future yet-to-be-developed technology.

Your metaphor for this difference of opinion is course heading of 130deg vs. 140deg. However, others see it as a course heading difference of 90deg vs. 180deg. One makes forward progress, and one just moves sideways. That’s why it is not appropriate to take S&N’s thesis quietly.

By: Earl Killian

Earl Killian — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 17:25:49 +0000

Joe wrote, “If we want to reduce U.S. oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from cars, the most obvious strategy is the one that we already employed successfully to double the fuel economy of our cars from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s-tougher government mileage standards. No other strategy has ever worked for this country.” I agree that this is a short-term first step, but Joe forgot to mention the second step (which he does in his book), which is to make hybrids into plug-in hybrids.

If you agree, please sign the petition at http://pluginpartners.org/ and also lobby your municipality to do the same.

By: Earl Killian

Earl Killian — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 17:23:03 +0000

Since a graph can be more illuminating than words that describe it, I recommend page 12 of the following presentation to illustrate Joe’s point when he writes “From 1976 to 2005, electricity consumption per capita grew 60 percent in the rest of the nation, while it stayed flat in hi-tech, fast-growing California.”:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/ 2005publications/ CEC-999-2005-003/ CEC-999-2005-003.PDF
(This is from the California Energy Commission)

The whole presentation is interesting, but I especially recommend, besides page 12, pages 3, 6-8, 14, and 17. Joe might want to look for the citation of his book.

By: Dano

Dano — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 16:44:00 +0000

Fine, Joe.

S&N’s original thesis, remember, is that policy and regulation alone won’t do it. Reliance on such is the reason for the stagnation in environmental gains in the last few decades.

The flap over their thesis continues, I see, but I agree with it.

Best,

By: Joe

Joe — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 16:33:32 +0000

Dano:

I will address this in the next post — S&N have launched a counterproductive assault on environmentalists that play right into the hands of conservative deniers and delayers.

Joe

By: Dano

Dano — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 11:00:29 +0000

Mark, I agree with you, esp. that promises of manna from heaven don't help the issue. Let's restate the issue. S&N state:

The only way to double global energy consumption while cutting global warming emissions in half is by developing new sources of clean energy.

Why must we double? Why is it only? Why can't we just reduce consumption? is what we are considering here. The inexorable I = PAT drives our policy-making, whether we explicitly acknowledge it or not. The doubling of energy consumption comes from both the P (human population) and the A (affluence). Affluence drives consumption and this rate of increase is an important multiplier for policy-making and resource management. In resource management we must also consider other types of energy in the I=PAT: chemical energy. Energy to grow crops. The Green Revolution, which is over, happened simply because of the application of N fertilizer and well water. India gave subsidized energy to drive wells. This is over, as resources are limited and gains are slowing (hence the technological fix sought in GM crops). But back to the issue of reduction. Socolow and Pacala's wedges tell us (pg 2) that, for policy-making, there are a number of things we must do to stabilize CO2 output. Energy Efficiency & Conservation is one wedge of 7. S&P also conclude that:

Achieving a flat trajectory for the next 50 years puts stabilization at 500 ppm within reach. It requires greatly scaling up several known technological approaches, but it does not require fundamental breakthroughs. (pg 4)

I agree with this approach, with great concern however, as S&P themselves caveat:

The fifty-year time frame, we believe, has much to recommend it. It is long enough to allow dramatic changes, and it is short enough to engage the world’s doers. [emphasis added]

Engaging the doers. How do we engage the doers? We must allow them to make money while we decarbonize. S & N are pointing in a direction that allows folk to make money, while at the same time taking away denialists' anti-Kyoto-type arguments. Our task here is to ensure the denialism industry has no ammunition to slow down policy-making solutions. Our bickering over whether we set a course at 130 degrees or 140 degrees slows us down and keeps us in port. We can be seen to untie and launch and motor through the harbor and go out to sea to the southeast, and then the doers can start doing, which will allow society to decide (informed by the doers and the scientists) which 5-degree increment in the southeast to go. Our fingers should be pointing at something on a drawing table, not at each other. THAT's the slowdown in the process. S & N at least have an idea to start. Let's work together to operationalize not marginalize. Best, D

By: Mark Shapiro

Mark Shapiro — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 02:15:27 +0000

As a long-time fan of both Joe Romm and Dano, I say they’re both right. (And for those of you who don’t recall the scene in “Fiddler on the Roof” where the villager cries, “But rabbi, they can’t BOTH be right!”, the rabbi replies, “Hmmm, you’re right.”)

Come to think of it, trying to convince Joe and Jane Anybody to curtail fossil fuel consumption is a tough sell. Dano, I think Joe Romm is suggesting that techno-optimists like S & N slow down the process (even though California was successful years ago) by promising effortless fixes in the sweet by and by.