BI gets no attention, they want more, they do0n’t really care about anything beyond that.

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/t3v.jpg

to compare from 1850 CE to 1950 CE with the last half of the graph.

source: TheFreeDictionary.com

Michael Hoexter wrote “We have such strong renewable resources here that importing fuels from abroad should eventually become just a niche business.” Not enough renewable resources in the U.S. to become ‘energy independent’, as best as I can make out.

Hard to run big trucks and ships without (bio)diesel. Train lines could be electrified.

But whatever appears to be the most cost-effective means of supplying the actually needed energy is fine with me.

With electricity we can capture as much as 30% of the energy of the sun and transform it into a useful “energy carrier”. With bioenergy we are talking usually of conversion efficiency of less than 1% with many ongoing variable costs and ecosystem inputs (water, soil). There are pluses to bioenergy that I am aware of, especially in areas of the world that do not have some of the renewable resources that we have in the US. We have such strong renewable resources here that importing fuels from abroad should eventually become just a niche business.

I’m not stuck on bioenergy. It is rather than most appear unaware of the great potential than bioenergy offers.

The global economy is predicated on growth. The global population continues to grow. Use of fossil fuel and CO2 emissions are absolutely bound to grow while these conditions remain. There is only one road to reducing emissions, and that is to burn less fossil fuel. Your aprroaches will never address that.

First, I would say that if the tone of your web site and your writing were as balanced, measured and thoughtful as your responses on this site are, you would not be getting the kind of blowback you’ve been getting. I find it hard to come away from your work without feeling that you are implying that anything we can do with current technology — including policies effecting deployment — are only marginally valuable. And so, apparently, do a lot of other folks.

My sense is there two underlying issues that frame the debate occurring on these and other pages:

I.) How far can existing and soon to be deployed technologies take us; and
II.) Is it likely that we can get the kind of breakthrough you talk about at all, let alone soon enough to make a difference.

Let’s start with I.

I believe — and there is empirical data to back this up — that efficiency can dramatically cut GHG emissions in the near term at little or no cost with the right regulatory, financial and fiscal policies. (SEE ACEEE’s studies for the states of Texas, Florida, South Carolina, and Maryland on the amount of cost-effective efficiency available to displace new generation, for example).

Overall, an eighty percent reduction of GHG by 2050 is feasible with existing or in-the-pipeline technologies.

Let me outline a just a few approaches:

1.) aggressive codes and standards for all new buildings and appliances leading to zero net energy buildings;

2)an FHA guaranteed loan for energy retrofits on existing homes (or alternatively, on-bill financing from low cost bonds or banks affixed to local real estate taxes, thus embedding the payback period into the building, and substantially reducing administrative costs of servicing the loan). Either approach would extend amortization periods from 3-5 years at 9, 12 or even 18 per cent interest to 20 or more years at 6 percent interest. This, of course, would mean that monthly costs would be low — in most cases more than offset by the energy savings from efficiency. Bottom line- we could afford far more efficiency. Such a scheme could also be used to finance on-site renewables at both commercial and residential buildings, making solar hot water and PVs cost-effective.

3) aggressive efficiency standards for vehicles — starting with something like the 45 mpg I now get in my Prius by 2015 and moving rapidly to the 100 plus mpg we could get from plug in hybrids by 2025 and we’d be well on our way to serious reductions. We could even have a buy-back bounty on pig mobiles and SUVs.

4) On the Utility and power generation side, RPSs that escalate, in conjunction with carbon dispatching, and a strategy like forward capacity auctions that put efficiency on an even field with new generation (see ISO New England’s web site) and the carbon from generation would plummet.

As for industry and the public sector, requiring bonding agencies to incorporate risks and costs associated with fossil fuels into corporate, municipal and state bond rating would completely rewrite the way the industries, communities, and the financial community looked at energy
decisions. And if the SEC were to require publicly traded companies to list potential and actual future liabilities and costs associated with clean air act emissions, GHG emissions, energy price volatility,and supply disruptions in the MD&A sections of from 10Ks and 20 Fs, we wouldn’t see a single new coal plant built, and every industry would design products and processes with clean energy as an integral — if not primary — design principal.

So there you have it — buildings, power generation, transportation, industry and the public sector are covered, here.

I’ve only mentioned a few ideas, intentionally ignoring cap and trade or a carbon tax. My point is that current technologies can take us a long way when appropriate policies are used — and the costs can be negligible. The key effect of these strategies is two-fold: Pull existing stuff off the shelf; and stimulate PRIVATE investment to develop new technologies and refine existing ones … complimenting those investments with ITCs or other public subventions might help, but such support would be ancillary to the market forces unleashed by these polices — of course, do them in conjunction with a rigorous cap and trade program, and these things would become that much more effective.

Now let’s look at II — publicly funded RD&D for the purpose of identifying breakthrough technologies.

Well, assuming that such an investment could be sustained over a decade or more — perhaps in the face of a severe recession — such an effort MIGHT pay off in a decade or so. there’s no empirical evidence to support that notion, but it could. And then of course, there’s market penetration — add another 10. And bear in mind that most cost reduction and fully half of innovation in manufacturing occurs after a product enters the market. And political resistence from fossil fuel interests who now control more capital than any sector other than government …

Sorry, Ted, but I just don’t see it accounting for much in any meaningful time frame. And, it introduces a lot of uncertainty into the equation.

Call me crazy, but I’m not willing to play craps with the Earth.

I think we really have no other option but to pay somewhat more for some goods, otherwise we have really no chance as a society to sustain an economy of any description. The reduction in living standards of the middle and working classes has a lot to do with our commitment to consumption over production; we cannot afford to pay each other for our services. We are part of a race to the bottom. Technology can help somewhat but it is not going to create the entirely harmonious solution that you hope it will.

A call to sacrifice, not just for the environment but for ourselves and each other, is what is required from political leaders. Without forgoing some hedonic pleasures we will not be able to develop a sustainable economy of any sort. While I think paying for technological innovation exclusively through tax dollars is a little naive, spending taxes in the way you suggest goes against the trend of the last 30 years and itself requires a huge political battle. I believe you have developed your solution in contrast to the bad, old environmental movement and you haven’t yet gotten out into the wider world which has been trashing government for the last 30 years. Now THAT is a huge political struggle, one that I am willing to wage but not necessarily for a research-heavy agenda (some research yes).

Finally, the notion that we are going to arrive at the China price in one step is naive and over-ambitious. Why not first develop clean technologies that are priced right for the developed world or, at least, not hold those clean technologies hostage because we are thinking “oh no, this won’t work in China”.

This is looking for a magic bullet for the ENTIRE problem. It is either motivated by a beautiful sense of global justice or a simple unwillingness to address local and regional concerns before you take on the whole enchilada. We are in a far better position to help others if we first try to help ourselves. Isn’t it interesting that on airplanes the attendants tell mothers to first put on their own oxygen masks before they attend to their children? You are suggesting that we put on the oxygen mask for developing countries before we put it on ourselves.

I’m more than familiar- not what I’m talking about. See Fig 2. here: http://climatesci.org/ 2008/ 04/ 08/ has-the-ipcc-inflated-the-feedback-factor-a-guest-weblog-by-christopher-monckton/

Look at temp in the Permian. Temperature goes a-time-travelin’ not once, but twice.