The old dirty energy issue is a tough knot, but does not address the question of whether it is more effective to lower alternatives or raise fossils in price to maximize deployment.

think of it this way: TANSTAAFL.

1. subsidizing clean energy to much lower than dirty energy might have to continue for years — a fact potential energy generators would notice and maybe take into account — not necessarily getting you the price-performance improvements you were hoping for.

2. the money for the subsidy would have to come from somewhere, making the cost of energy a little less free than it looked, which people would notice.

3. no matter how low your clean price was, some averaged energy price — (dirty+clean)/2, maybe — would be a price people were willing to pay. very few people really want more than “good enough.”

4. we do want to drive the fossil fuel business in one of two directions:

a. out of business, or
b. out of that business.

billing them for the cost of mitigation and remediation is totally market-permissible, and is certainly the best way to maximize deployment of clean energy by them, if they want to keep producing energy.

I think step two will be figuring out a way to get the southwestern CSP and the high plains wind power to the population centers east of the Mississippi. I would like more information on improving the efficiency of the grid and the use of HVDC.

The old dirty energy issue is a tough knot, but does not address the question of whether it is more effective to lower alternatives or raise fossils in price to maximize deployment.

Fiftieth year? We don’t have that long, as I pointed out in my first comment in this thread. My concern is with people who make proposals that are woefully incomplete, but don’t let on that they are incomplete. That has the potential to fool people. I am not putting the fiftieth year ahead of the first; I am pointing out the flaw in Shellenberger’s reasoning.

Paul K said, “The challenge is to find a way to rapidly deploy enough clean energy to at the very least meet the ongoing increase in demand. That’s step one. Many other steps must follow.”

No, the first step is to reduce demand through efficiency (negawatts). Suppose the Federal government adopted California’s policies, incentives, and regulations, and over the 30 years it took U.S. kWh per capita to bloat compared to California (which held steady for 30 years), Japan, Germany, etc. let’s say U.S. kWh per capita falls to 7,800. The U.S. population in 2040 is projected to be 392 million, so multiplying we get 3,058 TWh. In 2005 we used 3,661 TWh. So electrical generation could decrease between now and 2040, if we make efficiency a priority. There need not be any net “ongoing increase in demand” (I say “net” because some parts of the country will have demand increases, others will have larger declines).

I am not counting the 900 TWh required for getting 80% of our vehicle travel fueled from electricity in the above. That should be handled by building, for example, wind turbines.

Paul K said, “Although I don’t think Breakthrough has the totally right way to go about it, they are totally correct that reducing the cost of the clean is a much more effective way to promote its deployment than is raising the price of the dirty. I don’t understand why you who has taken advantage of every cost reducing opportunity for alternative do not agree.”

You give no justification for this assertion. I’ve explained why it is wrong, and yet you ignore that and simply give it a “totally correct” label without addressing the point that 2 ppm per year from existing plants is sufficient to breach 450 ppm in 33 years. Until you address that point, you have no justification for your assertion.

Here are some cool pictures of a protest yesterday at Boxer’s office in San Fransisco (disclaimer: I helped call Bay-area media about it) –
http://www.kelleycampaigns.com/letter.html

Full text of McKibben’s letter is at the above link, as well.

You keep claiming your approach is politically easier than other approaches — it ain’t. The downside of your approach is that it is not only as politically difficult as any other approach — it won’t actually avoid catastrophic warming.

Paul (and Michael) — you keep missing the point. There is no technology strategy that can bring the cost of new low carbon technologies FAR below the cost of existing coal power.

Finally, I have now repeatedly blogged that I don’t believe a carbon price is the urgent strategy that we need.

Although I don’t think Breakthrough has the totally right way to go about it, they are totally correct that reducing the cost of the clean is a much more effective way to promote its deployment than is raising the price of the dirty. I don’t understand why you who has taken advantage of every cost reducing opportunity for alternative do not agree.