Comments on: Just-in-Time Energy Revolution

By: David B. Benson

David B. Benson — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 00:08:26 +0000

They obviously didn’t bothr to check the current spot prices of coal.

By: hapa

hapa — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 01:21:27 +0000

just gonna hazard a guess here that, efficiency being cheaper than new supply, there may be a feeling at the economist that the higher gross margins of meeting inefficient demand are something to be carefully thunk upon.

By: hapa

hapa — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 01:22:55 +0000

we all want to be efficient of course but not to the point of frugality.

By: Ronald

Ronald — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 02:03:20 +0000

I saw an advertisement in a magazine for energy efficiency and the writing was all about energy eff. but the picture it had with it was wind turbines. Which somewhat explains the problem with promoting energy efficiency; how do you ’show’ or picture it. There is no universal symbol for energy efficiency.

It might be a good project for somebody or some art group if somebody could come up with symbol or picture that can be immediately reconized.

Any graphic artists out there?

By: Peter Foley

Peter Foley — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 04:53:15 +0000

The heart of the error of the efficiency model is it’s similarity to the idea of a static level of energy usage–any rational path to the future demands ever greater levels of energy supply and usage.
As technology increases, waste fractions will diminish–our grid has never been more efficient then now and will continue to improve barring imposition of neo-Luddite memes. Imposing a zero-sum game paradigm on a resource that is limited only by one’s ability to innovate is anti-social at best, I would say it is criminal.

It is extremely unlikely direct solar power will replace vehicle power supply in our lifetimes– only a few Horse Power of energy impacts the surface of a car at high noon in the tropics, none at all over 50% of the time.

Bill Becker, have you had a chance to peruse the latest tree ring data out of Finland? Yet another refutation of alleged carbon-forced AGW.

We have been storing nuclear waste since the 1940s– it is a totally political problem. Yet another irrational tenant of the eco-church.

If you actually want a revolution, start with the man in the mirror, and leave my wallet alone.

Has Homeland security contacted you regarding the threat you’ve made yet?

By: Brewster

Brewster — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 05:03:39 +0000

I hate to point out the obvious Peter, but if we don’t do something soon, nobody will be concerned about touching your wallet. It won’t be worth anything…

By: Earl Killian

Earl Killian — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 05:13:45 +0000

Bill Becker is right about efficiency (and Peter Foley is wrong). The 40 least efficient U.S. states are gorging electricity at 13,947 kWh per capita, while the 10 most efficient U.S. states are sipping it at 7,774 kWh per capita. The efficient states have higher GDP per capita than the others as well. Getting the 40 to be as efficient as the 10 would make a big difference in U.S. GHG emissions.

Peter Foley’s direct solar power comment was inane. What sort of silly strawman is that? No one real suggests power cars from sunlight on their roofs.

By: Dwight

Dwight — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 06:18:13 +0000

Joe,

Do you know the source of their quote of just over $0.06/kWh for nuclear power? I seem to recall you estimate it closer to $0.15/kWh.

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:15:13 +0000

That is probably the operating cost after most of the capital cost is paid off.

By: JMG

JMG — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:54:58 +0000

Graphic for energy efficiency: graph (dollars vs. months) showing declining cost curves in red with ascending profits curve in green, next to a dummy newspaper headline “Leading businesses lower their vulnerability to energy price shocks,” and a dummy financial magazine cover showing “Market rewards most efficient businesses” etc. etc.

By: Peter Foley

Peter Foley — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:03:10 +0000

Brewster, Doing something incredibly stupid would impact my standard of living =”revolution” Don’t stick your mental fingers into a running machine you don’t understand (global climate or economic basics), you’ll harm your manual dexterity and possibly gum up the works with body parts.
Becker has solar as “parity is within sight” of natural gas power. Yes he did have solar as a near term replacement.
Earl Killam, when we reach 100% efficiency- an economically destructive goal- similar to that mid 20th fascist(who can’t be named) who kept looking for the uber-weapon as the ten crappy tanks with fuel shot the snot out of the better tank with out shells or fuel. A true tree-hugger will seek cheap and clean energy
Spending a dollar to save a dime’s worth of energy is eco-destructive.
Exchanging a cheap efficient source of energy for an unnecessary one is beyond dumb.

By: Earl Killian

Earl Killian — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 04:24:25 +0000

Peter Foley, your smear tactics are digusting. I never talked about 100% efficiency; that’s a strawman you erected to tilt at. Nor have I ever advocated spending a dollar to save a dime. Efficiency is usually the cheapest energy (e.g. many electrical efficiency items cost only 1-2 cents per kWh). Once efficiency becomes much more expensive, it is usually time to look elsewhere. Stop trying to falsely attribute things to others.