[paladin]

Sparkimus;312678 said:

Things are already too fucking expensive as is, raising prices isn't the answer. You need to implement incentives to make people want to change. Offer tax breaks and rebates on energy efficient appliances/cars/etc. If you was to take the offensive, then do it to the manufacturers, not the public.

california is one of the states with astronomical energy prices already, and in order to combat it they did just that. they will give you 50$ if you turn in a non-energy star fridge for a new one. edison(electric) will discount your bill if you reduce your use by a certain % in a specific month over a two year period. you also get other benefits for buying other appliances that are energy star approved. california is also on the forefront of other home related energy saving ideas. you'll get tax rebates for installing solar panelling and solar water heating(which my grandparents did in the early 80s and its paid off in spades both from the govt and in her natural gas bill). you'll receive benefits for installing double pane/low-e windows and new insulation. im sure there are other things im missing too. these are things that are far more reasonable, easier, and effective than buying a hybrid when you have a civic already and buying carbon offsets when there is no guarantee it will ever offset any carbon, or at least the carbon you paid it to offset.

[paladin]

Cold Iron;312666 said:

This is exactly what we need. People need to be forced to PAY for their emissions. It will force infrastructure upgrade which is what we need. I for one can't wait.

it wont force anyone to upgrade since liberal(read: eco-friendly) states have halted production of new generation facilities for the past 30 years. there is also an irrational fear of nuclear energy in the same community. this is why in california we're paying texas energy companies to give us energy since we use more than we produce, and no amount of conservation is going to change that. california is the 5th largest economy in the world and is constantly growing, but we've added no major power generation in 30 someodd years because permits wont be granted due to environmental concerns. this isnt the populaces problem, its the governments problem and they should be trying to correct it(but they arent). just keep in mind that people have no control over this as states have total control over who can put a power generation facility where and what kind it is.

[Cold Iron]

paladin;312787 said:

read this, keep your car: http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/m...sies_09usedcars



basically, you're only hurting the environment buying the hybrid at this point. the batteries on the hybrid will probably need to be replaced at some point anyways, which adds another boatload of nickle to the equation.

you're buying way too much into this being green shit rather than using your head

That article is utter rubbish and has been rebutted all over the internet. From memory (i don't have time to reread it) they used 100,000miles as life of prius and 500,000 miles as life of hummer. What fuckin hummer is going to be driven to 500,000 miles? bs. Also this is a production cost per mile calc, not an emissions per mile or emissions per dollar spent.

Unfortunately paladin it is you who is not using your head.

[paladin]

and you didnt read the article. they agree the hummer is bunk and i didnt even fucking mention the hummer. the prius vs a 35mpg used car is not going to help the environment because you're replacing a vehicle thats already been repaid in carbon and is fairly efficient for a vehicle that starts out at a loss vs the used vehicle and is slightly more efficient than the used vehicle. like before, diminishing returns.

[Cold Iron]

paladin;312793 said:

california is one of the states with astronomical energy prices already, and in order to combat it they did just that. they will give you 50$ if you turn in a non-energy star fridge for a new one. edison(electric) will discount your bill if you reduce your use by a certain % in a specific month over a two year period. you also get other benefits for buying other appliances that are energy star approved. california is also on the forefront of other home related energy saving ideas. you'll get tax rebates for installing solar panelling and solar water heating(which my grandparents did in the early 80s and its paid off in spades both from the govt and in her natural gas bill). you'll receive benefits for installing double pane/low-e windows and new insulation. im sure there are other things im missing too. these are things that are far more reasonable, easier, and effective than buying a hybrid when you have a civic already and buying carbon offsets when there is no guarantee it will ever offset any carbon, or at least the carbon you paid it to offset.

but far less effective than taxing people. incentives don't drive markets fast enough because there is a lag between when the incentive is given and when a particular person is going to upgrade their fridge. and there is no guarantee that the next government won't remove the incentive by the time you get around to it, basically it achieves little more than business as usual improvements.

paladin;312801 said:

it wont force anyone to upgrade since liberal(read: eco-friendly) states have halted production of new generation facilities for the past 30 years. there is also an irrational fear of nuclear energy in the same community. this is why in california we're paying texas energy companies to give us energy since we use more than we produce, and no amount of conservation is going to change that. california is the 5th largest economy in the world and is constantly growing, but we've added no major power generation in 30 someodd years because permits wont be granted due to environmental concerns. this isnt the populaces problem, its the governments problem and they should be trying to correct it(but they arent). just keep in mind that people have no control over this as states have total control over who can put a power generation facility where and what kind it is.

what kind of trash are you spouting? this is the worst kind of fallacy that all too many people believe. there is no such thing as voicelessness in democracy. of course people can do something about it, they can vote.

[Cold Iron]

paladin;312806 said:

and you didnt read the article. they agree the hummer is bunk and i didnt even fucking mention the hummer. the prius vs a 35mpg used car is not going to help the environment because you're replacing a vehicle thats already been repaid in carbon and is fairly efficient for a vehicle that starts out at a loss vs the used vehicle and is slightly more efficient than the used vehicle. like before, diminishing returns.

ok my bad, different article.

new rebuttal. when you buy a new car do you sent the old one to the wreckers? no. you sell it on.

[paladin]

Cold Iron;312807 said:

but far less effective than taxing people. incentives don't drive markets fast enough because there is a lag between when the incentive is given and when a particular person is going to upgrade their fridge. and there is no guarantee that the next government won't remove the incentive by the time you get around to it, basically it achieves little more than business as usual improvements.

the market cannot sustain heavy taxation that would occur with what you are asking. it is too sudden. sin taxes on necessities are different than sin taxes on 8 passenger suvs and cigarettes. sin taxes are based on the assumption that the sin is a choice. its not a choice to consume energy on some scale. these are the types of things that polarize people and make them not change. the only way major change like this is adopted peacefully is through gradual/progressive change.

Quote

what kind of trash are you spouting? this is the worst kind of fallacy that all too many people believe. there is no such thing as voicelessness in democracy. of course people can do something about it, they can vote.

there is when the agencies that control this are appointed rather than elected. there is no public mechanism for approving of a use permit for a nuclear powerplant(or for a permit for an alcohol permit for a restaurant or approval of emminent domain or anything else of the sort). public opinion can sway this, but public opinion is that nuclear is bad and building anything but solar or wind is bad.

[paladin]

Cold Iron;312811 said:

ok my bad, different article.

new rebuttal. when you buy a new car do you sent the old one to the wreckers? no. you sell it on.

and that is correct, but its assuming that someone down the road replaces a a vehicle that would be a loser compared to this one. how many are like xander replacing a vehicle that is effectively as efficient because you dont have to worry about the cost of the production of the vehicle rather than replacing their 10mpg bigblock pickup truck which is several degrees less efficient?

[Cold Iron]

also true, but there is no way to achieve the kind of economy of scale needed for further improvements in this kind of technology unless early users like xander get enthusiastic. especially if governments are too scared to get involved because they don't want to disrupt the market.

also public opinion will be swayed by cheap=clean and expensive=dirty

[paladin]

Cold Iron;312831 said:

also public opinion will be swayed by cheap=clean and expensive=dirty

assuming you're talking about energy bills again:

after the tax payer has already been raped though..

when enron fucked california, there was talk about possibly getting some new energy producing facilities built here, but we're looking at multiple years from the first permit applications, environmental impact surveys, etc to viability so major projects lost favor. i guess there are some minor generators(natural gas i guess) going up, but we're talking 600k homes here. that much was added in single counties alone over the past 5-10 years. we need some major nuclear plants to offset demand and future growth. anyways, its a lot of nimbyism anyways. the powerful dont want to see it or smell it and the poor areas are already too dense to put it there so where is it going to go?

so yea, up taxes and hurt consumers for a few years when they have no real choice in the matter past a certain point of conservation

[Cold Iron]

paladin;312849 said:

so yea, up taxes and hurt consumers for a few years when they have no real choice in the matter past a certain point of conservation

Do it gradually if we have to, but we have to do it. The fact that emissions taxes would increase the price of power only means that we have up till now not been paying enough for it. No one would argue with the concept that those who profit off pollution should be required to pay for it to be cleaned up. If these companies have to pass on their losses to their customers then so be it. People understand sustainability and would support it given the right information and incentives.

[Cold Iron]

CO2 Burial Schemes Get Green Light

Not a big fan of this technology. In addition to all the negatives mentioned in the article, we simply do not have enough sites to contain anywhere near like a significant amount of CO2. Like nuclear, this option falls down when you want to implement it on a large scale. This makes it a complete waste of time and money.

Sunscreen Stresses Coral Reefs
Everything we do affects something on this planet.

[paladin]

Cold Iron;315844 said:

Do it gradually if we have to, but we have to do it. The fact that emissions taxes would increase the price of power only means that we have up till now not been paying enough for it. No one would argue with the concept that those who profit off pollution should be required to pay for it to be cleaned up. If these companies have to pass on their losses to their customers then so be it. People understand sustainability and would support it given the right information and incentives.

the thing is that you're eventually you'll end up paying for it even if you do conserve. this has been happening in the southeastern us with water conservation. they have had drought conditions and low water supplies so people have been conserving, but now because of the degree of conservation, the water companies arent making enough money to meet their obligations(to both employees and public infrastructure bonds) so they are taxing the people that are conserving with conservation surcharges..

basically what im saying is that if you up these taxes to force conservation, people are going to have to pay for anyways because energy infrastructure and upgrades(like any utility) are usually funded by public bonds(at least in the US). energy is a necessary utility for modern life. it should be "affordable", and considering prices that are already expensive(but manageable with conservation and planning) raising them artificially(through tax) to induce conservation will only take money out of the pocket of the company so they will have to raise usage rates as well to make up the difference lost from conservation or they will face the same situation the water utilities are facing in the southeast US

[Cold Iron]

Yep. Markets are markets and the utility market is no different, big orders of anything else cost less per unit than small orders. Power may be necessary, but it's not free.

It's simple. We either clean up our mess or we don't. I vote we do.

[paladin]

then lets do it in a way that doesnt involve deliberately collapsing the market

[Mushroom]

http://worldpopulati...teria/index.php

Somewhat relevant, more as to the whole overarching (future lack of) resrouces argument.

[Cold Iron]

paladin;316320 said:

then lets do it in a way that doesnt involve deliberately collapsing the market

Talk about neo-apocalyptic uber-conservatism. A little tax that is already successfully implemented in other countries but has not been tried before in the US and THE WORLD WILL COME TO AN END IN FLAMES AND OH MY GOD THE HUMANITY WHAT HAVE WE DONE FATHER FORGIVE US!

@mushume: :nods: +rep

[Macros]

of to the climate thread my friend

[paladin]

Cold Iron;316371 said:

Talk about neo-apocalyptic uber-conservatism. A little tax that is already successfully implemented in other countries but has not been tried before in the US and THE WORLD WILL COME TO AN END IN FLAMES AND OH MY GOD THE HUMANITY WHAT HAVE WE DONE FATHER FORGIVE US!

@mushume: :nods: +rep

the us was built on cheap oil, essentially modernizing most of the nation outside of the coastal cities and some urban interior cities(like chicago and such) after WW2. most of europe was built and designed when horses were the primary mode of transportation, so population density is different and the market can sustain taxes that cost more than the product itself(like in britain) because there are other viable modes of transportation that efficiently get you from A to B and get joe from A to L and bob from A to Q. you overtax fuel here, you dont really change anything environmentally because alternate transportation isnt nearly as viable here because population density and urban layout is much different in the us when compared to europe. essentially, you just up utility inflation because there is a certain amount that people HAVE to buy due to the way our world is over here. 1-2hour commutes daily are fairly normal where i live because its unaffordable for people to live where they work, and unless you want to demolish the sprawl and start over, there is no easy way to extend rail and/or bus lines in every direction and make them viable/efficient for consumers and as a business.

[Terez]

Back to news. And this one I think is worth a full posting...

Sapphire Energy turns algae into 'green crude' for fuel


PRODUCTION: Sapphire Energy of San Diego expects to introduce its first fuels from algae-based green crude in three years. Emissions tests on them is underway by an outside firm.
______________________________________________________________
The San Diego company says its product can produce ultra-clean gasoline and diesel for existing vehicles.

By Elizabeth Douglass, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
May 29, 2008

A San Diego company said Wednesday that it could turn algae into oil, producing a green-colored crude yielding ultra-clean versions of gasoline and diesel without the downsides of biofuel production.

The year-old company, called Sapphire Energy, uses algae, sunlight, carbon dioxide and non-potable water to make "green crude" that it contends is chemically equivalent to the light, sweet crude oil that has been fetching more than $130 a barrel in New York futures trading.

Chief Executive Jason Pyle said that the company's green crude could be processed in existing oil refineries and that the resulting fuels could power existing cars and trucks just as today's more polluting versions of gasoline and diesel do.

"What we're talking about is something that is radically different," Pyle said. "We really look at this as a paradigm change."

Sapphire's announcement is the latest development from companies and researchers focused on finding ways to cut harmful emissions from the nation's giant fleet of cars, trucks, trains and planes.

Sapphire's process would help curb the nation's reliance on imported crude and alleviate concerns about the world's dwindling supply of oil, Pyle said. And by using carbon dioxide spewed out by such things as coal plants, the production process would help remove harmful emissions from the atmosphere.

The green crude also would produce fewer pollutants in the refining process and fewer harmful emissions from vehicle tailpipes, Pyle said.

The company wouldn't give details about the production process or where its pilot project would be located. It expects to introduce its first fuels in three years and reach full commercial scale in five years.

Pyle wouldn't cite the price tag for producing a barrel of green crude, but he described the expected cost as competitive with extracting oil from deep-water deposits and oil sands. The company already has produced green versions of jet fuel, diesel and clear, premium-grade gasoline, he said.

Today's biofuels -- in the United States, that's biodiesel and corn-based ethanol -- have helped displace petroleum but also have troublesome characteristics that reduce their appeal. Corn-derived ethanol and soybean-based biodiesel eat into land used to grow food, and their production and distribution consume large amounts of energy.

Many companies are making strides in producing ethanol from nonfood sources such as switch grass, plant waste or recycled paper.

Virent Energy Systems Inc., based in Madison, Wis., in March unveiled a joint venture with Shell Oil Co. that would produce "biogasoline" from plant sugars -- creating fuel that could be distributed through existing pipes and stations and used in existing vehicles.

And there are plenty of companies working toward producing oil from algae. The idea isn't new, but interest and research have grown so significantly that websites such as Oilgae.com are devoted to the topic.

"One thing that is encouraging is the level of attention and the investment that's happening to really try to find better ways to fuel our transportation system," said Don Anair, vehicles analyst for the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Anair said he was encouraged by Sapphire's reported research results. But he said he'd want to see the greenhouse gas effects of the entire process, from production to combustion, before passing judgment on Sapphire's green crude.

"Changing to this green crude could certainly have very good benefits in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, but it may not address some of the traditional tailpipe pollutants that are responsible for smog or ozone," he said.

Even if the fuel doesn't contain nitrogen, Anair added, the combustion process adds air to the mix and generally creates harmful nitrogen oxides.

That caveat was echoed at the state Air Resources Board, which is charged with guiding California's goal of reducing the carbon content of fuels and sharply cutting statewide greenhouse gas emissions.

"The emissions reductions may be coming from the refining process but we would still have emissions issues in and from the vehicle," air board spokesman Dimitri Stanich said after reviewing Sapphire's news release. "We wish them luck and look forward to their technical studies that demonstrate the cost and feasibility of their production processes."

The emissions from Sapphire's fuels are being tested by an outside company. Pyle said that because the fuels don't contain sulfurs or nitrogen, "our expectation is that there will not be those kinds of emissions."

The company is privately owned and backed with funding from Wellcome Trust, a British charity, and venture capital firms such as Arch Venture Partners and Venrock. Sapphire's technology was born out of collaborations with Scripps Research Institute, UC San Diego, the University of Tulsa and the Energy Department's Joint Genome Project. Pyle said the genome researchers helped the company pinpoint the kind of algae best suited to making oil.

Robert Nelsen, managing partner at Arch, could barely contain his enthusiasm for the venture.

"We want to displace the existing petroleum system with a continuous production system that is essentially an oil field on top of the ground that produces oil on a continuous basis for as long as you want it to," he said.

"You wake up in the middle of the night thinking about the implications of this."

elizabeth.douglass

@latimes.com
_____________________________________________________________

It may be many years before the ball truly rolls, but won't it be awesome when it does? This could be the first of many such solutions, but even this one alone could replace our current system before too long...