dgk wrote:
....
That may be your experience but it isn't mine. Most environmentalists
that I know are interested in how to do things, not just slogans. We
just had a Going Green event in my county and there were many lectures
and presentations.

Everything is a tradeoff, but the basics are that we need to shift
away from non-sustainable and polluting energy sources and towards
sustainable and cleaner ones. And, from what I read about global
warming, we'd better do it pretty fast.

I'd love to put up a windmill in my backyard. No idea how though. Or
solar panels on the roof, which is why I looked at the thread in the
first place. Not trivial I understand. Hopefully under Obama we can
get the cost down enough to make it practical. Even without a storage
system it should pay.

Actually, I don't know any environmentalists who fit your description.

Well, I've met some that know their particular technology and something
about some of the others but none I've come across have actually had the
experience of trying to run a commercial utility or transmission
company. They've all counted on the problem of general system
reliability and transmission to fall back onto the operating utility and
various mandates to require the utilities to absorb their output whether
it is cost- or operations-effective or not.

As far as the greenhouse gas thing goes, if there is any intent on the
part of those pushing against continued conventional generation to make
a real impact in the near term we'll find out in the near term as the
current list of nuclear licensing applications is processed and actual
hearings are held. If they, still again, fight them we'll know for
absolute fact they really have no agenda other than other than to simply
be obstructionists.

Obama can change or at least influence policy. What he can't change is
themodynamics or other physical laws and limitations. (Even if he like
Joshua he could get the sun to shine 24/7 while it could aid in solar
generation that would probably be detrimental to global warming. )
The point being that he can't do anything to change the fundamental
cost:benefit ratio of various generation technologies other than by
artificial artifices such as tax policy, environmental or other onerous
regulation on particular technologies or mandates of generation mixes.
He has no magic bullet that will make any particular green technology
more cost-effective and thereby "pay for itself" simply on the basis
that it meets some definition of "green". Eventually, some of these may
become competitive on their own as technology evolves, but that's
nothing that can be done solely by edict or a desire.

What one does individually is, of course, essentially independent of the
grid but imo it's up to that individual to invest to whatever level it
is seen to have a payback to themselves. Whether that means an actual
net economic breakeven point or a feel-good component that makes it seem
worthwhile even if it is more expensive is their choice. I'm not into
trying to heavily influence it by large subsidization, however. I could
be convinced of some moderate influence perhaps to simply begin to
provide seed markets, but one has to be careful in going overboard in
subsidizing particular technologies that may shortly be shown to be dead
ends as better ways get developed. There's a problem w/ interest
following dollars and that may detract from the truly innovative and
blue-sky research that might otherwise spring up unbidden.

The cost in the current system that I've not seen at all addressed that
I've raised previously is that while one can easily construct large
nameplate generation rating wind and solar farms, there has to be the
baseload generation in conjunction with that to support the baseload
demand including reliable spinning reserve. There's no reason to think
that this demand will decrease even if rate of increase can be trimmed
by conservation and efficiency increases if there is going to be any
economic growth. Hence, it takes an increase in conventional generation
to make this baseload capacity that effectively increases the cost of
the nonconventional generation as it also has to support the
conventional. And, to make it worse, the present limitations on what
conventional facilities can be licensed/sited means the high shift into
burning NG which is again one of the stupidest things imaginable to do
w/ decreasing NG inventories, T Boone or no...

--


--