Oklahoma Charges through the Nose: Solar Success Attracts Fees

[SunEagle]

http://freakonomics.com/2011/09/02/f...se-to-the-sky/


That's how capitalism works: creative destruction. The car replaced the horse. The internet killed the post office. Etc. And yet, our economy has kept growing and generating jobs throughout. While the individual impact might be harsh at times, that's how the system works.

Interesting idea using a garden hose and water to reflect sunlight.

While you may feel that the "creative destruction" is a good process to initiate improvements you may feel different if you were one of the individuals that lost a job from that destruction.

It is sad that it takes fear and intimidation (the seas are rising ) to motivate a large group of people instead of the process of inspiration and enlightenment to discover new technologies.

[russ]

It is sad that it takes fear and intimidation (the seas are rising ) to motivate a large group of people instead of the process of inspiration and enlightenment to discover new technologies.

That is the direction the entire thing was pushed from the first - Oh my God - the earth is coming to an end! Makes better headlines and in today's news it gets more hits.

We have had similar situations for as long as I can remember in no particular order - 1) First the Russians were coming, 2) The atomic bomb will end all life, 3) Nuclear winter, 4) A new ice age is on the way, 5) Peak oil, 6 End of oil, 7) natural gas is running out, and on and on.

Like food and what is harmful - most anything declared bad 20 years ago is OK today.

Take better care of the planet? Sure! Jump off the cliff because Al Bore says you should? Be my guest - I am not interested.

[billvon]

I wish I had an idea. It would be nice to know (instead of guessing) what is truely causing the temperature to rise and then try to mitigate it.

We do know. It is the increased retention of heat that would otherwise be radiated due to gases we are releasing - and secondarily due to other changes we are making. It breaks down like this: (in watts per square meter)

CO2 1.6 (range 1.5 to 1.8)
CH4 .5
NOx .1
Halocarbons .3
Ozone .3
Aerosols -.5
Aerosol cloud seeding -.7

Note that all the above are _forcings_ - they are the change above and beyond the hundreds of watts that our normal mix of greenhouse gases provides us. Note that overall greenhouse gases are a good thing; they make life on Earth possible at all.

Also note that not all greenhouse gases are the same. For example, water is by far our strongest greenhouse gas, but our emissions of it are so tiny compared to ocean evaporation that we don't make a dent in that. CO2 is a moderate greenhouse gas and the atmosphere is already so full of it that adding 50% more means we only increase absorption by a few percent. Halocarbons, however, are an incredibly strong greenhouse gas, and thus even our tiny emission of them is noticeable as a forcing.

As a final note, note that some of those forcings are actually negative. High altitude aerosols, for example, reflect light from the planet and thus reduce the energy absorbed.

The Earth receives about 1370 watts per square meter of energy from the sun (which means about 1000 watts per square meter once it makes it through the atmosphere.) Some of that is reflected; the remainder is absorbed. Normally our planet radiates exactly as much heat as it absorbs via blackbody radiation. Through AGW forcing we are now radiating slightly less than we absorb. Since it's only a few watts per square meter, the resulting temperature rise is slow. This will continue until temperature increases enough that the blackbody radiation we emit rises to meet the new level of absorption - and we will be back in balance.

This heating will have other effects on us, some good, some bad. Predicting what those effects will be is important so we understand what will happen in the coming years.

I would rather the solution create a new industry and jobs to go with it than distroy an industry and lose jobs.

Agreed. And expansion in the solar, utility scale storage and wind industries would be a way to accomplish that.

[JCP]

BS - Your only promoting the Holy Church of Climate Change. If anyone doesn't agree with your religious meaasge then they are wrong and you have the holy book (so called scientific data) to back you up.

You're so full of yourself. I'm not promoting anything. I just looked for facts (you would be well served to do the same, but maybe it's an age thing, I don't know). Non renewable sources of energy will only be around for a century or two at best (two centuries is pushing it, but that does not change anything). You just don't have an answer to that basic issue other than some vague comments about it'll magically get better.

In order to take you seriously, you need to come up with factual answers to the basic issue. The rest is just political dogma.

[JCP]

Interesting idea using a garden hose and water to reflect sunlight.

While you may feel that the "creative destruction" is a good process to initiate improvements you may feel different if you were one of the individuals that lost a job from that destruction.

It is sad that it takes fear and intimidation (the seas are rising ) to motivate a large group of people instead of the process of inspiration and enlightenment to discover new technologies.

I don't disagree that creative destruction is a messy process, but that's also how our system has worked for ever. I'm pretty sure that the guy who made horse shoes was pretty pissed when cars came out and bankrupted him. Still, we're all better off for it.

As for the rising seas, it seems to be fairly well documented. Seems to me that the inspiration and enlightenment is on the side of folks who are looking at the future and trying to carve a different path. I don't see how much inspiration and enlightenment in climate change deniers like Russ (truth, I don't see any). Change is not a bad thing unless you're hell bent on doing things the same way for ever...

[russ]

Seems to me that the inspiration and enlightenment is on the side of folks who are looking at the future and trying to carve a different path. I don't see how much inspiration and enlightenment in climate change deniers like Russ (truth, I don't see any). Change is not a bad thing unless you're hell bent on doing things the same way for ever...

Creative and beneficial progress is mandatory if we are to survive. Knee jerk reactions by individuals and governments over half assed science isn't.

[JCP]

BTW, we've heard those complaints before as to how new regulations would increase costs and put Americans out of job. Guess what? We're still around and doing fine. Now, that's not to say that every regulation is great. Frankly, CEQA in California is pretty non sensical and adds tons of unnecessary costs to any significant project here.

[billvon]

BTW, we've heard those complaints before as to how new regulations would increase costs and put Americans out of job. Guess what? We're still around and doing fine.

Agreed. Some examples:

Lee Iacocca: If the “EPA does not suspend the catalytic converter rule, it will cause Ford to shut down.” (1972)

Chrysler VP: Fuel economy standards might “outlaw a number of engine lines and car models including most full-size sedans and station wagons. It would restrict the industry to producing subcompact size cars—or even smaller ones—within five years.” (1974)

Ford executive: If CAFE becomes law, the move could result “in a Ford product line consisting either of all sub-Pinto sized vehicles…” (late 1970's)

No industry wants to see efficiency or pollution regulations that will cause them to have to do more work. But historically the predictions of economic or commercial catastrophe have always been wrong. And speaking as someone who first visited LA in the early 1980's - such regulations work.

[russ]

Work in other countries - especially the 3rd world and one appreciates things like the NEC, UL listing requirements, some parts of OSHA even (though definitely not all). In India the company knows days in advance of any inspection of any type.

The environmental inspectors always find things in good shape and don't even have to lie too badly. The guy ahead of the IPCC comes from that culture - in the UN people take him serious and I think he is confused.

[russ]

Portland, OR - 1970, In the summer you could not see Mt Hood some 40 miles away on a clear day - two years later you could see it clearly virtually everyday - except the 50% of the time when it is naturally cloudy.

The Columbia Willamette Air Pollution Authority came down on industry hard - just to follow the rules really. No change in cars at all.

Here in Western Turkey we get the pollution from the great green EU - backs up against the hills and requires a wind to blow it over. Get thick under certain conditions. Every once in a while about this time of the year I can see Midilli a Greek island some 70 km away - maybe 2 or 3 times a year I notice it.

A different place I had here I could see the Greek island of Kos - the garbage dump was on fire or smouldering for years - out of sight from Brussels so no harm I guess.

Most are more worried about being able to drive their EV in the HOV lanes that really seeing anything accomplished.

[SunEagle]

I don't disagree that creative destruction is a messy process, but that's also how our system has worked for ever. I'm pretty sure that the guy who made horse shoes was pretty pissed when cars came out and bankrupted him. Still, we're all better off for it.

As for the rising seas, it seems to be fairly well documented. Seems to me that the inspiration and enlightenment is on the side of folks who are looking at the future and trying to carve a different path. I don't see how much inspiration and enlightenment in climate change deniers like Russ (truth, I don't see any). Change is not a bad thing unless you're hell bent on doing things the same way for ever...

The jury is still out for me on how much the sea levels are really rising due to climate change but that is another discussion.

I am all for finding new and better ways to do things. I want to see renewable generation grow and I would like to see less pollution and waste.

What I do not want to see is knee jerk reactions that have little to no chance of succeeding that will put people in bad places because they just got in the way with progress or could be a hindrance to someone's idea of prosperity.

That is similar to putting the Indians on reservations and American Japanese in camps. The US was wrong on both counts but the people were made to believe through fear tactics that it was the right thing to do for their happiness and safety.

Change is needed. Although sometimes the way changes are made have consequences that out-ways the good of those changes.

[JCP]

The jury is still out for me on how much the sea levels are really rising due to climate change but that is another discussion.

I am all for finding new and better ways to do things. I want to see renewable generation grow and I would like to see less pollution and waste.

What I do not want to see is knee jerk reactions that have little to no chance of succeeding that will put people in bad places because they just got in the way with progress or could be a hindrance to someone's idea of prosperity.

That is similar to putting the Indians on reservations and American Japanese in camps. The US was wrong on both counts but the people were made to believe through fear tactics that it was the right thing to do for their happiness and safety.

Change is needed. Although sometimes the way changes are made have consequences that out-ways the good of those changes.

Kyoto protocol dates back to 1997. 17 years later, we're still arguing over what we're going to do about it. That's hardly a knee jerk reaction. Non renewables are not going away anytime soon. We need to invest more in safe environmentally sound fracking, but at the same time, we need to get on with the fact that renewables are the only way we're going to have a long term future for our offsprings.

[SunEagle]

Kyoto protocol dates back to 1997. 17 years later, we're still arguing over what we're going to do about it. That's hardly a knee jerk reaction. Non renewables are not going away anytime soon. We need to invest more in safe environmentally sound fracking, but at the same time, we need to get on with the fact that renewables are the only way we're going to have a long term future for our offsprings.

Just adding renewable generation is a knee jerk action. Renewables is just part of the equation. Take if from someone that has been in the electrical power and control industry for over 30 years

You also need base load generation which is currently done by coal, gas and nuclear. Get rid of the coal and add more renewable and the tables can be tipped where there will not be enough generation when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. The process has to be such that you increase multiple types of power generation first before you shut down a large part of the existing.

[russ]

Renewables only are not even going to come close - using what we presently have at least.

China, India and other developing nations use a small fraction of the power per capita that the US and Europe do. They want to have better life styles and living standards. In general they don't give a damn about global warming. They want the western nations to absorb the full impact.

No reason to make them happy on that point but they demand it.

[Sunking]

Kyoto protocol dates back to 1997.

Yep and Canada got out of it because it was pointless and impossible. No nation has complied or ever will.