Error editing post! Your message is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 5 characters.





Well, they themselves refer to their figures and guesstimates, and I suspect that they themselves would be the first to admit that they're biased against the protocols. Bias+guesstimate=(skewed figures).
Not to say that I have a great deal of faith in the protocols. I don't.
JZ...I agree...the domain is clear, the statements direct "For our cost values we basically went with the optimistic guesstimate" - a guesstimate defined by junkscience.com that they think are "basically ... optimistic"
need I go on?
Kyoto is far from perfect, parts even suck, but taking a step in the direction of balancing Economy, Ecology, Environment and Lifestyle is better than our current administration's plan which roughly equates to an ostrich in danger...or the famous 3 monkeys and "no evil"
Oh, what precisely is the problem (according to Jackassscience.com) with researching alternative energy, promoting private companies investigating less poisonous ways to do what their core business requires (GE Ecomagination), etc?





The problem is that the end result of that research will undoubtedly be financially feasible only via the application of massive gov't subsidies a la GE Ecoimagination's Solar Cells in Arizona (for the paltry price of a mere twelve TRILLION dollars ) which millions of reluctant taxpayers could wind up paying for without our knowledge or consent.Originally Posted by discretedancer
OH YES... the same government subsidies that created hybrid technology, the flourescent bulb, biodiesel, etc?
Or would it be the subsidies/supports/lowering standards provided to (already profitable and vertically integrated) extraction industries, big farming, oversized SUV production, outsourcing of good US jobs and reducing clean air requiremennts, etc?
I have a question for our two distinguished Kyoto backers. Is the earth's climate getting warmer or cooler?
Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle
Destiny, are you referring to me? I have said I personally don't have the confidence to know what's happening with the climate or if whatever changes are happening will be beneficial or detrimental. I'll expand on that - I don't even know if they're avoidable.
I also said that such knowledgeable people as the contributing staff and writers of Discover magazine believe wholeheartedly in global warming. I said that I've noticed apparent changes in my lifetime. However, I am not working for Discover, and my observations are anecdotal only and not a scientific basis.
I'm an advocate for being as benign as we can to the environment that we're stuck with. And it confuses the bejeebers out of me how that's controversial.
In specific reference to the Kyoto protocols, I said in my first posting in this thread that I don't have a great deal of faith in the protocols.
^JZ: I was looking for your opinion yes, you make some good points.
I'll be looking forward to discretedancer's opinion as well. She always talks about global climate change, not, global warming. I've asked her a couple of times in different threads to explain the difference, she has yet to do so. When I asked her in another thread if the earth's climate was warming, she stated that the earth's climate was changing. To me that intentionally leaves open the possibility that the earth's climate is warming or cooling. Yet she argues forcefully for implementation of Kyoto Protocols. That's a dissconnect, I can't understand.
Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle
If anyone wants to review at least the DOE's executive summary of the protocols, you can go and there's plenty of links to explore from there.
In reference to the site that Melonie referred to, I'm starting to view the term "junk science" as meaning "any science which I would prefer not to give credence." There is junk science, certainly, but the term has been hijacked by people who simply wish to marginalize their opposition.





hybrids = subsidy (tax credit) ... flourescent lights = subsidy (energy efficiency credit financed by hidden tax in electric bills) ... biodiesel, well we'll see what happens when the 'free' source of raw material (i.e. waste cooking oil) is depleted.OH YES... the same government subsidies that created hybrid technology, the flourescent bulb, biodiesel, etc?
Flourescent lighting has a very interesting history. I'm sure that you are aware that flourescent technology has been around since 1900 or so, and was actively suppressed for decades. It has only been in the last 20 years or so, since the majority of US light bulb manufacturers have been "driven" offshore, and since a shortage of 'cheap' electricity sources i.e. nuclear has essentially tripled the price of electricity, that flourescents have taken off in serious volume. But for 75 years flourescent lighting was a well developed technology which simply didn't make economic sense in many applications - because like solar cells or electric car batteries the initial investment and ongoing operating/replacement costs did not stack up well versus the increased efficiency / return on investment.
Destiny, I feel like a broken record. I NEVER forcefully supported Kyoto (in fact I said I've never read it, and you admitted to also never reading it), but rather state clearly that I believe doing something is better than doing nothing. This means I applaud the governments and organizations working to find a solution, and if Kyoto is the first step there that's OK. There's alot to dislike in any committee-politician created document (the camel is a horse designed by committee after all) but are you offering an alternative solution or just claiming there couldn't possibly be a problem because you don't want to do anything?
We know pollution is bad...that's kinda why it's called pollution. We know the gases created from human activity have the POTENTIAL to IMPACT our weather and climate patterns...and I'm all for finding ways to mitigate that impact, especially as we continue to destroy nature's own ability to filter the air and water (by some estimates, we lose over 300 acres of open space...natural air/water filters...every day).
I have repeatedly said I don't believe the problem is warming or cooling...and you won't get me to box in further. The science released by REPUTABLE orgs...discover magazine, international insurance companies, governments, etc indicates there MAY (is likely to) be something going on, and I simply don't see the return on doing nothing as high as the return on taking BALANCED action.
Melonie...first of all, I'd like your definition of HUGE subsidies to clarify whether you can prove the conservation support measures are truly larger in scope or cost to the extraction/pollution/status quo measures I outlined (and others)
Next, please explain the HIGHER VALUE behind the two measures...is there really higher value in supporting already profitable companies that rely on polluting and dangerous compounds and finite supplies of raw materials -compared of course to new industries and technologies which provide for cleaner water/air, don't rely (at least not as heavily) on pollution and fossil fuels, and save individual consumers money EVERY DAY they can either save or return to the economy. Givin it to the extraction or energy industries puts more money in fewer hands...not usually a great way to spark innovation and support an economy.
(an average flourescent bulb...when replacing an incandescent...saves the owner more than $30 over it's useful life AFTER the cost of the bulb is figured in)
Interesting phrase you use regarding flourescent bulb history (which I can't take entirely at face value, in case the source was something on the quality of JunkScience.com) - the phrase "actively suppressed for decades." seems to have relevance to our current issue. Research on new technologies and their implementation has been actively suppressed for decades by existing and extraction industries...claiming "unfair and impossible" competition (hmmm....that's a problem in a free market because?) the US Gov't gives subsidies, tax breaks and rolls back clean air requirements (responsible for the environmental advantages you &D cite in other threads as reason the movement screams "chicken little").





Now you've gone right to the heart of the matter. The above statement is ONLY true given an electricity price of 10-12-14 cents/kWh. The cost of nuclear generated electricity is on the order of 4 cents/kWh. Thus in a USA which never had a Three Mile Island overreaction, which didn't ban all new construction of nuclear plants for the last 25 years, and which didn't use NIMBY environmental laws to restrict power line construction and force all new power plants to be fueled by much more expensive natural gas, electricity would still cost 4 cents/kWh. OK I'll even concede a little inflation and say 5 or 6 or even 7 cents/kwh today. In a 7 cents/kWh environment, flourescent lights do not offer a payback ! But the short memories of most Americans don't allow them to make the connection that the people who are now advocating flourescent light substitution are the very same people responsible for doubling the cost of their electricity in the first place !an average flourescent bulb...when replacing an incandescent...saves the owner more than $30 over it's useful life AFTER the cost of the bulb is figured in
The point here is that the 'alternative technology' was made 'practical' by forcing up the price of the basic commodity far beyond it's actual minimum cost of production via regulations which force the use of more expensive means of production (and in the case of nuclear it isn't any cleaner either!). This is exactly the same logic which is being applied to hybrid vehicles, bio/syn fuels etc. which make loads of sense in a $5.00 per gallon gasoline price scenario, but which would make very little sense in a 1.50 per gallon gasoline price scenario (which is what we would be paying if additional oil drilling and refining were not prohibited by environmental regulations). Again the short memories of most Americans doesn't allow them to make the connection that the people who are advocating hybrid vehicles and bio/syn fuels are the very same people that doubled the cost of their gasoline in the first place (well not quite double yet ... wait another year !)
There are those that would argue that it is a basic tenet of alternative technologies to drive up the price of the underlying commodity that the alternative technology is more efficient in using/substitutes for, in order to justify the much higher initial price of implementing the alternative technology.
Last edited by Melonie; 05-17-2005 at 01:43 PM.
I dunno. It sounds like a lot of book-cookin' to me, depending on the results that you want. For instance, "the people who are now advocating flourescent light substitution are the very same ones that doubled the cost of their electricity in the first place!" I would have to do a lot more research into the whole mess, including prices of fuel, labor, construction, waste disposal, etc., before I took that statement at face value.
No offense, Melonie. I understand your advocacy. I just cannot take a self-serving "environmentalism is the cause of all our prices" statement in isolation.
That, plus the whole conclusion that I'm getting of "Promote waste, resource depletion, and pollution as good for us" is just a bit anti-intuitive for me. Perhaps I'm getting the wrong message.





I never said that 'pollution is good for us'. What I AM saying is that environmentalism can't be viewed in a vacuum either. Every environmental regulation has costs associated with it, from direct costs to indirect costs to lost opportunity costs. There needs to be some cost/benefit analysis, after performing an analysis in regard to how much pollution will actually be reduced in exchange enacting new regulations and taking on those costs. In the case of nuclear power, it is arguable that we wound up with huge direct costs, gigantic lost opportunity costs, and on top of it all the new natural gas power plants built in lieu of nuclear plants are producing vastly more pollution than the nuke plants would have !
I don't disagree with you on the potential efficacy of nuclear power, Mel. But to be fair, other than nuclear power (with its waste disposal problems set aside for now), there hasn't been a single pro-environment measure that you haven't argued against fairly strenuously, to the point of arguing endangered-bird issues with wind-generated power. (Good thing there aren't flying snail darters.)
That leaves me with the impression that there's not a solution that's easier on the environment, easier on the resources, that's acceptable to you - with the solution vacuum being filled by the conclusion that, "Pollution/depletion/waste is good for us."





Actually, I have repeatedly advocated at least two alternatives which would address the gasoline issueThat leaves me with the impression that there's not a solution that's easier on the environment, easier on the resources, that's acceptable to you - with the solution vacuum being filled by the conclusion that, "Pollution/depletion/waste is good for us."
microcars a la the Smart Roadster
and legalizing small diesel engine vehicles already being sold in other countries.
I advocated these options over the more politically correct hybrid vehicles because they both offer a much better 'bang for the buck'. However, under current environmental exhaust emission regulations, neither can be imported. IMHO the rationale behind the exhaust emission laws are illogical, because they do not take into account the fact that a 100hp engine with slightly higher emissions per cc in fact produces far less pollution than a 400hp HEMI that has slightly lower emissions per cc of engine displacement.
ASSUMing your statement is true (and since EVERYTHING has gone up about 10-20 fold in the last 100 years I doubt it is) let's look at the math:Originally Posted by Melonie
4c/12c = 1/3 which means flourescent bulbs would save the user about 1/3 the amount they do under current circumstances...assuming cost of bulb,etc is constant.
Assuming 12c per KWH, an average savings per bulb of $39, and an averag bulb cost of $10 (total efficiency savings, $49, (higher than my earlier example, since I only pay 8c per KWH using renewably generated electricity)...dividing by 3 should result in a $13 if we change the cost of electricity to 4c (using their calculator) AND THIS IS AFTER THE BULB COST IS INCLUDED.
So, in short, even giving your ASSumption it's due, you're still way wrong.
actually their payback is around $26, after bulb cost is covered.In a 7 cents/kWh environment, flourescent lights do not offer a payback !
Yes, the power companies who can't keep up with demand because of inefficient user appliances, lights, etc.t the people who are now advocating flourescent light substitution are the very same people responsible for doubling the cost of their electricity in the first place !
Your point is?
which we've disproven as a "melonieism"The point here is that the 'alternative technology' was made 'practical' by forcing up the price of the basic commodity far beyond it's actual minimum cost of production via regulations which force the use of more expensive means of production (and in the case of nuclear it isn't any cleaner either!).
Funny, when Dr. Diesel invented his non-petroleum burning engine early last century, gasoline cost less than $25c per gallon...it makes sense becaue LOCAL people can generate THEIR OWN FUEL and NOT NEED BIG COMPANIES and NOT POLLUTE THEIR COMMUNITIES.This is exactly the same logic which is being applied to hybrid vehicles, bio/syn fuels etc. which make loads of sense in a $5.00 per gallon gasoline price scenario, but which would make very little sense in a 1.50 per gallon gasoline price scenario
Evidence? That's a pretty simplistic approach...(which is what we would be paying if additional oil drilling and refining were not prohibited by environmental regulations).
See my point RE: your earlier comment and electric companiesthe people who are advocating hybrid vehicles and bio/syn fuels are the very same people that doubled the cost of their gasoline in the first place


I'd like to see what power company is selling power for an average rate of 4c/kWh
That website is a crapload of conservative dogma. To them, anything that interferes with the neocon status quo is junk science. I wonder if abstract concepts like evolution and dinosaurs are junk science.
They are involved with the Cato Institute, surprised?
Sarge, the appropriate number to compare the value of electricity is not the retail price but the wholesale price for bulk sales. The cloest proxy I could find in hurry is this DOE web page which shows the average price, nationwide, for electricity bought by industrial consumers.Originally Posted by Sergent D
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/pdf/pages/sec9_14.pdf
Industrial users pay the lowest amount because they buy in bulk and at higher voltages--all items which reduce cost. The average industrial price paid in January was 5.08 cents/kwh. A wholesale electricty price at 80% of this price may, or may not, be correct but it is not ridiculous. consumer pay a higher tab because they are buying a whale of alot more services. Comparing consumer retail to wholesal is like comparing chateua briande to slaughterhouse prices per pound for indressed beef.
As I read her statement, Melonie was claiming to know the retail price of electricity 50 (?) years ago and now...making the 4/12 comparison. Therefore, if we're talking retail...gotta stay talking retail.Originally Posted by montythegeek
If we're talking wholesale or if Mel confused the 2 somewhere...that's different.
Truth is, it really doesn't matter. Make the numbers 1.2c per kwh or above and we're still breaking even using less energy to do the same job. And I can't see how that (Using less resources to do the same work) is EVER bad.
http://www.angelfire.com/biz6/greenl....htm#calculate
Am I offering a solution to a "POTENTIAL"? No, I'm not. If global warming is in fact occurring, that fact will be made clear with more research.Originally Posted by discretedancer
You again overlook that our air and water is cleaner than it has been in years. You are in favor of finding ways to mitigate a "potential" impact. The question is not one of potentiality, but of probability.We know pollution is bad...that's kinda why it's called pollution. We know the gases created from human activity have the POTENTIAL to IMPACT our weather and climate patterns...and I'm all for finding ways to mitigate that impact, especially as we continue to destroy nature's own ability to filter the air and water (by some estimates, we lose over 300 acres of open space...natural air/water filters...every day).
The Kyoto Protocols were enacted to mitigate global warming. Are you saying that they also mitigate global cooling and any other global climate change?I have repeatedly said I don't believe the problem is warming or cooling...and you won't get me to box in further.
This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. —Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976The science released by REPUTABLE orgs...discover magazine,
The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population.—Reid Bryson, “Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man”, (1971)
If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. … This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age. —Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)
This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.—Lowell Ponte in “The Cooling”, 1976
So in 30 years scientists and reputable organizations and magazines totally reverse course and declare, "nevermind, the earth is not getting colder, its getting warmer...and were all gonna die". Hmm, perhaps instead they just don't know what the hell they are talking about.
When did insurance companies become experts on global climate?international insurance companies,No, some governments. India, China and the remainder of the third world refused to sign on to Kyoto.governments,
Ah, yes, the favorite argument of all environmentalists..."do you really want to take a chance that we are wrong?". Sorry, the doomsayers in the environmental movement have been chanting that one for over 30 years. It doesn't ring true after so many false alarms.etc indicates there MAY (is likely to) be something going on, and I simply don't see the return on doing nothing as high as the return on taking BALANCED action.
Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle
meanwhile we don't take cost-effective, obvious and technically feasible steps to reduce our impact, and in fact subsidize organizations creating the pollutions and roll back the clean air/water standards which led to your following statement being trueOriginally Posted by Destiny
funny, that trend seems to have started about the time "doomsayer" environmental programs (currently under attack by administration and companies alike) were implemented. As I asked before, are you SURE that's a coincidence? I'm not?You again overlook that our air and water is cleaner than it has been in years.
Actually I'm in favor of finding wyas to mitigate a DEFINITE problem - we are producing pollution while simultaneously reducing the earth's ability to clean up that pollution, na dnot using our science or technology (as much as we can) to mitigate that reality. Nothing potential about it, that's fact not in dispute.you are in favor of finding ways to mitigate a "potential" impact. The question is not one of potentiality, but of probability.
Do the math...increasing exhaust of poisons and materials counter-productiove to biological life + reduction in open space (where the earth cleans itself and provides our air and water) = What, precicely?
Don't believe it's a problem? Sit in a closed garage with your car running sometime...then tell me the breathing gets better. But don't do it for too long, you'll go to sleep and not wake up.
1. I do not have strong opinion on Kyoto, other than that stated. If the US has a better idea, let it come forth, not avoid the question entirely and outsource it's pollution on others.The Kyoto Protocols were enacted to mitigate global warming. Are you saying that they also mitigate global cooling and any other global climate change?
2. reduction of the "pollution imbalance" will reduce ANY potential problems that come from it. Basic science.
argument had. Question asked and answered. i see no reason to repeat. Please call again.
So in 30 years scientists and reputable organizations and magazines totally reverse course and declare, "nevermind, the earth is not getting colder, its getting warmer...and were all gonna die". Hmm, perhaps instead they just don't know what the hell they are talking about.
Uhh, when they found they were paying alot of certain types of claims, investigated the "risk" category, and found it to be DIRECTLY RELATED to preventable climate change issues. Then they started to care and spend money on research and risk mitigation. Basic capitalism.When did insurance companies become experts on global climate?
so, why don't we get together with these world brain trusts (since we also didn't bother to sign or participate fully) and come up with a better plan?No, some governments. India, China and the remainder of the third world refused to sign on to Kyoto.
Risk management, asked and answered. Next?. Sorry, the doomsayers in the environmental movement have been chanting that one for over 30 years. It doesn't ring true after so many false alarms





I've got to catch a plane so this will be really quick ...
40 years ago or today, the cost of generating nuclear electricity is in the neighborhood of 2-3 cents per kwh. 40 years ago the cost of generating natgas electricity was also in the neighborhood of 2-3 cents per kwh but today it is 7 cents or more. Costs of delivering the electricity add another 3 cents or so. Hidden taxes and utility company profits go on top of those costs. My point was that by stopping construction of additional nuke plants, and by forcing the construction of nat gas plants, the cost of electricity has been significantly increased over what it would otherwise have been today.
In regard to the financial justification, like most 'alternative technologies' you are leaving out the time value of money analysis in regard to initial price difference. If a standard light bulb and fixture costs $5, and an equivalent flourescent fixture costs $50, and it takes 10 years for the energy savings to pay back the initial cost premium, the deal is a money loser compared to investing that $45 difference for a 10 year period.
Bookmarks