Obama wants to make the White House green.

Icarus - You certainly can answer with a lot more class than that. You are especially well postioned to answer about the effects of increasing solar panel production (which is what I was hoping you would respond to).

 

Good for you. My point was that Carter's supposed expertise in engineering was mostly non-existent and that his prescriptions showed a naive understanding of economics and physics, would have required some serious legal proscriptions, and probably beggared us relative to the rest of the world. Instead of fighting wars protecting our fuel supply we might have been fighting wars protecting our natural resources. Brasil scaled up moonshiner stills, not exactly rocket science, and claims there is no environmental damage due to their ethanol economy. Even if you believe them, think it will stay that way? Ask yourself what is the number one stumbling block to large scale sustainable energy production: storage. There's been billions spent and the return is pitiful. There appears to be no Moore's law for energy and there are some pretty fundamental reasons why not. After all, Mother Nature spent millions of years squishing dinosaurs. I know free-market ideas are out of fashion right now, but do you really think big ticket government programs in hydrogen, ethanol, or fusion are the answer? These are just another form of corporate welfare. Some like to compare it to the moon landing program. It would be if that program had started back some time ago at which point the government would likely have gone off to study whether to use cannons or balloons. In short, (I know, too late) with the exception of nuclear, we are unlikely to find a source of energy to support us as we have been accustomed. So called sustainable or alternative energy sources and a less productive economy appear to be our future. Why voluntarily (ie tax or proscribe ourselves 30 years ago) to that end and leave cheap energy on the table for the bad guys? Yeah, I know we squandered our energy and haven't always been the good guy. But that's no excuse to get wistful over something that was wrong (a tariff) and dumb (sweaters).

 

I think we need a new forum: freds house of bush is history can we talk about something else.

As I recall, the original poster pointed out Obama was going to do some sort of energy audit of the white house to show us sluggard 'mericans how easy it was to save energy, especially on someone else's dime. What if Bush had already replaced all the lights with CFL's, upgraded the insulation, and fixed the leaky hot water faucets? Bring back Carter and his solar pipes? Anybody know what the carbon footprint of Obama's house is? I mean before he ran for president and got a ford escape.

 

Where to start,,,with apologies to Fla-prius-driver.

Let me respond as best I can. First, I am not suggesting that some massive government overseen (or should have overseen) Renewable energy R&D. What I am suggesting is that government, at all levels, can (and should have IMHO) lead (led) (I'm going to put this all in the present, even though it applies to the past,,,) by policy and example. The Fed's could have encouraged R&D to a great extent with rational tax policy relative to energy. Tax credits for R&D, for early adoption of technology, real credit for installation of such technology etc. The same tax policy should encourage RE instead encouraging more carbon based energy. Federal tax policy has been slanted heavily in favor of oil and gas. The feds could stimulate demand by purchasing RE hardware for fed facilities, even at some additional cost. (The additional cost being repaid by greater tax revenue from the sales and installation of RE as well as the fuel cost savings over time).

State governments could do similar things with state tax structure to encourage RE. Manufacturing, sales and other tax breaks, R&D tax breaks etc. Sales tax breaks to those that install RE (and conservation!) etc. State governments should also install RE on all buildings that make sense. (Once again, the return comes from the taxes paid by the sellers and installers etc. as well as the energy savings over time).

Local government same program.

For example, if your local municipality had bitten the bullet back in 1980 and invested in RE for City hall, for heating, or lighting or what have you, the pay off would have come over the life of the hardware in energy savings alone, not to mention the jobs and taxes generated by the project and its impact. Same idea all the way up (or down!) the line.

It isn't rocket science, but people are too often looking too closely at the near term bottom line.

As for your assertion that we "can't find a source to sustain us in the way we've been accustomed" (sic) I agree with you in the sense that, no, we won't (easily) find an alternative energy source that has the energy density and portability of oil. Having said that, with a modicum of conservation over the past 3 decades, a significant increase in the use or RE in the last 3 decades etc. the NEED for energy would be dramatically less.

Let me give a simple example. My house, a conventional 1880's farm house. By spending some time and some money over the years adding insulation, passive solar sunspace (south facing glass) insulated night shades (duette mini blinds) Hi-ef gas space heat, solar pre-heated hot water, demand water heat, CFL bulbs etc. None of this is exotic, none of it very expensive in the real world. In the real world, we use about 1/4 the amount of BTU's in total than similar sized houses in our area. We have done all of this without any benefit of any tax break or other program, (except for a tax credit for the demand water heater!)

The problem people have is coming up with the cash, and understanding the pay off for conservation. If the government policies I suggest above had been in place, it would have been easier for EVERYONE to do what we have done, with the requisite energy (and money) savings.

In the solar business we suggest that the proper order of spending for RE is #1:conservation, #2: conservation, #3: conservation, #4 passive solar heat, #5 domestic hot water, #6 active solar heat, #7: PV solar, #9 small scale wind. Toss in geothermal heat pumps somewhere as well. This holds true for commercial and industrial applications as well. So much of our energy is used for parasitic cooling of something where that waste heat is lost to the atmosphere rather than recaptured into something useful. For example we cool a server farm with huge a/c but heat the buildings across the street, rather than using the waste heat from one to heat the other etc. Why for example do we vent our houses for clean indoor air, and throw the heat away,,,why not recapture the heat with air/air heat exchange SOP in every house. Same with waste water. All the btus used to take shower are thrown away. Why not recapture that heat? And so on, and so on!

As for transportation. Once again government policy can have a huge effect on the choices we make. Why do we transport bulk goods long distances on trucks rather than rail? Tax policy regarding the trucking industry! Why can a dentist get a tax credit for buying a "work truck" over 10,000lbs (a Hummer!) Cafe standards have been a joke. In thirty years they have gone up only a tiny little bit. (I confess to not knowing that detail) Why do we have tax policy that favors single occupancy cars over mass transit? Why don't municipalities give free parking to car pools? Why are car pool lanes under assault from those that want access without needing to carpool? And on and on!

The myth that "the marketplace" will solve this is just that,,myth. The fact is that we haven't been paying the real cost of much of anything for a generation or two. the marketplace brings you electronics "recyclers" who, in the name of "the marketplace" export electronics back to China to the same sweatshops that built the electronics can now burn the plastic, burn the silver and gold off using toxic chemicals, all the while dumping huge amounts of toxic waste just to make a few extra bucks. The "marketplace" brings us coal fired generators that foul the air with acid rain that kill fish and entire lakes in northeast Canada, so that we can have $.10 kwh electricity. The marketplace brings us genetically modified food, that not only is (possibly) not as healthy for us, but it serves to destroy the genetic diversity of crop seeds (wheat, corn, rice etc) world wide, at the same time serving to starve native farmers who no longer can grow native crops,, also multinationals can make a few extra bucks (billions). And so on and so on.As long as the real costs are buried somewhere where they will only be paid by future generation, we will continue to buy "what's cheap". (short term)

You complain that tax or tariff of any kind is bad. Quite the contrary. We have, in effect been taxed for our energy for a generation. The difference has been that rather than the benefit of that tax coming back to us, it has gone off shore to build palaces in Saudi Arabia, fund corrupt regimes all over the world etc. Many places have become petro kleptocracies, including Alaska!

You worry that we would have spend ourself poor doing RE and conservation, such that everyone else would get the benefit of the cheap energy. The truth is, the demand in the US drives the world market. With decreased American demand, the price drops for all. What you don't realize is that we have mortgaged our children's and grandchildren's future on the back of inexpensive (but not cheap,,,see above about paying the price!) energy. We are now paying the price. If we had been paying closer to the real cost(s) of our energy choices these past decades, we would be reaping the benefits of those choices rather than bemoaning the fact that energy has gotten expensive, climate change is real, we, individually and collectively are broke, and we now OWE the past due debt. And so on and so on.

Renewable Energy (RE) has a future. In fact, it is the future. What kills RE is the huge swings in energy prices. I just read today that a large wind project has been placed on hold because the price of electricity has fallen. We need a rational, predictable energy policy that allows RE to flourish. PV solar IS, competitive right now with grid power at times of peak demand. If we priced our energy relative to it's true cost, it becomes cost effective over most other forms.

As for Nuclear,, unless it can be demonstrated that the waste can be made safe for it's life, I cannot support further investment. The idea of keeping waste safe from all the whackos in the world for a period of hundreds if not thousands of years is probably impossible.

Finally, It is time to wake up to the finite realities of the Planet. We have, for a century or more, used a disporportionate amount of energy, and we are just beginning to pay the price. If it takes wearing a sweater,, or taxing fuel to $4/gal, investing in "government programs" what ever,,,,, we have got realize that every day we don't pay the price, the price gets higher. We will skate through this short term era of ~$2/gallon gas thinking all is well, and the next round, when it goes to ~$5-8 we will wring our hands and say, "We should have done something about it!"

The time is (ever) now!

It is time to hold every elected official's feet to the fire, with (informed) letters, e-mails, phone calls etc. It is time to write letters to editors, articles for newspapers blogs etc. As Rahm Emanuel said,,, we will let no crisis to to waste. This is a golden opportunity to affect real change,, change that can not only help the economy right now, it can also help the planet!

Icarus

PS Sorry for calling you names,,,,I was just startled by your position!

 

Brilliant!

 

One thing about the market place... it's not a free market and the lion's share of subsidies go to sources of energy that are finite and (increasingly) imported. That's something that needs to change. As an aside, it will be interesting to see what happens to the price of coal during this downturn.

 

icarus:

thank you for telling us what it is.

 

Hello????
Carter.. JOKE...the US was to unemployed and fighting stag-flation to pay for something extra and new new such as "green appliances."
But he and Nixion both pointed in the right direction at that time.

W. J. Clinton / Al Gore and 40 years for Democrat rule in the congress?? which is worse Reagan known for ending the COLD WAR or Clinton / Gore who knew about GW and did NOTHING but lip service... funny how the other side forgets out their own party..
More Bush Derangement again... give me a break please…
Plenty of blame for both sides.

 

regan ended the cold war??

the cold war ended due to poor russian economics. we basically spent a ton on defense for nothing, we were fighting a phantom enemy. if not for the several technological advancements borne from the technology, the entire arm buildup would have been categorically and entire and complte waste of money

 

Is it possible for you to write a reply with a cogent thought with proper sentences, punctuation etc? Your are argument would be more effective.

As for ending the cold war, I agree, we spent the Soviets into breaking their bank. The same mistake is possible if we over react to the "Iranian" threat. The fact is, they will soon be broke, and the country will fall from it's own weight. (The only advantage that I can see from ~$50 oil,,helps make them go broke faster).

Icarus

 

It seems like my long windedness has driven everyone away!

Icarus

 

Just catching mine.

 

An alternative explanation for your consideration is that we won the arms race bankrupting them -- the Monopoly game theory of the cold war. And do you honestly believe that had we unilaterally disarmed somewhere along the way, the Russians wouldn't have pressed their advantage very effectively throughout the world?

 

I doubt der Bush himself has much clue about greening, and just
got other people to put the right things in place and bring back
the soundbites. His idea of "sustainable" is likely doing some
bare minimum long enough to get away with it and hold out until
the rapture comes.
.
_H*

 

And Obama minored in environmental science at Harvard? Give me a break. Politicians do that: get "other people to put the right things in place and bring back the soundbites" I wouldn't be surprised if Obama believes in the rapture myth. What would that say about his environmental policies? What was his car before he got that Ford Escape? Is German your first language or do you use accents as a rhetorical device? Do you use a Stepin Fetchit accent when writing about Obama?

 

It doesn't appear that either Republicans or Democrats have true beliefs about sustainability.

W. Bush walks the walk but doesn't talk the talk,
Gore didn't walk the walk (till the press exposed him) but did talk the talk,
While Carter walked the walk and talked the talk but didn't provide the Leadership we desired.
So the real question for this thread is, where will Obama be once he is in office?

 

that is the popular belief, but as Russia opened up their files, it was found that Russia had been lying about their abilities for DECADES. the regan buildup happened a good 10-15 years after Russia was effectively out of the game...could have been much earlier...

their performance during Afghanistan should have been and indicator that they did not have the infrastructure to win. they thought it would be a cake walk and when they found out it would be more than a skirmish, they bailed

 

hindsight...20-20. the same could be said of us in Viet Nam.

 

Nope. We'll do exactly what we did a few months ago. We'll use the present tense and say, "Somebody should be doing something about this!" We don't think about any other time but the present. We think of what happens right now! We're in the moment baby. Now gas is cheap. Travel more and use bigger cars. When gas goes back up we'll look for somebody do something about it!

Great piece you wrote. Thanks!

 

well as discussed, we did benefit greatly from tech advances borne of that era... now we could either believe that the technology was reverse-engineered from a crashed space ship or....