bigger plans, bigger little mistakes
Locked
12
12
bigger plans, bigger little mistakes
 
|
If anyone knows a better place to pose tough questions about real
complex systems, please let me know. I hate the feeling that my way of questioning things is too hard to follow. But, hey, let me try another! Lots of people think there's a deep misunderstanding about reality demonstrated by global warming, and the way economic development (and its way of multiplying 'good') is overwhelming the earth. It seems to demonstrate an 'impractical' world view and design model, and now there's a broad move to do something to fix it. It appears from the details, however, that the fix has the same problem as the problem, a fatal misunderstanding of what you can get from resources at the limits. The consensus response to global warming relies on reducing the impacts of economic growth by improving the efficiency of economic growth! That would appear to be a direct violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (prohibiting unbounded efficiency). You can see the dilemma clearly in the global aggregate efficiency curves. World economic energy use efficiency is improving at half the rate the economies are growing, with successive improvements in reducing waste *not* tending to zero. http://www.synapse9.com/issues/GroEfficiency40.ppt Perhaps no one will take me up on it, (because it involves developing a physics of real categories, and using natural language to refer to them, and so linking the math world to the one ordinary people ordinarily talk about) but I'd offer a small $10 prize for a valid proof of the above assertion that could be readily understood with common knowledge. If folks don't think being easily understood is important, then I'll offer $5 for any valid proof at all. And, of course..., if there simply is no proof at all, well then I can leave my $15 to collect interest and multiply real value forever!! :-) Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070428/3f1f4b32/attachment.html |
bigger plans, bigger little mistakes
|
|
phil henshaw wrote:
> The consensus response to global warming relies on reducing the > impacts of economic growth by improving the efficiency of economic > growth! So we need a lot more clean power, and we need it fast. Time to spend some money on figuring out how to do it! Without efficiency gains, it's estimated 10 TW are needed globally by 2025. [1] The ITER/DEMO fusion reactor only promises net 1.5 GW by 2045 [2], and the largest hydroelectric facilities (Three Gorges Dam in China) are at about 22 GW [3]. There's not enough high-grade silicon for dozens of square miles of conventional photovoltaic solar [4]. Meanwhile, China builds a new coal fired planed every week [5] and apparently can keep doing that for 100 years [6]. Seems to me any cost imbalance of solar, etc. is easily fixable by taxing the hell out of CO2 energy emissions while subsidizing the development of new solar, fusion, carbon sequestration technology (etc). [1] http://t8web.lanl.gov/people/rajan/Gupta_energy_for_all_2007.pdf [2] http://fire.pppl.gov/isfnt7_maisonnier.pdf [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam [4] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e50784ea-78cb-11db-8743-0000779e2340.html [5] http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1223/p01s04-sten.html [6] http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=17963 |
bigger plans, bigger little mistakes
|
|
Now, if we can just get those Chinese to pay carbon taxes, we might be able
to compete. :-) Robert Howard Phoenix, Arizona -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 2:03 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes phil henshaw wrote: > The consensus response to global warming relies on reducing the > impacts of economic growth by improving the efficiency of economic > growth! So we need a lot more clean power, and we need it fast. Time to spend some money on figuring out how to do it! Without efficiency gains, it's estimated 10 TW are needed globally by 2025. [1] The ITER/DEMO fusion reactor only promises net 1.5 GW by 2045 [2], and the largest hydroelectric facilities (Three Gorges Dam in China) are at about 22 GW [3]. There's not enough high-grade silicon for dozens of square miles of conventional photovoltaic solar [4]. Meanwhile, China builds a new coal fired planed every week [5] and apparently can keep doing that for 100 years [6]. Seems to me any cost imbalance of solar, etc. is easily fixable by taxing the hell out of CO2 energy emissions while subsidizing the development of new solar, fusion, carbon sequestration technology (etc). [1] http://t8web.lanl.gov/people/rajan/Gupta_energy_for_all_2007.pdf [2] http://fire.pppl.gov/isfnt7_maisonnier.pdf [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam [4] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e50784ea-78cb-11db-8743-0000779e2340.html [5] http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1223/p01s04-sten.html [6] http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=17963 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
bigger plans, bigger little mistakes
|
|
Robert Howard wrote:
> Now, if we can just get those Chinese to pay carbon taxes, we might be able > to compete. :-) > If, say, U.S. energy needs can be solved while greatly reducing CO2 output, then that technology can be shared with countries like China. Alternatively if some way can be invented to swallow up billions tons at a time of CO2 from the atmosphere, that could also be shared, or ways to improve existing energy sources w.r.t. to their CO2 output. At least in this country, the development of such technology will never get large scale scientific/engineering attention that's needed until it is identified as a crisis and the profits for solving the problem are seen to be bigger than the profits from business as usual. Heavy carbon taxes would be the promise of the end of profits from business as usual. |
bigger plans, bigger little mistakes
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
yep, possibly good accelerators for improving efficiency, but same GD
wall at the end, since outpacing demand can only be temporary. See the bind? Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels > Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 5:03 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes > > > phil henshaw wrote: > > The consensus response to global warming relies on reducing the > > impacts of economic growth by improving the efficiency of economic > > growth! > So we need a lot more clean power, and we need it fast. > Time to spend > some money on figuring out how to do it! > Without efficiency gains, it's estimated 10 TW are needed globally by > 2025. [1] > The ITER/DEMO fusion reactor only promises net 1.5 GW by 2045 > [2], and > the largest hydroelectric facilities (Three Gorges Dam in > China) are at > about 22 GW [3]. There's not enough high-grade silicon for > dozens of > square miles of conventional photovoltaic solar [4]. Meanwhile, China > builds a new coal fired planed every week [5] and apparently can keep > doing that for 100 years [6]. > > Seems to me any cost imbalance of solar, etc. is easily fixable by > taxing the hell out of CO2 energy emissions while subsidizing the > development of new solar, fusion, carbon sequestration > technology (etc). > > [1] http://t8web.lanl.gov/people/rajan/Gupta_energy_for_all_2007.pdf > [2] http://fire.pppl.gov/isfnt7_maisonnier.pdf > [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam > [4] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e50784ea-78cb-11db-8743-0000779e2340.html > [5] http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1223/p01s04-sten.html > [6] > http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friend> > > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > |
bigger plans, bigger little mistakes
|
|
In reply to this post by Robert Howard-2-3
Or somewhat equivalently, getting us to pay carbon taxes on what we
consume... To do that we'd need some way guess the carbon content (and other earth insults) for products the manufacturer didn't provide verifiable data for... and just as necessary, some believable plan for using the money collected. *But* that too would still provide only temporary relief!! The co2/$ ratio for total economic product (economic efficiency) can only be reduced toward a positive limit and not toward zero (real 2nd law). Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Robert Howard > Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 11:23 PM > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes > > > Now, if we can just get those Chinese to pay carbon taxes, we > might be able to compete. :-) > > Robert Howard > Phoenix, Arizona > > > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels > Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 2:03 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes > > phil henshaw wrote: > > The consensus response to global warming relies on reducing the > > impacts of economic growth by improving the efficiency of economic > > growth! > So we need a lot more clean power, and we need it fast. > Time to spend > some money on figuring out how to do it! > Without efficiency gains, it's estimated 10 TW are needed globally by > 2025. [1] > The ITER/DEMO fusion reactor only promises net 1.5 GW by 2045 > [2], and > the largest hydroelectric facilities (Three Gorges Dam in > China) are at > about 22 GW [3]. There's not enough high-grade silicon for > dozens of > square miles of conventional photovoltaic solar [4]. Meanwhile, China > builds a new coal fired planed every week [5] and apparently can keep > doing that for 100 years [6]. > > Seems to me any cost imbalance of solar, etc. is easily fixable by > taxing the hell out of CO2 energy emissions while subsidizing the > development of new solar, fusion, carbon sequestration > technology (etc). > > [1] http://t8web.lanl.gov/people/rajan/Gupta_energy_for_all_2007.pdf > [2] http://fire.pppl.gov/isfnt7_maisonnier.pdf > [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam > [4] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e50784ea-78cb-11db-8743-0000779e2340.html > [5] http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1223/p01s04-sten.html > [6] > http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friend> > > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > |
bigger plans, bigger little mistakes
|
|
Phil,
I don't think that your reliance on the second law is correct. The Clausius statement of the 2nd law is: The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. The earth isn't an isolated system: the sun inputs energy. So I don't think you can use the 2nd law. Robert On 4/29/07, Phil Henshaw <sy at synapse9.com> wrote: > > Or somewhat equivalently, getting us to pay carbon taxes on what we > consume... To do that we'd need some way guess the carbon content (and > other earth insults) for products the manufacturer didn't provide > verifiable data for... and just as necessary, some believable plan for > using the money collected. *But* that too would still provide only > temporary relief!! The co2/$ ratio for total economic product (economic > efficiency) can only be reduced toward a positive limit and not toward > zero (real 2nd law). > > > Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 680 Ft. Washington Ave > NY NY 10040 > tel: 212-795-4844 > e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com > explorations: www.synapse9.com > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070429/28b15f98/attachment.html |
bigger plans, bigger little mistakes
|
|
Exactly! The principle was developed and is presently accepted for the
ideal conditions for which measurement is most simply defined, not a real world. In the real world the same physical principle operates, but we have not found a way to make clear statements about it yet. I'm proposing that this is a good place to start finding out how to establish reliable statements about physical processes in their full generality. One possible line of demonstrating general statements about real systems, for example, might be to exhaust the imagination of people offering material exceptions. Material exceptions would need to invalidate or narrow the generality of the rule. Non-material exceptions would tend to reinforce the rule by discrediting a class of possible avenues for other possible exceptions. Say you state the 'real 2nd law' as meaning that "available new efficiencies in any physical process must be either temporary, or tend toward zero without reducing waste toward zero". In this case, exceptions would need to propose a practical avenue to successively improving the physical efficiency of some process without limit. One way to invalidated many apparent exceptions to the rule would be to show that the proposal is for inherently limited or temporary new efficiencies. Another way is to show that the proposal is for imaginary efficiencies, and not so supportable by physical evidence. To be a meaningful exception it would also need to appear to invalidate or significantly alter the general rule, and not just create some ambiguity of interpretation. I think with experience, this can actually become a fairly efficient procedure. It might appear that it reduces how the ideal principles of physics apply to the real general world of physical processes to little more than sign, + & - agreements. I think we all know a good example of where that has been quite useful, though, in the form of constructing yes & no branch patterns in logic. The approach still includes the defect of 'proving' things by finding a failure to imagine contradictions... a perennial flaw underlying much faulty reasoning. Still, the big gain is that it would at least help connect the scientific domain in which uncertainties are more clearly defined with the real world where they're not. Does that make sense? Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert Holmes Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 9:24 AM To: the Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes Phil, I don't think that your reliance on the second law is correct. The Clausius statement of the 2nd law is: The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. The earth isn't an isolated system: the sun inputs energy. So I don't think you can use the 2nd law. Robert On 4/29/07, Phil Henshaw <sy at synapse9.com> wrote: Or somewhat equivalently, getting us to pay carbon taxes on what we consume... To do that we'd need some way guess the carbon content (and other earth insults) for products the manufacturer didn't provide verifiable data for... and just as necessary, some believable plan for using the money collected. *But* that too would still provide only temporary relief!! The co2/$ ratio for total economic product (economic efficiency) can only be reduced toward a positive limit and not toward zero (real 2nd law). Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070429/8c3c66eb/attachment.html |
bigger plans, bigger little mistakes
|
|
In reply to this post by Phil Henshaw-2
Phil Henshaw wrote:
> The co2/$ ratio for total economic product (economic > efficiency) can only be reduced toward a positive limit and not toward > zero (real 2nd law). > If automobiles all used advanced batteries and only electric motors, and heating/cooling systems used only electricity, and all electricity came from generation facilities that did not output CO2, then what's the problem? The issues with accumulated CO2 are still there no matter what policies for energy use are adopted. Both stopping the output of huge amounts of CO2 and sequestering the debt seem reasonable to cast as technology issues. |
bigger plans, bigger little mistakes
|
|
Marcus wrote:
> > Phil Henshaw wrote: > > The co2/$ ratio for total economic product (economic > > efficiency) can only be reduced toward a positive limit and > not toward > > zero (real 2nd law). > > > If automobiles all used advanced batteries and only electric > motors, and heating/cooling systems used only electricity, and all > electricity came from generation facilities that did not output CO2, > then what's the problem? compensate for continued economic growth for one part of system does not change the difficulty for providing continual improvements that do that for all parts. Batteries, and electrical power trains, and the conversion process both from one form of energy to another and from one form of industry to another, may well be substantially improved. They all also have non-zero limits to waste reduction, and repeatedly reducing their inefficiencies requires increasing transition costs producing vanishing improvements. Reducing wastes by non-vanishing fractions is invariably temporary and becomes impossible. Constant fractional reduction of waste without increased work is what's required for maintaining economic growth without growing unwanted impacts. Some portion of activities producing Co2 could be shifted to other things, of course, like generating nuclear waste we don't know what to do with, but to keep total energy delivery side effects constant without economic burdens to be made up elsewhere we need industry-wide energy system improvements equivalent to having 1000 mpg cars by the end of the century, and 32000mpg cars by the end of the next. I think that's unlikely...particularly since we've been working on the problem and our system-wide energy efficiency progress is not speeding up, but actually slowing down. > The issues with accumulated CO2 are > still there no matter what policies for energy use are adopted. > Both stopping the output of huge amounts of CO2 and sequestering > the debt seem reasonable to cast as technology issues. I'm not sure what you're saying here. Yes we have a big mess to clean up, and technologies of many kinds are genuinely needed to help clean up the mess we've made. I think it's of special interest, though, that it appears no technology can be invented that would take care of an ever more rapidly growing mess, and that that is the defacto long range plan for continual economic growth without having growing impacts. Thus it would still appear to me that the plan for fixing global warming violates the 2nd law, and so is either a stop gap measure to allow us to fix the problem another way, or won't work. I guess we'll have to see if this way of connecting familiar 'real categories' with familiar 'abstract categories' for the same physical world things pans out of course... Phil > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > |
bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron Symmetry
|
|
In reply to this post by Phil Henshaw-2
Here are some problems with carbon offsets I never hear in debates:
o Electrons cross both state and country borders. There?s a whole ?futures? industry on buying electricity for speculative market demand. For example, California in <http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3062&sequence=0> 2000. o All electrons look the same. It?s impossible to look at an electron on the grid and say, hey, that electron came from a coal fired plant in Russia and that one came from solar cells in Tucson. We have the same problem with shady black markets that move tons of cash. At least cash comes in suitcases owned by people and moves far slower than the speed of light. And, since the grid uses alternating current, electrons really only move about most 3000 miles before they make a 180 turn round trip back to where they started from. It?s the electromagnetic field that crosses borders. If we raise the price of ?our? electricity through carbon offsets, then up goes the demand of some other defecting country?s coal-produced force field. They?d make much more off the market differential than any CO2 subsidy they?d get after the administration took its share. This recursively works for all products that depend on electricity, such as aluminum cans, airplanes, and vacations. Right now, the US can produce petroleum-driven electricity far cleaner, cheaper and efficiently than any third-world country. If the goal is ?clean?, wouldn?t we rather get our electricity from us than them? Robert Howard Phoenix, Arizona -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Phil Henshaw Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 5:54 AM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes Or somewhat equivalently, getting us to pay carbon taxes on what we consume... To do that we'd need some way guess the carbon content (and other earth insults) for products the manufacturer didn't provide verifiable data for... and just as necessary, some believable plan for using the money collected. *But* that too would still provide only temporary relief!! The co2/$ ratio for total economic product (economic efficiency) can only be reduced toward a positive limit and not toward zero (real 2nd law). Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Robert Howard > Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 11:23 PM > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes > > > Now, if we can just get those Chinese to pay carbon taxes, we > might be able to compete. :-) > > Robert Howard > Phoenix, Arizona > > > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels > Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 2:03 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes > > phil henshaw wrote: > > The consensus response to global warming relies on reducing the > > impacts of economic growth by improving the efficiency of economic > > growth! > So we need a lot more clean power, and we need it fast. > Time to spend > some money on figuring out how to do it! > Without efficiency gains, it's estimated 10 TW are needed globally by > 2025. [1] > The ITER/DEMO fusion reactor only promises net 1.5 GW by 2045 > [2], and > the largest hydroelectric facilities (Three Gorges Dam in > China) are at > about 22 GW [3]. There's not enough high-grade silicon for > dozens of > square miles of conventional photovoltaic solar [4]. Meanwhile, China > builds a new coal fired planed every week [5] and apparently can keep > doing that for 100 years [6]. > > Seems to me any cost imbalance of solar, etc. is easily fixable by > taxing the hell out of CO2 energy emissions while subsidizing the > development of new solar, fusion, carbon sequestration > technology (etc). > > [1] http://t8web.lanl.gov/people/rajan/Gupta_energy_for_all_2007.pdf > [2] http://fire.pppl.gov/isfnt7_maisonnier.pdf > [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam > [4] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e50784ea-78cb-11db-8743-0000779e2340.html > [5] http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1223/p01s04-sten.html > [6] > http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friend> ly_article.aspx?id=17963 > > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070429/c07a9006/attachment.html |
bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron Symmetry
|
|
Robert Howard wrote:
> > Here are some problems with carbon offsets I never hear in debates: > > o Electrons cross both state and country borders. There?s a whole > ?futures? industry on buying electricity for speculative market > demand. For example, California in 2000 > <http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3062&sequence=0>. > Isn't this a question of regulation over the physical distribution network? Generation facilities provide power and it's measured on entry to the grid (or else they couldn't charge for it). To stay connected, any participating vendor would have to have secured, market-visible CO2 instrumentation in place. |
bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron Symmetry
|
|
Just as health insurance, minimum wages, and other cost-increasing labor
"regulations" increase off-shoring, if our electricity prices get high, we will import more of it from Mexico and Canada. If Mexico imports it from even more southern countries, slicing off a little profit as it passes through to us, how could we prove or know its original source or method of generation? We can't prevent ourselves from buying oil from countries we don't even like. How are we going to do it for electrons? LOL Electricity is only one tier in the economics. There are all the other products that indirectly result from electricity, of which prices would effect. Just by raising the prices of electricity here, we might help another polluting country's industry to thrive. I bet that Carbon Offsets, if implemented for only some participating countries, would (ironically) cause the total CO2 in our global atmosphere to increase. Robert Howard Phoenix, Arizona -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 5:07 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron Symmetry Robert Howard wrote: > > Here are some problems with carbon offsets I never hear in debates: > > o Electrons cross both state and country borders. There?s a whole > ?futures? industry on buying electricity for speculative market > demand. For example, California in 2000 > <http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3062&sequence=0>. > Isn't this a question of regulation over the physical distribution network? Generation facilities provide power and it's measured on entry to the grid (or else they couldn't charge for it). To stay connected, any participating vendor would have to have secured, market-visible CO2 instrumentation in place. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron Symmetry
|
|
Robert Howard wrote:
> If Mexico imports it from > even more southern countries, slicing off a little profit as it passes > through to us, how could we prove or know its original source or method of > generation? According to the Department of Energy document below, in 2004 the U.S. generated 3979 billion kilowatt hours of electricity. Mexico was 242 and Canada 572. All of South America was 881. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table63.xls Consumption in the U.S. was 3716 billion kilowatt hours of electricity. We are consuming the most, obviously, but also have had a surplus for years. A surplus greater than all of Mexico's generation, period. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table62.xls Nah, first put the screws to ourselves, and if necessary the rest of the hemisphere. |
bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron Symmetry
|
|
In reply to this post by Robert Howard-2-3
There's some humor in this of course... black market money does at least
travel in real suite cases, and black market electrons do look quite alike on the common carrier, but electrons all have lawyers to solve that sort of thing don't they??? ______ The dilemma that conservation (by one group) actually stimulates waste (by another group) is the way I like to frame the core problem, I have just never understood why people advocate personal restraint in resource use, like water, as a response to overwhelming societal waste of the same resource. Sure, it's hard to pull together any whole system problem statement or model for response, but just ignoring the difference seems to be most everyone's favorite solution. ______ The global solution is to have the full cost of demand reflected in supply... and not surprisingly, that requires some systems thinking we haven't done yet. Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert Howard Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 4:56 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron Symmetry Here are some problems with carbon offsets I never hear in debates: o Electrons cross both state and country borders. There?s a whole ?futures? industry on buying electricity for speculative market demand. For example, California in <http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3062&sequence=0> 2000. o All electrons look the same. It?s impossible to look at an electron on the grid and say, hey, that electron came from a coal fired plant in Russia and that one came from solar cells in Tucson. We have the same problem with shady black markets that move tons of cash. At least cash comes in suitcases owned by people and moves far slower than the speed of light. And, since the grid uses alternating current, electrons really only move about most 3000 miles before they make a 180 turn round trip back to where they started from. It?s the electromagnetic field that crosses borders. If we raise the price of ?our? electricity through carbon offsets, then up goes the demand of some other defecting country?s coal-produced force field. They?d make much more off the market differential than any CO2 subsidy they?d get after the administration took its share. This recursively works for all products that depend on electricity, such as aluminum cans, airplanes, and vacations. Right now, the US can produce petroleum-driven electricity far cleaner, cheaper and efficiently than any third-world country. If the goal is ?clean?, wouldn?t we rather get our electricity from us than them? Robert Howard Phoenix, Arizona -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Phil Henshaw Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 5:54 AM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes Or somewhat equivalently, getting us to pay carbon taxes on what we consume... To do that we'd need some way guess the carbon content (and other earth insults) for products the manufacturer didn't provide verifiable data for... and just as necessary, some believable plan for using the money collected. *But* that too would still provide only temporary relief!! The co2/$ ratio for total economic product (economic efficiency) can only be reduced toward a positive limit and not toward zero (real 2nd law). Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Robert Howard > Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 11:23 PM > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes > > > Now, if we can just get those Chinese to pay carbon taxes, we > might be able to compete. :-) > > Robert Howard > Phoenix, Arizona > > > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels > Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 2:03 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes > > phil henshaw wrote: > > The consensus response to global warming relies on reducing the > > impacts of economic growth by improving the efficiency of economic > > growth! > So we need a lot more clean power, and we need it fast. > Time to spend > some money on figuring out how to do it! > Without efficiency gains, it's estimated 10 TW are needed globally by > 2025. [1] > The ITER/DEMO fusion reactor only promises net 1.5 GW by 2045 > [2], and > the largest hydroelectric facilities (Three Gorges Dam in > China) are at > about 22 GW [3]. There's not enough high-grade silicon for > dozens of > square miles of conventional photovoltaic solar [4]. Meanwhile, China > builds a new coal fired planed every week [5] and apparently can keep > doing that for 100 years [6]. > > Seems to me any cost imbalance of solar, etc. is easily fixable by > taxing the hell out of CO2 energy emissions while subsidizing the > development of new solar, fusion, carbon sequestration > technology (etc). > > [1] http://t8web.lanl.gov/people/rajan/Gupta_energy_for_all_2007.pdf > [2] http://fire.pppl.gov/isfnt7_maisonnier.pdf > [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam > [4] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e50784ea-78cb-11db-8743-0000779e2340.html > [5] http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1223/p01s04-sten.html > [6] > http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friend> ly_article.aspx?id=17963 > > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070430/95ba865a/attachment.html |
bigger plans, bigger little mistakes
|
|
In reply to this post by Phil Henshaw-2
On 4/29/07, Phil Henshaw <sy at synapse9.com> wrote:
> > <snip> Thus it would still appear to me that the plan for fixing global warming > violates the 2nd law, ... Which 2nd law, Phil? Not the one generally recognised by the scientific community, as discussed earlier. It rather reminds me of scene in "Through the Looking Glass" where Alice meets Humpty Dumpty: ...There's glory for you!' [said Humpty Dumpty] `I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"' `But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected. `When *I* use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' Sound familiar? R -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070430/97a843f3/attachment.html |
bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron Symmetry
|
|
In reply to this post by Phil Henshaw-2
REFERRING TO:
* Nah, first put the screws to ourselves, and if necessary the rest of the hemisphere. Here?s the argument as I understand it: ?We have invented a game called Carbon Offsets. But to be effective, it really requires everyone?s cooperation. Unfortunately, we can?t get them to play. They just don?t get it! Here, I?m referring to us being the USA and they being China, and the game is something like the Kyoto Protocol, which China and India are exempt from many of the rules. Fortunately, we can get them to play by setting a good example. The USA should TIT first in hopes that they TAT back. Since we believe so strongly in our convictions that our proposed rules of play should be followed by all players cooperatively, we can entice China to play by merely playing solitaire first. They will ultimately like the outcome of our game so much that they will beg us to let them play too.? Well, if that?s true, then it should also be true for a finer resolution, such as those US citizens that believe in the game versus those that haven?t quite made the leap of faith. So I propose that we politically self-partition of our population. Those US citizens that wish play register online with the government. Next, we create a big government regulatory department of lawyers that enforce just those that have registered to be measured for their carbon output and to buy carbon offset certificates. In time, the other citizens will eventually register too. And this will cascade up to include the entire Earth?s population. Those that saw the light early have proof that they were smarter, and are entitled to the bragging rights that they helped make the world a better place or everyone. But if the argument turns out to be wrong, and the game is just another utopian ideal (i.e. a system in which a few defectors can spoil the whole lot and which must spend enormous amounts of energy suppressing them) then at least the adverse effects generated by those that improperly ?put the screws on themselves? are confined to just them?truly a sincere hedging of risk. Also Phil, could you clarify what you meant by ?The global solution is to have the full cost of demand reflected in supply?. Assuming I understand it right, doesn?t the distributed price system do that already? Robert Howard Phoenix, Arizona _____ From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Phil Henshaw Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 4:34 AM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron Symmetry There's some humor in this of course... black market money does at least travel in real suite cases, and black market electrons do look quite alike on the common carrier, but electrons all have lawyers to solve that sort of thing don't they??? ______ The dilemma that conservation (by one group) actually stimulates waste (by another group) is the way I like to frame the core problem, I have just never understood why people advocate personal restraint in resource use, like water, as a response to overwhelming societal waste of the same resource. Sure, it's hard to pull together any whole system problem statement or model for response, but just ignoring the difference seems to be most everyone's favorite solution. ______ The global solution is to have the full cost of demand reflected in supply... and not surprisingly, that requires some systems thinking we haven't done yet. Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert Howard Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 4:56 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron Symmetry Here are some problems with carbon offsets I never hear in debates: o Electrons cross both state and country borders. There?s a whole ?futures? industry on buying electricity for speculative market demand. For example, California in <http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3062&sequence=0> 2000. o All electrons look the same. It?s impossible to look at an electron on the grid and say, hey, that electron came from a coal fired plant in Russia and that one came from solar cells in Tucson. We have the same problem with shady black markets that move tons of cash. At least cash comes in suitcases owned by people and moves far slower than the speed of light. And, since the grid uses alternating current, electrons really only move about most 3000 miles before they make a 180 turn round trip back to where they started from. It?s the electromagnetic field that crosses borders. If we raise the price of ?our? electricity through carbon offsets, then up goes the demand of some other defecting country?s coal-produced force field. They?d make much more off the market differential than any CO2 subsidy they?d get after the administration took its share. This recursively works for all products that depend on electricity, such as aluminum cans, airplanes, and vacations. Right now, the US can produce petroleum-driven electricity far cleaner, cheaper and efficiently than any third-world country. If the goal is ?clean?, wouldn?t we rather get our electricity from us than them? Robert Howard Phoenix, Arizona -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Phil Henshaw Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 5:54 AM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes Or somewhat equivalently, getting us to pay carbon taxes on what we consume... To do that we'd need some way guess the carbon content (and other earth insults) for products the manufacturer didn't provide verifiable data for... and just as necessary, some believable plan for using the money collected. *But* that too would still provide only temporary relief!! The co2/$ ratio for total economic product (economic efficiency) can only be reduced toward a positive limit and not toward zero (real 2nd law). Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Robert Howard > Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 11:23 PM > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes > > > Now, if we can just get those Chinese to pay carbon taxes, we > might be able to compete. :-) > > Robert Howard > Phoenix, Arizona > > > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels > Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 2:03 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes > > phil henshaw wrote: > > The consensus response to global warming relies on reducing the > > impacts of economic growth by improving the efficiency of economic > > growth! > So we need a lot more clean power, and we need it fast. > Time to spend > some money on figuring out how to do it! > Without efficiency gains, it's estimated 10 TW are needed globally by > 2025. [1] > The ITER/DEMO fusion reactor only promises net 1.5 GW by 2045 > [2], and > the largest hydroelectric facilities (Three Gorges Dam in > China) are at > about 22 GW [3]. There's not enough high-grade silicon for > dozens of > square miles of conventional photovoltaic solar [4]. Meanwhile, China > builds a new coal fired planed every week [5] and apparently can keep > doing that for 100 years [6]. > > Seems to me any cost imbalance of solar, etc. is easily fixable by > taxing the hell out of CO2 energy emissions while subsidizing the > development of new solar, fusion, carbon sequestration > technology (etc). > > [1] http://t8web.lanl.gov/people/rajan/Gupta_energy_for_all_2007.pdf > [2] http://fire.pppl.gov/isfnt7_maisonnier.pdf > [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam > [4] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e50784ea-78cb-11db-8743-0000779e2340.html > [5] http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1223/p01s04-sten.html > [6] > http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friend> ly_article.aspx?id=17963 > > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070430/8c7d7107/attachment.html |
bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron Symmetry
|
|
Robert Howard wrote:
> ?We have invented a game called Carbon Offsets. But to be effective, > it really requires everyone?s cooperation. Unfortunately, we can?t get > them to play. What I think is that necessity is the mother of invention. Make some self-imposed pain to, say, radically reduce the number of internal combustion automobiles on the road, and get large scale solar, clean coal, or even fusion working (e.g. which I believe requires little more than having the governments of wealthy western nations stand up to their petroleum lobbies), and then the rest of the world will run with it, because it will be easy to do. Open source energy. Or if for some reason it is not desirable to share some of this technology with iffy nations, we can export the energy to them real cheap. Also, I'm not so sure it really requires everyone's cooperation. For example, the United States alone a large fraction of the worlds' electrical and petroleum energy usage. If that were all clean power it ought to help buy some time w.r.t. climate change. |
bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron Symmetry
|
|
In reply to this post by Robert Howard-2-3
Well, as an alternate to the CO2 game solution we could create a virtual
China and pay it the estimated real cost to the earth of China's products and only pay the real China the price they'd accept. Then we could use the money (essentially the blood money for China's environmental exploitation) to pay smart guys like you and me to think of great things to do with the money! ...well I suppose some better use should be proposed before anyone votes on it.. but you would clearly begin to have "the full cost of [the] demand reflected in [the] supply". China's sudden wealth is based largely on their finding a way to break in on someone else's business world and not follow a lot of the unwritten standards (common practices and expectations) and catching that host world quite off guard. We're paying a very heavy cost as a result, because its our demand for cheap goods causing the imbalance. It's not just job loss and a serious looming environmental dilemma, but I think we're also giving away enough equity to finance our trade imbalance to mortgage an entire state a year, or something on that order. There's not end in sight to that at all it seems, except that the press is tired of talking about it. Talk about resource depletion! The broader idea I had in using that phrasing was that the full price of what we buy is often hidden from the buyer (like throwing the world out of balance). One of the things the price mechanism is horrible at reflecting is future costs and consequences. If we were to do something about the few select distortions of the price mechanism that could be identified with some confidence, and bias the markets for them, it would be called 'steering'. Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert Howard Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 6:37 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron Symmetry REFERRING TO: * Nah, first put the screws to ourselves, and if necessary the rest of the hemisphere. Here?s the argument as I understand it: ?We have invented a game called Carbon Offsets. But to be effective, it really requires everyone?s cooperation. Unfortunately, we can?t get them to play. They just don?t get it! Here, I?m referring to us being the USA and they being China, and the game is something like the Kyoto Protocol, which China and India are exempt from many of the rules. Fortunately, we can get them to play by setting a good example. The USA should TIT first in hopes that they TAT back. Since we believe so strongly in our convictions that our proposed rules of play should be followed by all players cooperatively, we can entice China to play by merely playing solitaire first. They will ultimately like the outcome of our game so much that they will beg us to let them play too.? Well, if that?s true, then it should also be true for a finer resolution, such as those US citizens that believe in the game versus those that haven?t quite made the leap of faith. So I propose that we politically self-partition of our population. Those US citizens that wish play register online with the government. Next, we create a big government regulatory department of lawyers that enforce just those that have registered to be measured for their carbon output and to buy carbon offset certificates. In time, the other citizens will eventually register too. And this will cascade up to include the entire Earth?s population. Those that saw the light early have proof that they were smarter, and are entitled to the bragging rights that they helped make the world a better place or everyone. But if the argument turns out to be wrong, and the game is just another utopian ideal (i.e. a system in which a few defectors can spoil the whole lot and which must spend enormous amounts of energy suppressing them) then at least the adverse effects generated by those that improperly ?put the screws on themselves? are confined to just them?truly a sincere hedging of risk. Also Phil, could you clarify what you meant by ?The global solution is to have the full cost of demand reflected in supply?. Assuming I understand it right, doesn?t the distributed price system do that already? Robert Howard Phoenix, Arizona _____ From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Phil Henshaw Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 4:34 AM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron Symmetry There's some humor in this of course... black market money does at least travel in real suite cases, and black market electrons do look quite alike on the common carrier, but electrons all have lawyers to solve that sort of thing don't they??? ______ The dilemma that conservation (by one group) actually stimulates waste (by another group) is the way I like to frame the core problem, I have just never understood why people advocate personal restraint in resource use, like water, as a response to overwhelming societal waste of the same resource. Sure, it's hard to pull together any whole system problem statement or model for response, but just ignoring the difference seems to be most everyone's favorite solution. ______ The global solution is to have the full cost of demand reflected in supply... and not surprisingly, that requires some systems thinking we haven't done yet. Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert Howard Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 4:56 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron Symmetry Here are some problems with carbon offsets I never hear in debates: o Electrons cross both state and country borders. There?s a whole ?futures? industry on buying electricity for speculative market demand. For example, California <http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3062&sequence=0> in 2000. o All electrons look the same. It?s impossible to look at an electron on the grid and say, hey, that electron came from a coal fired plant in Russia and that one came from solar cells in Tucson. We have the same problem with shady black markets that move tons of cash. At least cash comes in suitcases owned by people and moves far slower than the speed of light. And, since the grid uses alternating current, electrons really only move about most 3000 miles before they make a 180 turn round trip back to where they started from. It?s the electromagnetic field that crosses borders. If we raise the price of ?our? electricity through carbon offsets, then up goes the demand of some other defecting country?s coal-produced force field. They?d make much more off the market differential than any CO2 subsidy they?d get after the administration took its share. This recursively works for all products that depend on electricity, such as aluminum cans, airplanes, and vacations. Right now, the US can produce petroleum-driven electricity far cleaner, cheaper and efficiently than any third-world country. If the goal is ?clean?, wouldn?t we rather get our electricity from us than them? Robert Howard Phoenix, Arizona -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Phil Henshaw Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 5:54 AM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes Or somewhat equivalently, getting us to pay carbon taxes on what we consume... To do that we'd need some way guess the carbon content (and other earth insults) for products the manufacturer didn't provide verifiable data for... and just as necessary, some believable plan for using the money collected. *But* that too would still provide only temporary relief!! The co2/$ ratio for total economic product (economic efficiency) can only be reduced toward a positive limit and not toward zero (real 2nd law). Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Robert Howard > Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 11:23 PM > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes > > > Now, if we can just get those Chinese to pay carbon taxes, we > might be able to compete. :-) > > Robert Howard > Phoenix, Arizona > > > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels > Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 2:03 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes > > phil henshaw wrote: > > The consensus response to global warming relies on reducing the > > impacts of economic growth by improving the efficiency of economic > > growth! > So we need a lot more clean power, and we need it fast. > Time to spend > some money on figuring out how to do it! > Without efficiency gains, it's estimated 10 TW are needed globally by > 2025. [1] > The ITER/DEMO fusion reactor only promises net 1.5 GW by 2045 > [2], and > the largest hydroelectric facilities (Three Gorges Dam in > China) are at > about 22 GW [3]. There's not enough high-grade silicon for > dozens of > square miles of conventional photovoltaic solar [4]. Meanwhile, China > builds a new coal fired planed every week [5] and apparently can keep > doing that for 100 years [6]. > > Seems to me any cost imbalance of solar, etc. is easily fixable by > taxing the hell out of CO2 energy emissions while subsidizing the > development of new solar, fusion, carbon sequestration > technology (etc). > > [1] http://t8web.lanl.gov/people/rajan/Gupta_energy_for_all_2007.pdf > [2] http://fire.pppl.gov/isfnt7_maisonnier.pdf > [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam > [4] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e50784ea-78cb-11db-8743-0000779e2340.html > [5] http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1223/p01s04-sten.html > [6] > http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friend> ly_article.aspx?id=17963 > > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070430/454ec469/attachment-0001.html |
bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron Symmetry
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Na, I think that plan includes an expectation that improving
efficiencies will get easier over time. I think it overlooks that we have a finite earth and an infinite expectation for exploiting it. That infinite expectation is partly expressed in a financial mechanism that presently requires continual percent increases in real activity for stability. One option that doesn't run into those problems is maturing the system, like any other kind of growth system that survives it's initial growth spurt. Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels > Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 7:36 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - > Electron Symmetry > > > Robert Howard wrote: > > ?We have invented a game called Carbon Offsets. But to be effective, > > it really requires everyone?s cooperation. Unfortunately, > we can?t get > > them to play. > What I think is that necessity is the mother of invention. Make some > self-imposed pain to, say, radically reduce the number of internal > combustion automobiles on the road, and get large scale solar, clean > coal, or even fusion working (e.g. which I believe requires > little more > than having the governments of wealthy western nations stand > up to their > petroleum lobbies), and then the rest of the world will run with it, > because it will be easy to do. Open source energy. Or if for > some reason > it is not desirable to share some of this technology with > iffy nations, > we can export the energy to them real cheap. > > Also, I'm not so sure it really requires everyone's cooperation. For > example, the United States alone a large fraction of the worlds' > electrical and petroleum energy usage. If that were all clean > power it > ought to help buy some time w.r.t. climate change. > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |