HOUSTON, WE HAVE AN ENERGY PROBLEM HERE ON PLANET EARTH.

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Hey, I think that might work. Let's try it!

How would we motivate others to get onboard? Maybe some sort of stipend or financial reward, perhaps?

[JohnDBarrow]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Sustainability and people over profit?

 

Sometimes the wiser move is to wait for the storm to pass and recognize not everyone is facing equal threat. 

 

 

 

Why is my home state of Iowa so high for energy costs according to the chart above? There is a ton of wind here and the state is carpeted with cornfields wall to wall. I don't use natural gas here. Home heating for me comes off the electric grid. 

 

According to this link, Iowa has the 12th lowest residential electric rate of the states at 11.85 cents per KWH. California is damned near 30 cents per KWH, OUCH! 

Electricity Rates by State (July 2024) (usatoday.com)

 

Since it is summertime in Iowa, Midamerica Energy is actually charging me 13.72 cents per KWH out of pocket as a residential customer when I add all the tax and crap on the bill total. Summer rates go up considerably along with fossil fuels prices. My electric bill for December was only $82. The lowest it has been since was $65. It was $109 something on June 3 and $129.01 on July 3. Iowa has high humidity this time of year and I am forced to run the dehumidifier along with the air conditioner in my bedroom. The dehumidifier, with a Freon compressor inside, sucks up about 550 watts. 

 

Iowa and Georgia are tied at 15th place for states with lowest gasoline prices at $3.31/gallon. I use 10% Ethanol grade.  California is a horrible $4.79/gallon. 

U.S. gasoline prices by state 2024 | Statista

 

Edited July 11 by JohnDBarrow

[iNow]

16 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said:

Why is my home state of Iowa so high for energy costs? There is a ton of wind here and the state is carpeted with cornfields wall to wall. 

Bad governance and easily duped voters who believe too much hogwash is my guess

[JohnDBarrow]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Bad governance and easily duped voters who believe too much hogwash is my guess

Ignorance persists in red states and states whose number one industry is agriculture if not insurance. In Polk County, Iowa, the seat of which is the state capital, Des Moines, there is not a single PUBLIC college or university, ironically, since this is the most populated metro area of the state. About every hospital and every private college or university here is under some "Christian" guise. Many men here wear mustache-less beards like Amish. Women here often have the girth of milk cows. There are more so-called "churches" and "kingdom halls" here than public schools and supermarkets combined. The most exciting thing here ever is thunderstorms and local storm sirens warning of tornadoes.

Edited July 11 by JohnDBarrow

[exchemist]

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

The old distribution system - the grid - is wrong. It was always wrong: error-prone, dependent on key nodes, inefficient, wasteful, vulnerable to sabotage and weather, expensive to maintain and repair,  dangerous and ugly. But it was profitable. It's not going to stay profitable. We need a better model. 

The grid certainly needs to change a lot as we move from central to more distributed modes of generation. That will require a lot of investment. It seems to me a levy on fossil fuel consumption is the most rational way to fund this. 

[Peterkin]

8 hours ago, iNow said:

How would we motivate others to get onboard? Maybe some sort of stipend or financial reward, perhaps?

The people on board - energetically and enthusiastically on board - have always been self-motivated. They can see the inherent good sense of generating their own electricity, insulating their homes, recycling materials, ect. That's why so much of it has already happened. Some governments are forward-looking, as well. It's impossible to implement sustainable measures in countries that still subsidize fossil fuel and Big Energy.

 

5 hours ago, exchemist said:

The grid certainly needs to change a lot as we move from central to more distributed modes of generation. That will require a lot of investment. It seems to me a levy on fossil fuel consumption is the most rational way to fund this. 

It would be, but the screams of outrage "The Economommeee!!!" "Jabs, Jabs!" and "Nanny State!!" would power a wind farm for a week. Of course, wind farms are wrong, just as factory farming is - all done on the wrong scale, for the wrong purpose, with the wrong results. One place it's being done the right way is in Native communities. Another good example-setter can be a religious institution.

If all this had taken place 40 years ago, we'd be home and dry. As things stand, with conservatives in the resource-rich countries still blocking progress,  it's too little, too late.

[iNow]

32 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

The people on board - energetically and enthusiastically on board - have always been self-motivated.

Right, but irrelevant. I asked how to bring in NEW people and did so with subtle snark about profit motives to highlight how pollyannish your idea appears.

But even ignoring that, if these self-motivated people you cite are already onboard then they’re clearly not part of the population under discussion.

6 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

every hospital and every private college or university here is under some "Christian" guise. Many men here wear mustache-less beards like Amish. Women here often have the girth of milk cows.

I see, but Polk county is easily the best educated and most cosmopolitan part of the state. Perhaps you meant to cite Adam’s or Adair county?

Never mind, more to the point: How is this new meandering bigoted rant relevant to your broader uneducated annxieties about global energy supply and sustainability? I haven’t had an exchange this disjointed since my neighbors kid came by after sniffing glue. 

6 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

The most exciting thing here ever is thunderstorms and local storm sirens warning of tornadoes.

I hear the Iowa State Fair is one of the best in the country, though.

Edited July 11 by iNow

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

The people on board - energetically and enthusiastically on board - have always been self-motivated. They can see the inherent good sense of generating their own electricity, insulating their homes, recycling materials, ect. That's why so much of it has already happened. Some governments are forward-looking, as well. It's impossible to implement sustainable measures in countries that still subsidize fossil fuel and Big Energy.

 

It would be, but the screams of outrage "The Economommeee!!!" "Jabs, Jabs!" and "Nanny State!!" would power a wind farm for a week. Of course, wind farms are wrong, just as factory farming is - all done on the wrong scale, for the wrong purpose, with the wrong results. One place it's being done the right way is in Native communities. Another good example-setter can be a religious institution.

If all this had taken place 40 years ago, we'd be home and dry. As things stand, with conservatives in the resource-rich countries still blocking progress,  it's too little, too late.

I don't think hysteria gets us anywhere, certainly. Throwing one's hands up and saying everything is wrong is basically saying, like the Irishman: "If I were you I wouldn't start from here." Not helpful. One has to acknowledge that getting people to change their habits is a long process. It often requires either tangible effects, experienced by the man in the street, or else great persuasive power on the part of politicians and other leaders in society. Actually I think the tangible effects are starting to hit home. House insurance premiums in many places are rocketing up, for one thing, as the risk of fire, flood and hurricane increases. When people feel it in their wallets, it gets their attention.  

Investing in changes to the grid is obviously required, but will be some places be unpopular (more pylons across the countryside) and is obviously costly. The money will have to come from somewhere: either taxation or some kind of levy on energy use. But we are making progress, even if it is too slow, still. In Europe, most people get it now, at least in principle. However there is still some cognitive dissonance between understanding the issue and being willing to pay the price to deal with it. This is human nature. It requires political skills to address it. 

 

[Phi for All]

8 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

Many men here wear mustache-less beards like Amish. Women here often have the girth of milk cows.

!

Moderator Note

Slurs against groups of people aren't allowed here. And as you can see, this commentary adds NOTHING to your argument, but plainly marks your prejudice. Do better please.

 

[TheVat]

9 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

Des Moines, there is not a single PUBLIC college or university, ironically, since this is the most populated metro area of the state. About every hospital and every private college or university here is under some "Christian" guise

Bullshit.  Both U of I and ISU have satellite campuses there.  Drake is not religious affiliated and has an outstanding reputation in journalism and law.  

11 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

Summer rates go up considerably along with fossil fuels prices. My electric bill for December was only $82. The lowest it has been since was $65. It was $109 something on June 3 and $129.01 on July 3. Iowa has high humidity this time of year and I am forced to run the dehumidifier along with the air conditioner in my bedroom. The dehumidifier, with a Freon compressor inside, sucks up about 550 watts. 

People aren't helpless.  You have many affordable options that can bring your power usage down, like putting up a radiant heat barrier in the attic, and/or an attic exhaust fan that draws air through the soffit vents.  We cut our summer energy use 45% doing this.  

[Peterkin]

5 hours ago, exchemist said:

I don't think hysteria gets us anywhere, certainly. Throwing one's hands up and saying everything is wrong is basically saying, like the Irishman: "If I were you I wouldn't start from here."

And helpfully saying, "Everything is fine, just needs a little tweaking ... Good, good, baby steps and bandaids until you get accustomed to the idea.... Take your time..." We did all that in the 1970's, 80's, 90's and finally started getting a little louder and more urgent in the last few decades. Now, it's crunch time: with major surgery, the patient [human civilization] may survive, though with much diminished quality of life. Do nothing and he's dead.

 

6 hours ago, iNow said:

I asked how to bring in NEW people and did so with subtle snark about profit motives to highlight how pollyannish your idea appears.

The only way to get more people on board, without any help from government or much support from mass media, is to keep showing them alternatives. Which is what the Pollyannas have been doing, via blogs, newsletters, co-ops and You Tube videos -  with some success. 

The ideas I showed you are not mine; progressive European countries are way ahead of North America, because of the clout financial interests have here. 

Edited July 11 by Peterkin

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

And helpfully saying, "Everything is fine, just needs a little tweaking ... Good, good, baby steps and bandaids until you get accustomed to the idea.... Take your time..." We did all that in the 1970's, 80's, 90's and finally started getting a little louder and more urgent in the last few decades. Now, it's crunch time: with major surgery, the patient [human civilization] may survive, though with much diminished quality of life. Do nothing and he's dead.

 

The only way to get more people on board, without any help from government or much support from mass media, is to keep showing them alternatives. Which is what the Pollyannas have been doing, via blogs, newsletters, co-ops and You Tube videos -  with some success. 

The ideas I showed you are not mine; progressive European countries are way ahead of North America, because of the clout financial interests have here. 

Well I admit I do write from the European perspective. Are your complaints about the USA specifically? If so I have to say I do not think you can simply blame financial interests. After all, there is good money to be made by investing in new infrastructure or creating markets for new types of consumer goods such as electric vehicles or heat pumps. In the US, though, you have an entire political party, commanding the allegiance of half the country, dedicated to belittling and ignoring climate change. It seems to me the problem is political populism that sees advantage in telling people a comforting story that they don't need to worry and it's all a conspiracy to control their lives by evil "socialists" etc. In Europe such views are fringe, not mainstream.

I am speculating but I wonder if it is not all to do with the car-dependence of the American way of life. That car-orientation is something that struck me when I moved to Houston for a couple of years. Presidents can almost be hounded from office, it seems, because gasoline prices are too high.   

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

Are your complaints about the USA specifically? If so I have to say I do not think you can simply blame financial interests.

I can, yes. And the far too heavy influence they have on American (most influential economy in the world) and Canadian politics. The Americans are slightly worse: they even politicize jurisprudence and make sure that election campaigns for any office depend on sponsorship. As do the news and information media.

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

After all, there is good money to be made by investing in new infrastructure or creating markets for new types of consumer goods such as electric vehicles or heat pumps.

There is now - too little, too late.

There were electric cars in 1900, and wind turbines

Quote

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, small wind-electric generators (wind turbines) were also widely used.

but nobody with the big bucks chose to develop that technology. So, it languished. 

Financial institutions and big business are extremely conservative; the majority publicly tout competition and venture, but are actually pro-monopoly and risk-averse. As long as they can keep government in the tried-and-true camp, they don't have to change or chance anything. And since they own the media, most voters can be bribed or scared into agreement most of the time. 

 

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

It seems to me the problem is political populism that sees advantage in telling people a comforting story that they don't need to worry and it's all a conspiracy to control their lives by evil "socialists" etc

Who do you suppose is telling them the stories? That one, and the one about the Big Bad Immigrant, and the one about the liberal elite that's already outlawed Christmas, murdered their unborn babes and is coming for their guns, trucks and cattle? Who actually has reason to fear socialists?

 

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

I am speculating but I wonder if it is not all to do with the car-dependence of the American way of life.

And who made that happen? By what means?

The governments happily went along with paving over the wilderness (progress) and subsidizing oil, undertaking enormous - and later enormously profitable - development projects at taxpayers' expense. Bit by bit, once the loans are paid off, all the public works quietly get 'outsourced', invariably resulting in less service at a rising cost. 

Odds are, this is what business is waiting for in the clean energy sector, as well as lab-grown meat and urban hydroponics: they have the patents, they've been talking the hype of green investment for years - while also financing anti-climate, anti bicycle and public transit, pro beef, use more-waste more propaganda. A new technology? Let the government make the initial investment, then they'll start a talk campaign on how government mismanages everything, but they're willing to jump in and fix it, as they did with prisons.... In theory. In practice, most of them begrudge government the necessary tax revenue and the power to re-prioritize, so the initiative keeps getting stalled.   

Nevertheless, a few brave ones do make a little progress, and some profit. Just not big enough or fast enough. For the last 20 years, we've been where only a dramatic, decisive, multi-faceted global strategy could prevent the point of no return. With the melting of the permafrost, we've already crossed it. 

I'm not complaining. I'm just reporting.

Edited July 11 by Peterkin

[JohnDBarrow]

On 7/11/2024 at 10:18 AM, TheVat said:

Bullshit.  Both U of I and ISU have satellite campuses there.  Drake is not religious affiliated and has an outstanding reputation in journalism and law.  

People aren't helpless.  You have many affordable options that can bring your power usage down, like putting up a radiant heat barrier in the attic, and/or an attic exhaust fan that draws air through the soffit vents.  We cut our summer energy use 45% doing this.  

I live in a tax-credits subsidized apartment for seniors built in 2022. There is an exhaust fan in the bathroom already which runs constantly. No switch to shut the damned thing off. I can't modify all this crap on this rented property. Iowa does not strike me as one of the more sophisticated parts of America in nutshell. I was raised and educated in California's San Francisco Bay Area and graduated from high school there in 1982. 

On 7/11/2024 at 8:36 AM, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

Slurs against groups of people aren't allowed here. And as you can see, this commentary adds NOTHING to your argument, but plainly marks your prejudice. Do better please.

 

My apologies. Somebody got me started here on that. I was provoked. 

Anyway, there are 8+ some billion people on this entire globe. I'm but one individual. There is not much I can do or say at age 60 that is going to make much difference. Perhaps, I should stop worrying about the energy future of the world and other pressing issues. The hand of fate has it in for all of us. What will be, will be and what can we do about it?  If I could start all over again young, I think I would have liked to have pursued a career in civil engineering, ecology and/or some occupation concerned with "safe, practical and green energy" as fossil fuels alternatives.

 

I say possibly civil engineering because the roads in states like Iowa, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Texas and Colorado are horribly bumpy as a motorist and I like roads that are smooth as a baby's bottom. America needs glass-smooth city streets and highways. Our infrastructure is embarrassingly primitive. 

[StringJunky]

3 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

I live in a tax-credits subsidized apartment for seniors built in 2022. There is an exhaust fan in the bathroom already which runs constantly. No switch to shut the damned thing off.

The owners have learned from the bitter experience of mouldy bathrooms and apartments. A friend has a university student house and it is a big problem.

[zapatos]

3 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

I say possibly civil engineering because the roads in states like Iowa, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Texas and Colorado are horribly bumpy as a motorist and I like roads that are smooth as a baby's bottom. America needs glass-smooth city streets and highways. Our infrastructure is embarrassingly primitive. 

FFS quit your whining.

[Phi for All]

19 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

I say possibly civil engineering because the roads in states like Iowa, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Texas and Colorado are horribly bumpy as a motorist and I like roads that are smooth as a baby's bottom. America needs glass-smooth city streets and highways. Our infrastructure is embarrassingly primitive. 

Are you willing to wait a LOT longer for road repairs? Right now, privately contracted companies are laying down the asphalt and letting you drive on it within a day or two. This means less time waiting on road repair as a commuter, but it also means the roadbed has no time to cure. If the crews let the asphalt cure for 90 days, you wouldn't have potholes within a year or two. Asphalt wears like stone when it's allowed to cure, but then the commuters have to wait. 

Being patient is the reasonable, efficient, and sustainable approach. Insisting on quick repairs is the profitable, primitive, and embarrassing approach.

[swansont]

12 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Are you willing to wait a LOT longer for road repairs? Right now, privately contracted companies are laying down the asphalt and letting you drive on it within a day or two. This means less time waiting on road repair as a commuter, but it also means the roadbed has no time to cure. If the crews let the asphalt cure for 90 days, you wouldn't have potholes within a year or two. Asphalt wears like stone when it's allowed to cure, but then the commuters have to wait. 

Being patient is the reasonable, efficient, and sustainable approach. Insisting on quick repairs is the profitable, primitive, and embarrassing approach.

Reminds me of the attitudes in the Washington, DC area regarding snow plowing. A lot of people complain that it takes so long to clear roads after a big storm, because there isn’t a huge team of plows and drivers waiting to do the work. But they don’t consider the cost of having such infrastructure, which would be underutilized — the big storms don’t happen every year. 

I wonder how many people complaining about snow removal or road repair also complain about their taxes being too high, and voting for the people who promise to lower taxes — and don’t see the connection. I saw it in Oregon ca 1990 when they passed property tax reform, and then people were mortified in subsequent years when government cut a whole bunch of services.

Studying engineering would not solve these issues. It’s a political problem.

[Phi for All]

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

Studying engineering would not solve these issues. It’s a political problem.

Exactly, the engineers already know what the problems with roads are. It's the profit priority of private enterprise that spins these issues into more ignorance for the masses. Contractors spend money lobbying for contracts that make them more money at the expense of good roads. 

Not sure if it's this way elsewhere, but in Colorado right now, when they resurface a road, they just pave that road without smoothing intersections. People turning right from the new surface hit the edge of an old surfaces at the intersection, and before you know it, that corner has a big pothole right as you turn. Along comes a special crew to fix just that, at additional expense. This isn't engineering, it's pirateering, private interests taking advantage of social funding and screwing the People for more money.

[iNow]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

how many people complaining about snow removal or road repair also complain about their taxes being too high, and voting for the people who promise to lower taxes — and don’t see the connection

This exactly where my thoughts went, too. 

[exchemist]

15 hours ago, swansont said:

Reminds me of the attitudes in the Washington, DC area regarding snow plowing. A lot of people complain that it takes so long to clear roads after a big storm, because there isn’t a huge team of plows and drivers waiting to do the work. But they don’t consider the cost of having such infrastructure, which would be underutilized — the big storms don’t happen every year. 

I wonder how many people complaining about snow removal or road repair also complain about their taxes being too high, and voting for the people who promise to lower taxes — and don’t see the connection. I saw it in Oregon ca 1990 when they passed property tax reform, and then people were mortified in subsequent years when government cut a whole bunch of services.

Studying engineering would not solve these issues. It’s a political problem.

Yes I think this is the point: people are capable of holding two conflicting ideas at the same time, to suit their wishes, rather than acknowledging the connection that shows there has to be a trade-off between the two. Everyone wants low taxes and everyone wants good public services. If pollsters ask the right question, the answers show people do understand the connection, so it's not a matter of not getting it, but it's more a conflict in the mind between reason and a desire, or hope,  if you like, that they can have both. When you have populist politics that falsely encourage that irrational hope, it can gain support, in the short term, since the consequence of the fraudulent promise take time to feed through.

It seems to be only after such politics has ben tried in government, and seen to fail,  that the public acquires the appetite for the rationality and the hard choices it requires, cf. Margaret Thatcher, Keir Starmer.   

[JohnDBarrow]

I want the RICH to pay for all the public goodies the common people use like baby-butt-smooth roads, sound bridges, sewers, clean running water, dams, sanitation, locks, levees and flood control. The public works should be funded by the fat cats. Think of how this would stimulate the jobs economy by employing all those hard hats. 

Edited July 14 by JohnDBarrow

[Peterkin]

5 hours ago, exchemist said:

When you have populist politics that falsely encourage that irrational hope, it can gain support, in the short term, since the consequence of the fraudulent promise take time to feed through.

All right-wing politics encourage that hope, and they can keep it up the illusion for decades. All they have to do is assert, on several very public platforms, that  government services are wasteful, inefficient and insufficient (in the same way FOX has been 'showing' how the economy declined under Biden), whereas private enterprise is competitive, streamlined and well managed. People tend to believe this, no matter how wasteful, cumbersome and error-prone the private enterprise in which they themselves are employed. 

Once the service is contracted out, all competition ceases (assuming the bids were competitive, not prearranged) there is no way to cancel: the snow-ploughs and gravel silos have been sold, the employees have been been fired. The government in question is stuck with whatever they get for the next five years, and even thereafter, have only the choice of similar contractors: they can't make the huge investment in re-assuming that service. Privatization only goes one way: down. 

1 hour ago, JohnDBarrow said:

I want the RICH to pay for all the public goodies the common people use like baby-butt-smooth roads, sound bridges, sewers, clean running water, dams, sanitation, locks, levees and flood control. The public works should be funded by the fat cats.

All public works should be funded, owned and controlled by the public. If the rich want to use the bridges, harbours and roads for their business traffic, they should pay a tonnes-per-mile commercial charge for that privilege.  

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, JohnDBarrow said:

I want the RICH to pay for all the public goodies the common people use like baby-butt-smooth roads, sound bridges, sewers, clean running water, dams, sanitation, locks, levees and flood control. The public works should be funded by the fat cats. Think of how this would stimulate the jobs economy by employing all those hard hats. 

Well that's just bloody stupid, it's like saying "let's just give everyone a million dollars, that'll get people spending".

I just want the rich to pay their tithe

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

All right-wing politics encourage that hope, and they can keep it up the illusion for decades. All they have to do is assert, on several very public platforms, that  government services are wasteful, inefficient and insufficient (in the same way FOX has been 'showing' how the economy declined under Biden), whereas private enterprise is competitive, streamlined and well managed. People tend to believe this, no matter how wasteful, cumbersome and error-prone the private enterprise in which they themselves are employed. 

Once the service is contracted out, all competition ceases (assuming the bids were competitive, not prearranged) there is no way to cancel: the snow-ploughs and gravel silos have been sold, the employees have been been fired. The government in question is stuck with whatever they get for the next five years, and even thereafter, have only the choice of similar contractors: they can't make the huge investment in re-assuming that service. Privatization only goes one way: down. 

All public works should be funded, owned and controlled by the public. If the rich want to use the bridges, harbours and roads for their business traffic, they should pay a tonnes-per-mile commercial charge for that privilege.  

That (in red) is not true. The politics of Margaret Thatcher, for example, did not involve such deception.