What to do about competing arguments

[Marat]

Whether there is dangerous global warming caused by human activities or not, the main question has to be: What shall we do about it now given the competing arguments? If we do institute violent measures to deconstruct the fossil-fuel-based economy at enormous costs to productivity, the poorest people will be the hardest hit, and not only will poverty worsen in the developed world, but starvation may even result in the Third World. On the other hand, if we don't do immediate and enormous damage to the existing economy now in order to diminish greenhouse gas emissions and the human-caused global warming predictions are correct, then it will be too late to stop the spiraling processes of global warming and catastrophic results will ensue.

 

Those who doubt that the anti-global warming campaign will destroy the world economy should consider this: The usual argument is that tearing down and rebuilding the existing fossil-fuel economy will generate 'green jobs' which will compensate for the losses in existing industrial capital. But just consider the simple example of a company which today employs 100 workers to make 1000 widgets a year for $10 each. The total wealth produced is $10,000, of which the workers can receive $50 each while $5000 goes into profit. But now think of the anti-global warming world, in which the company now still employs 100 workers to make 1000 widgets a year worth $10 each, but has to employ an additional 100 workers to counteract pollution effects and diminish side-effects of industrial activity which contribute to global warming. Now the same $10,000 worth of widgets will have to provide salaries for 200 workers instead of 100 workers, minus the profits for the owners. Now the system is not called capitalism for nothing, so the owners are not going to absorb this cost themselves, and it will instead be shifted to the workers. The result will either be that the price of a widget worth $10 will have to double so all consumers will lose half their wealth by having to pay double for the same value of goods, or the wages of the workers making those widgets will have to be cut in half since there are now double the number of workers since half of them have to work to protect the environment, which is not a saleable and thus not a profit-generating 'product' of their activity.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Split from http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/52568-climate-skeptics-vs-climate-scientists-in-a-nutshell/page__st__40

I don't think it's a reasonable scenario being presented. It's very ad-hoc and looks a lot like a straw man. The thing is, we have examples we can look at in history, when air and water pollution were a problem. US corporations made the exact same kind of complaints. Somehow, the economy managed. The problem with the delaying tactic is that the longer one waits to enact any mitigation at all, the more dramatic the effort will have to be to end up with the desired result. So even for someone who is unconvinced, risk analysis dictates adopting some efforts. That, plus adopting many of these strategies have other benefits as well, such as reducing oil imports, which would promote domestic job creation and keep money in the domestic economy rather than having it add to the trade deficit.

[cypress]

!

Moderator Note

Split from http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/52568-climate-skeptics-vs-climate-scientists-in-a-nutshell/page__st__40

 

I don't think it's a reasonable scenario being presented. It's very ad-hoc and looks a lot like a straw man. The thing is, we have examples we can look at in history, when air and water pollution were a problem. US corporations made the exact same kind of complaints. Somehow, the economy managed.

 

While Merat's scenarios seem unrealistic, equating the options and impact facing us to the pollution control improvements of the '70's and 80's seems also unrealistic. US corporations were not making the exact same kind of complaints as is being made today. Previously the arguments were around impact to individual companies or industries and regional economies. Some exaggeration occurred but by and large the consensus effects did occur. It was more expensive in the short run but productivity increases offset the impacts of pollution control. The primary cause of pollution was failure of society to define and manage public goods in the first place. Clean air and water are now much better managed.

 

I don't see many suggesting that global GHG management won't involve a major overhaul of industrial society, a significant shift in resource management and a redistribution of economic activity. To downplay the effort by suggesting that somehow the economy will manage seems somewhat myopic.

 

The problem with the delaying tactic is that the longer one waits to enact any mitigation at all, the more dramatic the effort will have to be to end up with the desired result.

 

Unless it turns out the desired result does not require mitigation.

 

So even for someone who is unconvinced, risk analysis dictates adopting some efforts.

 

Not necessarily. If the risk discounted uncertainty analysis indicates that doing nothing is more rational than other actions then doing nothing may be the best course of action. Since the uncertainty of future impact is not well known and more importantly since the result of attempting to make changes are also not known, we can't accurately complete this analysis. If GHG's only influence temperature by 1 degree or less then any adjustments made to curtail generation will also have only a minimal impact on global climate. We do however know that natural climate drivers have elevated temperatures by 6 degrees or so above current levels. If these kinds of temperatures are as damaging as some claim should we not instead focus on mitigating this threat? If not why not?

 

That, plus adopting many of these strategies have other benefits as well, such as reducing oil imports, which would promote domestic job creation and keep money in the domestic economy rather than having it add to the trade deficit.

 

If the alternative to oil imports are energy sources that are significantly more costly to produce then the net impact is reduction in productivity which should not be described as a benefit. Energy independence is an admirable goal if it can be accomplished without significant productivity loss,but I have not seen a rational plan that does not include significant increases in energy cost and thus productivity loss.

[JohnB]

It is a difficult and complex question. Which green jobs? And in what sectors at what costs?

 

For example there was the Caldaza report earlier this year that claimed that in Spain 2.2 jobs were lost for every green job created. I haven't looked at it (or the controversy) in detail and there are many refutations to the report available on the web, so the "truth" may be hard to judge.

 

However, if you are going to make a dent in CO2, and presumably this is the point of the green jobs scheme, then you will have to do so in the area of power generation. It is in this area that the numbers work against the idea of green jobs in any meaningful and economically viable way.

 

For example, I regularly read that "renewable energy employs more people in the US than coal", and that certainly appears to be the case. The following graph is from the World Resources Institute which calls itself "an environmental think tank that goes beyond research to find practical ways to protect the earth and improve peoples lives". So this is a "Green" think tank that is for renewable energy, etc, etc.

 

http://www.wri.org/image/view/11740/_original

 

(The board wouldn't let me hotlink the page, so just open the link in a new tab to see the graph.)

 

The first thing we can do is ignore the red portion of each bar. Since it deals with the construction of the power stations and new coal stations aren't being built, then of course there are more jobs in the construction of wind farms. (Well Duh ) Construction jobs are relatively transitory anyway and it's the long term we need to look at so they aren't really germane to the point.

 

Looking at the yellow part of the bars it is easy to see that Wind employs roughly the same number of people in management, maintainence, etc as coal does. (Yay wind power, yippee). But let's not celebrate too early. A quick check if Wiki on power generation shows there is a problem.

 

Even though they employ roughly the same number of people once operational, coal provides 49.1% of the generated electricity and wind provides .7%. This means that it currently takes 70 times more people to generate a megawatt hour of electricity by wind than it does by coal. Unless this number can be drastically reduced then wind etc are not now and never will be a viable source of enough power to make a meaningful difference.

 

IOW, skip it and put your money into something else.

 

It reminds me of the old joke about the Union leader watching 1 man with a backhoe digging a trench saying "You know, if it wasn't for him we could employ 10 men with shovels." And the watching village idiot responds with "You could employ a hundred if you gave them tea spoons".

 

Just a couple of thoughts on "mitigation" and "adaptation". I think people should take great care to explain exactly what they mean when using these words. Does mitigation mean reducing CO2 output and hopefully mitigating on a world wids scale, or simply mitigating on a regional or local scale? Adaptation is another thing entirely. Even if we made our society completely carbon neutral, the records show that climate change, rapid climate change can and has occurred in the past. All we can do is adapt to it, just as our forefathers did. It was only a few thousand years ago that sea levels were 2-3 metres higher than they are today. CO2 or not, human action or not, the sea levels and temps will rise and fall, and we will have to adapt.

Edited November 26, 2010 by JohnB

[swansont]

 

Even though they employ roughly the same number of people once operational, coal provides 49.1% of the generated electricity and wind provides .7%. This means that it currently takes 70 times more people to generate a megawatt hour of electricity by wind than it does by coal. Unless this number can be drastically reduced then wind etc are not now and never will be a viable source of enough power to make a meaningful difference.

 

 

No, because the numbers you cite are normalized. They are given per GWh. Which means that it takes the same number of people to generate an amount of electricity via coal or wind, and more for natural gas and nuclear. Wind electricity does not cost 70 times what coal-generated electricity does. They are comparable.

 

While Merat's scenarios seem unrealistic, equating the options and impact facing us to the pollution control improvements of the '70's and 80's seems also unrealistic. US corporations were not making the exact same kind of complaints as is being made today. Previously the arguments were around impact to individual companies or industries and regional economies. Some exaggeration occurred but by and large the consensus effects did occur. It was more expensive in the short run but productivity increases offset the impacts of pollution control. The primary cause of pollution was failure of society to define and manage public goods in the first place. Clean air and water are now much better managed.

 

Funny, if you replace "pollution" with "CO2," it sounds like what's going on right now.

 

 

I don't see many suggesting that global GHG management won't involve a major overhaul of industrial society, a significant shift in resource management and a redistribution of economic activity. To downplay the effort by suggesting that somehow the economy will manage seems somewhat myopic.

 

Considering that the "major overhaul" is already happening outside of the US, I think this is false.

 

Not necessarily. If the risk discounted uncertainty analysis indicates that doing nothing is more rational than other actions then doing nothing may be the best course of action. Since the uncertainty of future impact is not well known and more importantly since the result of attempting to make changes are also not known, we can't accurately complete this analysis. If GHG's only influence temperature by 1 degree or less then any adjustments made to curtail generation will also have only a minimal impact on global climate. We do however know that natural climate drivers have elevated temperatures by 6 degrees or so above current levels. If these kinds of temperatures are as damaging as some claim should we not instead focus on mitigating this threat? If not why not?

 

 

 

If the alternative to oil imports are energy sources that are significantly more costly to produce then the net impact is reduction in productivity which should not be described as a benefit. Energy independence is an admirable goal if it can be accomplished without significant productivity loss,but I have not seen a rational plan that does not include significant increases in energy cost and thus productivity loss.

 

Again, false. One does no need to rely on conjecture, since it's already happening. Electricity is cheaper than gasoline for operating cars, for example, even for green sources that are currently moderately more expensive.

[JohnB]

No, because the numbers you cite are normalized. They are given per GWh.

 

I knew something felt wrong with those numbers.

 

Does anyone have the numbers of employees by sector in energy generation? I've been trying all sorts of search parameters but aside from very general comments, I can't find them. It would be interesting to see how many jobs each sector needs to create 1 GWatt.

[Marat]

Another problem not often discussed is that the transition from a fossil-fuel-based economy to a greenhouse gas reducing economy is itself going to require the expenditure of a massive amount of energy, which will at least temporarily increase rather than decrease greenhouse gases. Given that the economy can collapse into a recession even with all the advantages of using fossil fuels and freely dumping the by-products of industrial production into the atmosphere, rivers, oceans, and landfills, just imagine how much more frequent these recessions and depressions are going to be when the economy becomes more fragile by burdening all productive activities with the costs of environmental protection, which itself generates no marketable products.

[cypress]

Funny, if you replace "pollution" with "CO2," it sounds like what's going on right now.

 

Really? I don't see any evidence that CO2 mitigation will experience productivity gains that will offset the large increases in energy costs that will occur with a switch away from petroleum for transportation.

 

Considering that the "major overhaul" is already happening outside of the US, I think this is false.

 

I'm not seeing any major overhaul of economies outside the US. China and India are building coal fired plants at an incredible rate. The net change in CO2 production outside the US is barely noticeable. It would be hard to argue it is an overhaul.

 

 

 

Again, false. One does no need to rely on conjecture, since it's already happening. Electricity is cheaper than gasoline for operating cars, for example, even for green sources that are currently moderately more expensive.

 

I would like to see the calculations for this. If we compare similar performing vehicles I get the gasoline car at 42 miles per gallon and the electric car at .6 KW-hr/mile. Using Gas at $2.60 per gallon ( I paid $2.57 today) and electricity at $0.18 /KW-hr (I just looked at my bill), I get electric at about twice as expensive as gasoline.

[swansont]

The problem with "I don't see" is that it is appeal to ignorance. It's amazing that the efforts of e.g. Spain and Germany to install solar power has escaped your notice.

 

 

I would like to see the calculations for this. If we compare similar performing vehicles I get the gasoline car at 42 miles per gallon and the electric car at .6 KW-hr/mile. Using Gas at $2.60 per gallon ( I paid $2.57 today) and electricity at $0.18 /KW-hr (I just looked at my bill), I get electric at about twice as expensive as gasoline.

 

That's the problem with pulling numbers out of dark places. The Chevy Volt is rated at .36 kWh/mi, and that's a first-generation device (i.e. we might expect improvement in cars over time). Right now the CAFE standard for cars is 27.5 mpg, and yet you chose something much higher; the 42 mpg car isn't the target for initial replacement. $0.18 per kWh is much higher than the average cost of $0.12 and one would generally charge up at night, when the cost is lower than average. If we use real representative examples, it costs $1.19 for the Volt to go a gallon's worth of 27.5 miles at $.12 per kWh of electricity.

 

If we use a less conservative example and replace a 20 mpg car and charge at night when electricity is $0.10 per kWh, that's only $0.72 per equivalent gallon.

[John Cuthber]

Really? I don't see any evidence that CO2 mitigation will experience productivity gains that will offset the large increases in energy costs that will occur with a switch away from petroleum for transportation.

 

 

 

I'm not seeing any major overhaul of economies outside the US. China and India are building coal fired plants at an incredible rate. The net change in CO2 production outside the US is barely noticeable. It would be hard to argue it is an overhaul.

 

 

 

 

 

I would like to see the calculations for this. If we compare similar performing vehicles I get the gasoline car at 42 miles per gallon and the electric car at .6 KW-hr/mile. Using Gas at $2.60 per gallon ( I paid $2.57 today) and electricity at $0.18 /KW-hr (I just looked at my bill), I get electric at about twice as expensive as gasoline.

 

OK, so based on those numbers most people in the UK would be delighted to use electricity. Petrol here is about £1.20 per litre that's about $1.90 per litre or $6.80 per us gallon.

As crude oil gets less common and more expensive you will end up with the state of affairs where electricity is cheaper.

There are other major problems with electric vehicles*, but the cost of the energy isn't a big one.

 

*( The cost of energy for heating the car in cold weather is a major one which nobody looks at)

[swansont]

 

*( The cost of energy for heating the car in cold weather is a major one which nobody looks at)

 

Yes, high efficiency does have the occasional downside.

[pioneer]

Risk analysis is C-level science. A rational relationship has to be nearly perfect. One bad data point may require a rational theory be revised. This tough standard is why it is A-level science. Empirical science tries to fit the best curve through the data. However, even if some data (exceptions) fail to touch the curve, the correlation can still stand. The standard is a little more forgiven than rational science. We can use fuzzy math to place the bad data within the margin of error. This is B-level science. Risk analysis type science uses the weakest standard. For example, eating peanut butter increases the risk that some will have an allergic reaction. Even if there is only 1 good data point out of 100 bad, a risk correlation can stand. This is why it is C-level science. It sort of tells us something which needs further study, but at a weaker standard than B-level.

 

If we applied the standards of C-level science to rational science that would be like forming a theory based on one data point, that fails to take into account the other 99. It would be called quack science and not even given the time of day since the 100% standard is in effect. Empirical would not allow you to pick one point to draw its curve through and ignore the trend of the other 99 data points. The empiricist would think you were an idiot if you presented that graph. But with C-level science, one is a hero among peers.

 

The reason C-level science appears to work is because of the fear. Once one is made irrational, C-level science will appear to work just fine. But if one does not get swept up in the fear, but retains cool reason, one can see this is just C-level science.

 

Let me give an example. The airport security standards of 6 months ago had a perfect record. So why the change? This was not because of A-level or B-level science, since the reasoning and correlation for the past was nearly perfect. But with C-level science and fear, we can alter reality to make one feel that perfect was not good enough.

 

People need to be able to label science as A,B,C so C-level science will be required to migrate toward B and A, before being taken seriously. In terms of the new airport security machines and tactics, I wonder who benefits by this irrationality; job security and money trail.

 

With global warming, the entire process is C-level, B-level and some A-level, with a little too much C-level fear induction. I tend to give more weight to A-level science, slightly less to B-level and very little weight to C-level and then draw my conclusions. But most people are irrationally under the impression all levels carry the same weight because it has the word science attached to it. If you weigh it that way, one could get a very different picture in terms of averages.

Edited November 28, 2010 by pioneer

[cypress]

OK, so based on those numbers most people in the UK would be delighted to use electricity. Petrol here is about £1.20 per litre that's about $1.90 per litre or $6.80 per us gallon.

 

When transportation or road (use) taxes are included as I have done in my US example, it helps make electricity appear more competitive as you have noted. I should have backed them out, since taxes would be applied to electricity for transportation use as well. Thanks for pointing out my error. When I back out use tax, I get electricity at about 130% more expensive.

 

As crude oil gets less common and more expensive you will end up with the state of affairs where electricity is cheaper.

There are other major problems with electric vehicles*, but the cost of the energy isn't a big one.

 

*( The cost of energy for heating the car in cold weather is a major one which nobody looks at)

 

In the future relative energy costs will change no doubt, but this discussion is about today.

 

The problem with "I don't see" is that it is appeal to ignorance. It's amazing that the efforts of e.g. Spain and Germany to install solar power has escaped your notice.

 

The efforts of two counties hardly rises to the description of "massive overhaul". I would describe it more as a drop in a bucket. When outside the US, the percentage of total energy generated by fossil fuel has dropped by 5-10%, I would call that the beginning of an overhaul.

 

That's the problem with pulling numbers out of dark places. The Chevy Volt is rated at .36 kWh/mi, and that's a first-generation device (i.e. we might expect improvement in cars over time). Right now the CAFE standard for cars is 27.5 mpg, and yet you chose something much higher; the 42 mpg car isn't the target for initial replacement. $0.18 per kWh is much higher than the average cost of $0.12 and one would generally charge up at night, when the cost is lower than average. If we use real representative examples, it costs $1.19 for the Volt to go a gallon's worth of 27.5 miles at $.12 per kWh of electricity.

 

If we use a less conservative example and replace a 20 mpg car and charge at night when electricity is $0.10 per kWh, that's only $0.72 per equivalent gallon.

 

When we use a automobile that is an apple to apples comparison its not so attractive. A Prius is technologically performance and space wise similar to the Chevy volt but costs about $15,000 less to purchase. At 48 mpg and and removing highway use tax we get $2.00 per gallon (If the government decides to subsidize electric cars by not adding road tax, that is fine, but it is an artificial savings). Using $0.12 per KW-hr and 360 W-hr/mile I get the Prius at 30% less expensive to operate not including the tremendous additional initial outlay and it is turtles all the way down for the electric car. Anybody wanting to replace their standard car now with something more efficient, should purchase a hybrid and continue to use gasoline as the primary power source.

Edited November 28, 2010 by cypress

[swansont]

I should have added to my previous point that because of the range of electric cars, they are best used for commuting, which means that the gasoline mileage to which they are compared should be even lower than the average.

 

When transportation or road (use) taxes are included as I have done in my US example, it helps make electricity appear more competitive as you have noted. I should have backed them out, since taxes would be applied to electricity for transportation use as well. Thanks for pointing out my error. When I back out use tax, I get electricity at about 130% more expensive.

 

Road use tax? Perhaps you are referring to gasoline tax? The average for that is less than $0.50 per gallon.

http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/upload/October_2010_gasoline_and_diesel_summary_pages.pdf (pdf)

 

130% more expensive? Show your work, please. If we either subtract that from the gas or add the price to the electricity, electricity still cheaper. $1.19 + 0.50 = $1.69

 

 

The efforts of two counties hardly rises to the description of "massive overhaul". I would describe it more as a drop in a bucket. When outside the US, the percentage of total energy generated by fossil fuel has dropped by 5-10%, I would call that the beginning of an overhaul.

 

 

To recharacterize my example of two countries as the only two is disingenuous. But wind and solar already account for more than 15% of Spain's electrical power and 8% in Germany. The fossil fuel infrastructure took many decades to install and expand (it has never really stopped), so they averaged less than 1% of the current infrastructure per year. In reality, it serves as a caution that delay is costly. Even disregarding AGW, oil won't last forever.

 

When we use a automobile that is an apple to apples comparison its not so attractive. A Prius is technologically performance and space wise similar to the Chevy volt but costs about $15,000 less to purchase. At 48 mpg and and removing highway use tax we get $2.00 per gallon (If the government decides to subsidize electric cars by not adding road tax, that is fine, but it is an artificial savings). Using $0.12 per KW-hr and 360 W-hr/mile I get the Prius at 30% less expensive to operate not including the tremendous additional initial outlay and it is turtles all the way down for the electric car. Anybody wanting to replace their standard car now with something more efficient, should purchase a hybrid and continue to use gasoline as the primary power source.

 

Highway use tax only applies to vehicles over 55,000 lbs.

http://www.irs.gov/instructions/i2290/ch01.html#d0e99

 

Again, perhaps you are referring to gasoline tax?

 

Plug-in electric cars will almost certainly drop in cost from the economies of scale. They're brand new.

[Marat]

Another problem which is little discussed is the cultural difficulty of getting people to adjust to an energy-saving economy. I grew up in the U.S. where energy was cheap and lavishly used and then spent some time living in Britain, Germany, and Austria where energy is expensive and strictly rationed in household economies, and I found the difference quite shocking. It seemed to me that by living in these energy-sparing economies I had to worry the entire day about energy use in a way I had never even contemplated while living in the U.S.

 

Unless Americans can be expected to adjust to a way of life in which they have to wear coats indoors during the winter to keep warm; prepare their baths by running ice cold water through a pipe over an open gas flame; set a timer on a water tank and on their radiators to draw heat during the cheap hours over night; read for as long as they can next to the window to avoid having to turn on the lights too early; and hold onto the radiator pipes with their bare hands in the university library to keep warm, then no amount of rational economic analysis is ever going to change public behavior to make serious energy conservation possible.

[cypress]

I should have added to my previous point that because of the range of electric cars, they are best used for commuting, which means that the gasoline mileage to which they are compared should be even lower than the average.

 

Gasoline hybrids like the comparable Prius are more efficient in city than the number I previously used. The Prius gets 51 mpg on city streets, so gasoline mileage basis should be raised further.

 

130% more expensive? Show your work, please. If we either subtract that from the gas or add the price to the electricity, electricity still cheaper. $1.19 + 0.50 = $1.69

 

Here is a handy online calculator. It gets results very similar to the ones I previously calculated.

 

To recharacterize my example of two countries as the only two is disingenuous. But wind and solar already account for more than 15% of Spain's electrical power and 8% in Germany. The fossil fuel infrastructure took many decades to install and expand (it has never really stopped), so they averaged less than 1% of the current infrastructure per year. In reality, it serves as a caution that delay is costly. Even disregarding AGW, oil won't last forever.

 

Obviously fossil fuel won't last forever, but that was not the point to which I objected. The time it takes to build an energy infrastructure was also not an objection of mine. You characterized energy production outside the US as undergoing a "massive overhaul" (your words), and then you offered Germany and Spain as your sole evidence. I did not mischaracterize your evidence I simply read it back to you.

 

Spain's solar initiative seems to be in crisis though so the story is mixed even for what I assume is your best example of countries investing themselves in alternative energy.

 

Plug-in electric cars will almost certainly drop in cost from the economies of scale. They're brand new.

 

But your claim was that for operating cars, electric power is cheaper now, but when all costs are considered, and full accounting of actual cost is made (regardless of who pays the cost), the statement is incorrect.

[swansont]

Gasoline hybrids like the comparable Prius are more efficient in city than the number I previously used. The Prius gets 51 mpg on city streets, so gasoline mileage basis should be raised further.

 

 

 

Here is a handy online calculator. It gets results very similar to the ones I previously calculated.

 

The Prius isn't the car one would target for replacement, which I thought would be blindingly obvious, but apparently isn't. It wasn't the example I gave, so thanks for moving the goalposts of the argument (yet again).

 

 

I can't get the numbers you cite, so I will ask, AGAIN, for you to show your work.

 

Obviously fossil fuel won't last forever, but that was not the point to which I objected. The time it takes to build an energy infrastructure was also not an objection of mine. You characterized energy production outside the US as undergoing a "massive overhaul" (your words), and then you offered Germany and Spain as your sole evidence. I did not mischaracterize your evidence I simply read it back to you.

 

It was "major overhaul," and they weren't my words — you used the term first. I quoted you when I used the term (which is why the phrase was in quotes)

 

I offered Spain and Germany because you didn't see "ANY major overhaul of economies outside the US" (emphasis added). Two is greater than zero. Giving even one example rebuts your claim. Now you change the conditions of the argument and complain that I only gave two! Moving those goalposts again.

 

 

Spain's solar initiative seems to be in crisis though so the story is mixed even for what I assume is your best example of countries investing themselves in alternative energy.

 

There's that bit about a "world economic crisis" in the article. But since you weren't aware of Spain's efforts in the first place, maybe you weren't aware of the economic conditions being in the crapper for the last few years. Still doesn't change the work they've already done.

 

But your claim was that for operating cars, electric power is cheaper now, but when all costs are considered, and full accounting of actual cost is made (regardless of who pays the cost), the statement is incorrect.

 

Yes, my claim was that electric power is cheaper than gasoline. I didn't claim that the TCO was less, and the fact the electric cars currently cost more doesn't change the fact that the power costs less. The statement is still correct. Those goalposts getting heavy yet?

[John Cuthber]

Mathematically, subtracting the tax(es) will make a difference to the relative costs.

Who cares?

It's not as if I can ask the filling station to subtract the tax for me.

 

In the here and now I would pay near 7 dollars a gallon for petrol and about 22 cents per KWh for electricity.

Feel free to make assumptions about my mileage, the depreciation, whether I'd drive a 4 by 4 gas guzzler or a moped.

(I don't drive so it's not my problem)

[cypress]

The Prius isn't the car one would target for replacement, which I thought would be blindingly obvious, but apparently isn't. It wasn't the example I gave, so thanks for moving the goalposts of the argument (yet again).

 

 

I can't get the numbers you cite, so I will ask, AGAIN, for you to show your work.

 

You indicated the cost of operating an electric car now is lower than a gasoline car, not the group of the less efficient gasoline cars. The Prius is the most comparable gasoline car to the Volt. I have not move the goal post, but I am quite certain you have. Use the calculator it returns results that are very similar to mine. Use 48-51 mpg $2.00 gas .36 KW-hr/mi $0.12 KW-hr. Adjust the operating costs to be more realistic. leave the efficiencies as is or move them slightly lower to be more realistic.

 

It was "major overhaul," and they weren't my words — you used the term first. I quoted you when I used the term (which is why the phrase was in quotes)

 

I offered Spain and Germany because you didn't see "ANY major overhaul of economies outside the US" (emphasis added). Two is greater than zero. Giving even one example rebuts your claim. Now you change the conditions of the argument and complain that I only gave two! Moving those goalposts again.

 

If one consults my entire paragraph so my words are in context, it is clearer that I was addressing the entire energy market outside the US. Two countries is not a cross section of the energy market outside the US. I have not deviated from that intended meaning.

 

Yes, my claim was that electric power is cheaper than gasoline. I didn't claim that the TCO was less, and the fact the electric cars currently cost more doesn't change the fact that the power costs less. The statement is still correct. Those goalposts getting heavy yet?

 

You said, "Electricity is cheaper than gasoline for operating cars, for example". In context, operating cars is a significant modifier. Operating cars with electricity as the primary source is cheaper than operating cars with gasoline is actually a more reasonable way to interpret your words.

Edited November 30, 2010 by cypress

[swansont]

You indicated the cost of operating an electric car now is lower than a gasoline car, not the group of the less efficient gasoline cars. The Prius is the most comparable gasoline car to the Volt. I have not move the goal post, but I am quite certain you have. Use the calculator it returns results that are very similar to mine. Use 48-51 mpg $2.00 gas .36 KW-hr/mi $0.12 KW-hr. Adjust the operating costs to be more realistic. leave the efficiencies as is or move them slightly lower to be more realistic.

 

So it's horrible when you think that I've changed the context of your claims, but it's OK to do it to mine? I thought it was clear I was talking about gasoline used in internal combustion engines as propulsion. Not the bridging technology of hybrids. New, efficient technology replacing old, inefficient technology (which BTW, you claim doesn't exist).

 

If one consults my entire paragraph so my words are in context, it is clearer that I was addressing the entire energy market outside the US. Two countries is not a cross section of the energy market outside the US. I have not deviated from that intended meaning.

 

If one consults your entire paragraph one would see that you used just two countries as support for your argument.

 

You said, "Electricity is cheaper than gasoline for operating cars, for example". In context, operating cars is a significant modifier. Operating cars with electricity as the primary source is cheaper than operating cars with gasoline is actually a more reasonable way to interpret your words.

 

Yes, operating. Not buying. I never claimed or implied that buying an electric car is currently cheaper. I did that because you claimed that you had "not seen a rational plan that does not include significant increases in energy cost." Since you were talking only about energy costs, I talked about energy costs. Then, once the counterexample proved your claim wrong (fallacious though it was), you shifted the argument.

 

I think I'm done here. I've had my fill of dishonest argument from you, cypress.

[Marat]

Another problem with converting the society to an energy-efficient system is that nearly the entire capital infrastructure of North America is built for 'car culture,' with huge commuting distances from one place to another even within single cities, to say nothing of urban sprawl and suburban expansion. The huge and originally unnecessary energy cost to transport people for shopping, work, and socializing across the huge distances we have foolishly built into our urban and suburban spaces cannot be done away with at this point without tearing down a hundred trillion dollars worth of infrastructure and reconstructing it in more compact form, which would be prohibitively expensive. Perhaps for this reason alone, when fossil fuels become hugely expensive in the future, Europe with its relatively compact urban areas will become much more prosperous than North America, which will be forever tied to a system of massive energy waste to get from one isolated strip mall to the next.

[Pangloss]

Another problem with converting the society to an energy-efficient system is that nearly the entire capital infrastructure of North America is built for 'car culture,' with huge commuting distances from one place to another even within single cities, to say nothing of urban sprawl and suburban expansion. The huge and originally unnecessary energy cost to transport people for shopping, work, and socializing across the huge distances we have foolishly built into our urban and suburban spaces cannot be done away with at this point without tearing down a hundred trillion dollars worth of infrastructure and reconstructing it in more compact form, which would be prohibitively expensive. Perhaps for this reason alone, when fossil fuels become hugely expensive in the future, Europe with its relatively compact urban areas will become much more prosperous than North America, which will be forever tied to a system of massive energy waste to get from one isolated strip mall to the next.

 

It's not unnecessary at all, it's what people want. They enjoy the space and we have it to spare. Suburban sprawl is actually stunningly efficient if you look at it that way. And there's no particular reason why we should discard it.

 

If we had transportation running off the electrical grid, and the grid wasn't consuming fossil fuels, then what problem would we actually have? Nuclear waste disposal? That's an almost-trivial local problem. Build a couple hundred nuclear plants and I'd still be in more danger from teens with car keys and smart phones.

 

And I'm not convinced we even have to completely eliminate fossil fuel consumption -- the problem is rate of consumption, not consumption itself. There's a finite amount of hydrogen in the universe too, but insisting that we all live in hovels and caves until we work out a way not to destroy any finite resource ever is a waste of an entire (and perfectly good) civilization.

[Marat]

But even making batteries for electric cars or generating electricity to store and use in electric cars represents an energy cost, as is also true of maintaining road surfaces, replacing tires, repairing cars, etc. That all amounts to a lot of money to spend just to create a little urban sprawl so it can take me three hours to drive from my home to my work, two hours to drive from my home to where I shop, and force me to tie up resources in buying, maintaining, and replacing a car to access places my great grandfather used to reach easily and cheaply by foot or trolley.

[Pangloss]

But even making batteries for electric cars or generating electricity to store and use in electric cars represents an energy cost, as is also true of maintaining road surfaces, replacing tires, repairing cars, etc. That all amounts to a lot of money to spend just to create a little urban sprawl so it can take me three hours to drive from my home to my work, two hours to drive from my home to where I shop, and force me to tie up resources in buying, maintaining, and replacing a car to access places my great grandfather used to reach easily and cheaply by foot or trolley.

 

There's no law saying you have to live in the suburbs. If you don't like the commute, live in town. As for everyone else's preferences, if it's not your money, and it's not hurting you (two assumptions I agree are not entirely true at the present time), then how is it your place to say how other people live?

[Marat]

I am looking at the problem from a population-perspective. So if (say) we have already built 70% of our housing stock at a great distance from where activities need to be performed, then when energy costs soar we are either going to have to accept the massive cost of lost infrastructure involved in abandoning housing, shopping centers, and work places which can only be reached by long drives, or we are going to have to continue the massive waste of a now very expensive energy resource in expending huge amounts of fuel just to traverse the dispersions unnecessarily created by an earlier generation of town planners who never dreamt that energy would one day be scarce.