Skip to main content

View Diary: Global Warming - Creating the Conditions for a Cronkite Moment - Part 2: This is solvable (91 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Okay ... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    James Wells, SolarMom, DawnN

    Obviously, I agree ...

    A challenge / issue: the 2% / 4% turnover doesn't occur in a perfect distribution across the country at any time.  There are areas with 100+ year generation systems (e.g., traditional hydro) and there are areas with rapid growth. And, there are areas which have to replace 1 of 3 generating plants. Etc ... Thus, the 'hit' for extra capital investment costs will come fell swoop on one place that is doing its once in 20 years major investment.  Something to consider.

    Intersting angle / wording / etc ...

    Thanks.

    Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

    by A Siegel on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 03:58:35 PM PST

    •  It's a great point (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      A Siegel

      Perhaps it's too much to ask that people would be willing to pay some more in order to reduce all kinds of pollution related illnesses, even setting aside global warming and other cabon pollution effects.

      But, on the scale of things I would accept the challenge of mitigating local cost increases in some areas.

      I think this plan would only work in an environment of continued cost decreases for renewables, shrinking the cost gap and any related issues.

      We shall not participate in our own destruction.

      by James Wells on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 04:26:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  A version of this is ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        James Wells

        Feed-In-Tariff, which addresses the issue another way: to help foster lowering clean energy prices.

        Note that your discussion doesn't address the best, near-term clean energy path: efficiency (and, well, conservation).  These are reasons to price in pollution (and other 'externality') costs on existing generation systems.

        Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

        by A Siegel on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 05:12:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Totally concur with all, the reason that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          A Siegel

          I focused on future capital investment is because I think it's the decision point that has the greatest potential for long term improvements at the lowest current cost.

          Bottom line is: Determining the most cost-effective way to entirely stop building combustion power sources.

          As for current sources, I would certainly be willing to pay more (and do, actually) to accelerate deployment of renewables, but am really wary of the hostage crisis.  Steep energy cost increases across the board not only would impact the least wealthy, but also have the potential for a big backfire along the lines of: suffering => backlash => repeal of everything even non-contentious conservation measures.

          I see step one (with regard to stationary energy sources) as stopping all new combustion deployment.  That can be followed by progressively looking at the worst offenders in existing sources, very much the way the New Source Performance Standards for air pollutant sources were followed by MACT standards.

          There is absolutely nothing in that approach that detracts from concurrent conservation and efficiency measures.

          We shall not participate in our own destruction.

          by James Wells on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 05:39:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site