[FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron Symmetry

[Robert Howard]

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: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] 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