"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking" - JMK
- Stephen Walt of Foreign Policy reviews the news of vast mineral deposits in Afghanistan with some needed skepticism. One thing he doesn't mention, of course, is the "resource curse" phenomenon which it seems like Afghanistan is ripe for. That having been said, as Walt suggests, there's no good reason to believe the estimates of the deposits are wrong. One thing I'd highlight especially is the lithium, which is very important for a variety of clean energy technologies that rely on batteries. It would just be nice if we could get the stuff out of the ground without imperialism or corrupt government. Time will tell, but I'm guessing we'll see some of both.
- Obama is going to speak to probably the biggest negative externality facing us as a species. Marc Ambinder anticipates the contours of his address.
- A Washington Post article on college educated students going into the trades. I think Jefferson would have approved of the featured experience: a guy that learned theology and French at a university and worked as an electrician.
- "Higgs boson" may need to be amended to read "Higgs bosons"
- The Green Revolution quite possibly delayed the onset of climate change. It's important to remember that modernization isn't the enemy - it's the way out of a lot of our problems. It does create a few of it's own but it has a striking ability to solve the problems it creates.
- Some think that there is considerably more water on the Moon than we had previously thought. I may have to revise my Moon-skepticism. It's still not an adequate place for settlement, but we may be able to have substantial operations there.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
"One thing I'd highlight especially is the lithium, which is very important for a variety of clean energy technologies that rely on batteries."
ReplyDeleteWhat is exactly "clean" about mining lithium again? Like "organic" and other such words, I wish people would stop the rather stupid phrase "clean energy."
"Obama is going to speak to probably the biggest negative externality facing us as a species."
ReplyDeleteAs if Obama has anything in his quiver to actually deal with it. The United States is merely a single country on this issue; we need to keep reminding ourselves of this fact.
The mining? Well that depends on how you mine it and it depends on what you mean by "clean". Usually when we're talking about energy we're refering to carbon footprint when we talk about "clean", in which case I'm not aware of any particularly "dirty" element to lithium mining. But we were talking about clean energy - and by clean energy I'm refering to things like solar and wind which have a low carbon footprint but are still quite expensive and reliant on battery storage. This is opposed to things like biofuels, oil, and coal (although there's clean coal technology as well).
ReplyDeleteAre you really not aware of this terminology?
"Usually when we're talking about energy we're refering to carbon footprint when we talk about "clean", in which case I'm not aware of any particularly "dirty" element to lithium mining."
ReplyDeleteSo, there are these large machines that are used to mine the lithium; they run on petroleum products. Those machines have a very significant carbon footprints. As does the means to transport, process, etc. the lithium.
"...and by clean energy I'm refering to things like solar and wind which have a low carbon footprint but are still quite expensive and reliant on battery storage."
They only have a low carbon footprint if the only thing you consider is there normal day to day operations minus repairs and those sorts of things; never mind that they are all basically 1% solutions to problems like "energy dependence" that don't actually exist. Their actual construction, etc. all require tremendous amounts of fossil fuel inputs. The propaganda and agitprop of the Obama administration and environmental votaries never discusses those issues of course.
"Are you really not aware of this terminology? "
I am aware of it (see obvious rhetorical query above); it is a stupid, vacuous term.
I'm not sure what you're getting at, Xenophon? You seem to be saying that because big machines currently use fossil fuels, we can't pursue alternative energy in a consistent way? Of course big machines mine lithium. So? The carbon footprint attributable to those machines is negligible relative to the footprint that will be removed if it puts out a fleet of electric cars that run on nuclear energy. Who cares about the carbon output of some mines?
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be thinking that if we're not living like cavemen we're not pursuing activities that are not conscious of environmental impacts.
You're inappropriately thinking in extremes here. Who is proposing stopping the use of fossil fuels? Fossil fuels are important and they're here - we might as well use them. But we can't be dumb about how we use them. Using them so that we can all drive SUVs to the grocery store that's five blocks away is dumb. Using them so we can mine uranium and lithium and built windmills, solar arrays, and even Dyson spheres is smart.
You're attacking some straw man that hides his head in a whole at the sight of fossil fuels. That straw man doesn't exist, Xenophon.
RE: "The propaganda and agitprop of the Obama administration and environmental votaries never discusses those issues of course."
These issues are discussed all the time - are you kidding? This is a tension that comes up all the time.
*that ARE cosncious
ReplyDelete"You seem to be saying that because big machines currently use fossil fuels, we can't pursue alternative energy in a consistent way?"
ReplyDeleteI'm suggesting that the claims about "alternative energy" are a crock of shit.
"The carbon footprint attributable to those machines is negligible relative to the footprint that will be removed if it puts out a fleet of electric cars that run on nuclear energy."
Ahhh, ok, you aren't going to have fleets of electric cars running off power derived from nuclear energy. This is fantasy land ignoring basic physics. Electric cars are a technological dead end. As are biofuels, etc.
"You're inappropriately thinking in extremes here."
All these other solutions are 1% solutions largely designed to tackle problems that don't actually exist (see the whole "OMFG, energy dependence" crap you see you see constantly out of the Obama administration). There is nothing extreme about that entirely rational, science-based viewpoint.
"Who is proposing stopping the use of fossil fuels?"
The Obama administration. Do you follow these policy discussions at all? Look at the policy papers they publish on the subject. Their agenda is very clear. The fact that they want to plan the transportation alternatives of farmers for goodness sakes should tell you something about the nature of their agenda.
"These issues are discussed all the time - are you kidding? This is a tension that comes up all the time."
I challenge you to find one statement by the Obama administration that discusses this issue in that way. That is not how the political class which promotes this snake oil thinks about this this issue. So come on, one statement.
By the way, I can't wait for people to start talking about need to deliver us from the horrors and evils of "foreign uranium." Once one thinks of it that way it becomes clear that most of what drives the "energy policy" debate is nativism and anti-foreign bias.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I have lot to do today, but I would like you to think about something: what are the volumetric energy densities of the following (obviously there is a units issue, but just ignore it because it isn't that important) - a lithium ion battery, a lignite briquette, a gallon of gas and 1L of compressed natural gas and then tell me how you are going to have millions of battery powered cars running off nuclear power plant generated electricity.
RE: "Electric cars are a technological dead end"
ReplyDeleteYa, just like the telephone, locomotives, airplanes, and doubling crop yields per acre.
Never underestimate what the market and the human mind can accomplish, Xenophon. I'm a little busy right now - I may revisit the rest of this.
Except of course, "the market" isn't the motive force behind electric cars. Electric cars are the preferred outcome of some of the political class; but that isn't "the market."
ReplyDeleteBTW, electric cars have been the next paradigm shift in transport for roughly a hundred years now (since nearly the inception of the use of the internal combustion engine for transport). While past performance is not an absolute predictor of future performance, that ought to tell us something about the nature of the issue.
Xenophon -
ReplyDeleteEnergy density is range concern, not a feasibility concern. And any range issues can be ameliorated by the way that the infrastructure for recharging or switching batteries is arranged.
You're also thinking about batteries that we have so far. We've had no incentive to innovate because we haven't had any reason to innovate. The batteries from the future are going to be better - it stands to reason, not to mention basic economics.
RE: "Except of course, "the market" isn't the motive force behind electric cars. Electric cars are the preferred outcome of some of the political class; but that isn't "the market.""
ReplyDeleteWhich is exactly what you would expect in the case of an externality. But given the rectification of the distortion of the property rights regime by government action (ie - given the policies designed to addressed the externality), the market is what produces and innovates on the cars. I repeat - don't underestimate the market and the human mind. The political class isn't designing these things - free individuals are.
As for the history of electric cars... don't you think it's worth thinking about why it hasn't succeeded in the past. Largely it's infrastructure problems (start up costs) and market distortions (negative externalities). The market didn't reject the electric car - market failures did, not to mention insider interests.
"We've had no incentive to innovate because we haven't had any reason to innovate."
ReplyDeleteNon-sense; batteries are much better than they were a hundred years ago. There has been plenty of innovation in this area. They still are a poor relation to even LNG or compressed natural gas, much less gasoline.
"The batteries from the future are going to be better..."
And they still will not come close to the volumetric energy density of a gallon of gasoline. You can't pretend your way around facts like that. There are very good reasons that have nothing to do with government or property rights why oil, coal and natural gas are the preferred options; your basic acolyte of the green movement fails to appreciate this time and time again. They are from the standpoint of thermodynamics far superior sources of energy storage, etc., and they will remain so. The thing that will replace them in any significant way will not be batteries or environmentally destructive bio-fuels (think about the amount of water needed to produce such for an example of such environmental problems); it is going to be something that no one (or at least very few people) is even thinking about right now - certainly not some American President who hasn't thought about physics, etc. since his freshman year in college.
"But given the rectification of the distortion of the property rights regime by government action (ie - given the policies designed to addressed the externality), the market is what produces and innovates on the cars."
Yes, the government is going plan our way into the energy future of tomorrow - and birds will sing and flowers will bloom. That has been the dream of central planners for a while now; not very likely. Instead what we got was natural gas and oil shortages in the 1970s as the result of such planning, price control schemes, etc. The American government has a very poor record of this sort of thing going back at least to the Connolly Hot Oil Act of 1935.
Anyway, to illustrate the sort of unreality the Obama administration/supporters in Congress is peddling let's note what it wants to do - it wants to cut energy use to the level we used in roughly the 1910s by 2050. Not withstanding the Jevon's paradox and like issues, this is just obviously beyond stupidity.
RE: "Non-sense; batteries are much better than they were a hundred years ago. There has been plenty of innovation in this area."
ReplyDeleteJesus - I have to spoon-feed everything here, don't I.
Yes, batteries are better than they were one hundred years ago. Batteries to drive cars are bad because we haven't had cars that drive on batteries, and hence no incentive to improve the sort of batteries that drive cars - but they will improve too. Is that clearer?
I'm busy for the moment - I'll read the rest later.
RE: "And they still will not come close to the volumetric energy density of a gallon of gasoline. You can't pretend your way around facts like that."
ReplyDeleteOK... so I read one more sentence.
This is a RANGE concern, not a FEASIBILITY concern, Xenophon. The reduced energy density of batteries means they won't be able to go as far or as fast. All you need is a different infrastructure. The distribution of recharging or battery switching stations will look different from the distribution of gas stations. No big deal.
From an energy EFFICIENCY standpoint they're fine. From an energy DENSITY standpoint they're worse, but that's inconsequential for their feasibility.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteThe point is that there has been plenty of incentive to make batteries much better than they were, in fact plenty of incentive to make them storage devices as useful as carrying around energy in the form of a tank of gas (think of the personal transport and marine applications of such technology) and there has been plenty of private funds spent on that (look at the Japanese auto manufacturers for an example). It just has not panned out and there is no reason to think that they will pan out.
In other words, this statement is simply wrong:
"We've had no incentive to innovate because we haven't had any reason to innovate."
The cost advantage of gasoline removes a significant amount of the incentive to innovate for batteries that big. Again, if I realized you would take "no incentive to innovate" so literally, I would have used more specific language - I suppose that's my mistake. But the profits available in marine applications are not going to provide an incentive to develop batteries for a fleet of cars when cars currently run on gasoline.
ReplyDeleteIt is entirely my fault for making you think I was saying there was exactly zero incentive and exactly zero work on it. I thought it was obvious that wasn't what I was saying.
But this is all besides the point - the energy density of a battery is a RANGE issue, not a FEASIBILITY issue. It's a point you've failed to remark on several times now.
"This is a RANGE concern, not a FEASIBILITY concern, Xenophon."
ReplyDeleteActually, the range concern is one side of a two headed coin. Even from merely a range perspective the energy density advantages swamp what electric cars do today and will do tomorrow.
"All you need is a different infrastructure."
Even changes in infrastructure would not help; even if the Obama administration gets its way and we all live like people in Greenwich Village do that isn't going to decrease energy consumption, it will simply shift it along a spectrum of the three major fossil fuels (indeed, I'd suspect an up tick in coal fired electricity generation). What about nuclear power you say? Nuclear power around the world exists largely as a state industry - and has proved to be unstable as a result of that. You basically have to have a Jacobin centralized state like France to get to the sorts of per capita production seen in France.
"But the profits available in marine applications are not going to provide an incentive to develop batteries for a fleet of cars when cars currently run on gasoline."
Actually, in the HOT that is generally how things work out. Ex. Steam engines were originally designed for capital intensive coal mining projects and they rapidly were applied to other areas of industry.
There is - in other words - plenty of incentive for early adopters to create bad ass batteries that work as well as gasoline does and for that innovation to them spread out through the rest of the economy. But that has not come to being for some fairly sound reasons.
1. Who is proposing we live like they do in Greenwich Village? Certainly not me.
ReplyDelete2. Yes - and there's no good reason not to use the coal we have. And we're not going to stop using it. That's why clean coal technology is so important. There is no point in abandoning a resource we have in abundance.
3. I don't know much about the nuclear power industry, but I'm guessing the state role is dictated by two concerns: (1.) public safety, and (2.) start up costs. Neither of those especially bother me as a role for the state, although obviously I'd like to see the market do it. If it bothers you, that's another issue entirely but it's not my primary concern.
4. RE: "Actually, in the HOT that is generally how things work out. Ex. Steam engines were originally designed for capital intensive coal mining projects and they rapidly were applied to other areas of industry." What does this have to do with what I said? I never said that technologies that start out as an innovation in one industry don't move and adapt to other industries did I? I didn't think I did. If you'd stop inventing claims you attribute to me, these conversations would be a lot shorter.
RE: "plenty of incentive"
That's hopelessly vague.
I will just conclude by saying this; barring some paradigmatic change we are going to be using with ever greater intensity fossil fuels for the next hundred years at least. These 1% solutions around the margins will do nothing to make that situation different. I don't think of this as a bad thing; whatever negative externalities are a result of such will be far outweighed by the increase in human prosperity over that period.
ReplyDelete"Who is proposing we live like they do in Greenwich Village? Certainly not me."
ReplyDeleteThe Obama administration; like I wrote.
"That's why clean coal technology is so important."
Another really dumb term. How you going to deal with the slag, radionuclides, etc. as a result of this "clean coal?" Not to mention the massive environmental damage that results from hilltop mining and the like. Really, the only thing that might be clean about it would be its carbon footprint; but then again, I am rather skeptical about this very, very costly technology (whether it is sequestered in the round or the ocean or in some sort of product - cement for example).
"...but I'm guessing the state role is dictated by two concerns: (1.) public safety, and (2.) start up costs."
No, the state role is largely the result of concerns about "energy security" and the like. Basically the sort of autarky that under girds most energy policy debates.
(4) This is what you wrote:
"But the profits available in marine applications are not going to provide an incentive to develop batteries for a fleet of cars when cars currently run on gasoline."
It doesn't matter what the profits applications are like for industries outside those applications; what matters is that you get an early adopter and then technology spreads out from there. If you read your sentence you'll see why it isn't much of an argument against what I have stated.
"That's hopelessly vague."
I've already given you two areas where if we were going to see the technology we were going to see it.
Anyway, I really must shove off.