Monckton's vision of the future: an IPCC boot stamping on a human face forever

Are our elected leaders permitted to put a price on carbon?
Posted by: MAB | July 13, 2009 11:11 PM

Of course they are. But in the spirit of "Yes, Minister" can I say, "A very, very courageous move."

A bit of courage, that's doable.

Work around the Humphrys, that's doable.

Perhaps it would be "courageous" to [delay action?](http://www.pewglobalwarming.org/Support_For_Climate_Action.html) Given the strong evidence and risks that are unsterstood [by the public.](http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2009/05/us_climate_poll_the_dif…) Including the views of people [around the globe.](http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/btenvironmentra/329.php).

A bit of courage, that's doable.
Work around the Humphrys, that's doable.
Perhaps it would be "courageous" to delay action? Given the strong evidence and risks that are unsterstood by the public. Including the views of people around the globe..
Posted by: MAB | July 14, 2009 3:21 AM

That's fine! Go ahead! As long as you realise that at this stage of the development of alternative energy technology, any effective reduction in CO2 emissions that will be significant enough to make a difference (assuming that anthropogenic emissons really are a major contributor to climate change, as the IPCC claims) will involve a real cut in your wages, ie. a real cut in your material prosperity.

Ray, that depends on what we count.

I don't even know why I am writing in this god-awful blogsite but someone needs to point out to all of you what a nasty bunch of eco-nazis you all are. All I can say is forget saving the environment, who the hell is going to save the world from all you moronic, sanctimonious, morally self-righteous nazi losers who have their heads so far up their proverbial they can't see straight, let alone reason coherently. Go Ray! Don't let the bastards grind you down!

Ray, that depends on what we count.
Posted by: mab | July 14, 2009 5:55 AM

I'm counting energy units. For example, my impression is that those who opt to install solar voltaic panels on their roof end up paying more for their electricity consumption, even taking government subsidies into consideration. If they are not paying more, it's probably because they are making great sacrifices in their electricity consumption, by running a gas fridge, by not having an air-conditioner, by not having a stove and being careful they don't use too many devices at the same time such as boiling water for coffee whilst watching plasma TV.

I'm taking into consideration here the total construction costs of a solar voltaic system, including the cost of batteries and replacing batteries every few years. Such devices have an embedded energy cost before one has even started using them. It's like paying thousands of dollars in advance for one's power requirements, perhaps even 50 years worth of power consumption in advance.

When you also take into consideration the lost interest on such money which otherwise could be sitting in an investment account, the inevitable cost of maintenance and repairs during the lifetime of the solar panels, inverters and batteries, and the government subsidies which are paid for by everyone else, one ends up having used very expensive electricity and probably having suffered considerable inconvenience in the process.

Ray writes:
>...any effective reduction in CO2 emissions that will be significant enough to make a difference ... will involve a real cut in your wages, ie. a real cut in your material prosperity.

Ray, that depends on how we measure wealth and prosperity.

Even counting crude dollars (not an adequate measure) best estimates show that failing to cut CO2e will cost more than the costs of mitigation.

PMM:

> god-awful

> nasty bunch of eco-nazis

> moronic, sanctimonious, morally self-righteous nazi losers

> bastards

Thanks for your coherent, well-argued rebuttal!

There's nothing like a good argument.

And that WAS nothing like a good argument...

I guess Ray is against patents, copyrights and trademarks too, then.

They are, after all, infringements on the Free Market.

The international currency should not exist either, according to Ray, since that is an infringement of the Free Market. Sell your goods in Euros! (though that did get Iraq invaded and put Venezuela (!!!) on the "axis of evil" after it...).

I guess he's fighting away to get the no-bid contracts to Haliburton removed and put for tender, like the Right Upstanding Free Market person he is.

Isn't he?

Ray:

"For example, my impression is that those who opt to install solar voltaic panels on their roof end up paying more for their electricity consumption, even taking government subsidies into consideration."

Your impression is wrong. I've done the numbers for our house - if we install PV panels, borrowing the money, with a grid tie and at PGE's current rates for purchasing excess electricity during the day when we will make more than we can use, and at their rates for supplying us when we use more than the panels, and including the cost of debt service - we start saving money from day one. Once the debtis retired, the difference is large.

The only reason we haven't done it, is that the economic climate here is not conducive to borrowing - meaning, the bansk arent lending to nearly anyone for nearly anything - and we don't have the capital available.

If you have grid electricity available, there is no reason on earth to install batteries. the Grid become your storage - you put excess generation into the grid, and you draw from the grid when yo need more than your panels supply. There is no inconvenience at all - the system is transparent, yo still flick the same switches you always did, and get the same response o always did.

Here in California, and through out the American west and the heat belt, peak energy consumption is on summer afternoons. Peak energy production is in the summer. Adding my own PV capacity which tracks closely to grid demand, is a net good for the entire grid.

Ray, - sometimes it is worth learning about a thing before you make statements about the thing.

> Ray, - sometimes it is worth learning about a thing before you make statements about the thing.

> Posted by: Lee

Just don't expect Ray to learn *that*.

Your impression is wrong. I've done the numbers for our house - if we install PV panels, borrowing the money, with a grid tie and at PGE's current rates for purchasing excess electricity during the day when we will make more than we can use, and at their rates for supplying us when we use more than the panels, and including the cost of debt service - we start saving money from day one. Once the debtis retired, the difference is large.
The only reason we haven't done it, is that the economic climate here is not conducive to borrowing - meaning, the bansk arent lending to nearly anyone for nearly anything - and we don't have the capital available.
Ray, - sometimes it is worth learning about a thing before you make statements about the thing.
Posted by: Lee | July 14, 2009 1:48 PM

Sounds like another way of saying I'm right. I'm skeptical of your calculations. My impression is, you never, ever start saving money from day one without drastically changing your electricity consumption habits, especially if you borrow money to install the thing. It's all a big con. You pay through the nose for the privilege of deluding yourself that you are acting responsibly with regard to the environment.

I know someone in Australia who has such a system and is very proud of it. However, without a battery storage system, you are very limited regarding the number and type of devices you can operate simultaneously. Electric fridges are out, for example.

The rebates help suck you in and give you the impression that these alternative energy sources are almost as cheap as conventional electricity, if you don't take all the costs into consideration, including the interest on any loans you take out, including on-going maintenance costs and including the rebate which someone has to pay for. There's no free lunch.

If you pay for these devices with your own savings, say $4,000 for a solar water heater, in the first year you are paying about $200 in lost interest (in Australia), even at today's low interest rates. Imagine if you set aside that $4,000 in a savings account solely for the purpose of paying that portion of your electricity bill that is used only for the heating of water, which is roughly 25% of your bill, say. How long do you think that $4,000 would last, with interest accummulating each year? Add to that $4,000 the occasional maintence and inspection cost and the costs of operating the booster when the sun doesn't shine, and you're probably looking at $5,000 or more, during the lifetime of the device.

Unless you have a large family with teenage daughters who like to luxuriate in excessive quantities of hot water when taking a shower, solar water heaters are not the most efficient way of heating water.

If you are prepared to drastically change your consumption habits and willing to suffer any inconvenience that flows from doing that, then you should compare the solar energy costs with the costs of conventional electricity used in the same way. That is, no electric fridge, no stove, and using the cheapest method of heating your water, which is the gas or electric instantaneous water heater.

I have an electric instantaneous hot water heater installed for my shower. The elctricity automatically switches on when the tap is turned on, and switches off when the tap is turned off.

I took the trouble to time myself taking a shower. So many seconds for the water to heat up through the cold pipes. So many seconds to thoroughly wet myself before soaping myself. So many seconds to rinse myself.

I then calculated the total cost of electricity used for one shower, multiplied by 365, and it came to a grand total of $9. Electricity costs have risen since I did that calculation. It would probably now be $12 per annum, which is still very economical. Total annual electricity bill for 4 people in a household, each taking one shower per day, can be as little as A$48.

Such a system also encourages one to save water. The more water you save taking a shower, the more electricity you save, and vice versa.

If you want to act responsibly regarding the environment, this is one way to go.

PMM doesn't know why he's "even writing in this god-awful blogsite". We know though PMMM - you just dropped by to share the love! Keep it up and you'll gain some insight for yourself.

Ray: could you redo your sums on energy costs where electricity and fuel bills increase due to actions taken to mitigate global warming, but making the novel assumption that those increased energy expenses would be offset by an equivalent reduction in income taxes? Are you better or worse off economically?

If this much complexity in the modelling becomes too tricky what would be wrong with deferring to professional economists on the subject? The world is full of economists, smart ones, who don't share your pessimistic opinion.

Ray, instantaneous electric [costs more]( http://www.sedo.wa.gov.au/pages/emissions.asp
) than electric storage off peak. And you are paying more than 3 times more than solar with electric boost. If you want to cut down your shower time thatâs great!

An average family will [spend $450/year]( http://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/resources/documents/SHW_Factsheet_…) on electricity for hot water. The same hotwater costs only $150 using solar with electric boost.
I cans spend [less than $3,000]( http://www.energymatters.com.au/hills-22-evacuated-tubes-retrofit-kit-p…) on a wiz-bang retrofit evacuated tube system (or subtract the cost of an alternative new non-solar hot-water heater gives you similar result) and get a payback period of less than 10 years at current prices. But the solar component will last 30 years. This gives you savings of $6,000 (200% return on investment) before we even consider the rising costs of fuel.

Ray: could you redo your sums on energy costs where electricity and fuel bills increase due to actions taken to mitigate global warming, but making the novel assumption that those increased energy expenses would be offset by an equivalent reduction in income taxes? Are you better or worse off economically?
If this much complexity in the modelling becomes too tricky what would be wrong with deferring to professional economists on the subject? The world is full of economists, smart ones, who don't share your pessimistic opinion.
Posted by: jemima | July 14, 2009 10:27 PM

The world is full of people with all sorts of opinions and ideologies. I don't subscribe to anything that doesn't make sense at a fundamental level. If an economist wishes to express his views on this blog, then let him do so. I can't change my opinion because of hearsay that certain economists, whom I don't know, may may not share my pessimism.

Pessimists tend to be realists. I don't see how more accurate and realistic I can be than calculating how much electricity I consume when taking a shower.

The basic equation here is, material prosperity is determined by (1) the efficiency with which we produce energy, (2) the efficiency with which we use that energy, and (3) the ways in which we use that energy.

There is huge scope for reducing our carbon footprint by changing the ways in which we use energy. But changing the ways in which we use energy involves changing human behaviour, a very steep uphill battle.

I would be inclined to think that the Communist party of China would be more suited to such a task. They'll stand for no nonsense. If overpopulation is a problem, then make it illegal to have more than one child.

Is this the sort of world you want?

Ray writes:
>"I don't subscribe to anything that doesn't make sense at a fundamental level."

So Ray times a shower and makes some calcuation which he reckons shows that solar hotwater is uneconomic. It just makes sense of a fundamental level, [what more do you need](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/06/moncktons_vision_of_the_future…)?

The accountants will be pissed that I didn't calculate the PV and FV with discount rates. But I'm too tired and fuel scarcity leading to price rises will counter much of(if not exceed)this bias.

Ray, governments tax and spend as it is. I'd prefer to see them raise more by taxing "bads" like fossil fuel consumption, so that taxes could be reduced by that amount on good things like people's incomes. The money you saved on your income tax you might then choose to waste on petrol, as it'd still be a free country, while I could choose to spend my extra income on something of greater worth to me.

. My impression is, you never, ever start saving money from day one without drastically changing your electricity consumption habits, especially if you borrow money to install the thing. It's all a big con. You pay through the nose for the privilege of deluding yourself that you are acting responsibly with regard to the environment.

your impression is NOT based on facts. actually your "impression" is simply wrong.

but don t learn about the facts. you have your "impression". you also have the "impression" that an electric instantaneous hot water heater is a economically sound idea. sigh.

your impression is NOT based on facts. actually your "impression" is simply wrong.
but don t learn about the facts. you have your "impression". you also have the "impression" that an electric instantaneous hot water heater is a economically sound idea. sigh.
Posted by: sod | July 15, 2009 1:25 AM

Then give me the facts that demonstrate my impression is wrong. I don't expect anyone to believe something just because I say so. Why should you expect me or anyone else to believe you?

I've provided you with the pertinent fact that it costs me just $12 worth of electricity per year to have one hot shower per day. Are you saying my maths is wrong?

My annual electricity bill for all heating of water is much less than the interest I would receive from a sum of money, equivalent to the additional installation cost of a solar heater, invested in a savings account.

> My annual electricity bill for all heating of water is much less than the interest I would receive from a sum of money, equivalent to the additional installation cost of a solar heater, invested in a savings account.

> Posted by: Ray

Then the cost of replacing that very small amount of power use is likewise miniscule.

Or you are getting gypped by your banker on interest charges.

Or, and this is going to surprise people who read your raving lunacy, you're lying.

So Ray times a shower and makes some calcuation which he reckons shows that solar hotwater is uneconomic. It just makes sense of a fundamental level, what more do you need?
Posted by: MAB | July 15, 2009 12:04 AM

Not only that, it makes sense of the cost of heating water and the principle of saving water, which in Australia is of great significance.

This principle is known as 'killing two birds with one stone'.

Then the cost of replacing that very small amount of power use is likewise miniscule.
Posted by: Ray | July 15, 2009 6:11 AM

I see you have not understood at all what I'm talking about.

You can check out the cost of installing a solar water heater. It's substantial. An instantaneous water heater is relatively cheap.

Once you've installed a solar heater, it costs you about $200 per year in lost interest alone, even if you don't use it at all. When you do use it, there's a tendency to waste water because there's no additional cost, except on a dull day when the booster kicks in.

Oops! Looks like I've been lying. It's not $12 per year per person to have one shower a day, but $3. I don't know how that happened. I did the calculation some time ago and it looks as though that total of $9 (estimated now $12) was for the total of all water heating for one person.

My instantaneous heater is a Stiebel Eltron with a 2.7KW element.

My latest electricity bill, which includes a mixture of peak and off-peak rates, is $123.46 for a total consumption of 700 kilowatt hours. That works out at an average rate 123.46/700 = 18 cents per KWH.

The element in my heater is 2.7kw. Therefore it cost 2.7x18 = 48.6 cents to use my shower for one hour. Call it 50 cents.

This is the timing for the 3 stages of taking a shower.

(1) 15 seconds for the water to heat up. It heats instantly as it flows through the heater, but the cold pipes take a few seconds to heat up. It's more efficient to have these devices installed close to the place of use.

(2) 20 seconds to get a good soaking in hot water, after which the tap (and electricity) is turned off whilst I soap up.

(3) 25 seconds to thoroughly rinse the soap away. That's really all it takes.

The heater has been operating just one minute and costs 50 cents per hour to run. 50/60 = 0.83 cents per shower.

Total electricity consumption for one year is therefore 0.83 cents x 365 = $3.03

Anything wrong with my maths?

Ray, way back in the mists of time:

> When people try to bamboozle you about a general issue with mathematics that you don't understand, be skeptical.

Ray now:

> Anything wrong with my maths?

Sorry Ray, as you know, I get to disregard any arguments you make that involve mathematics, as you have previously done.

Also, I take issue with your statement that:

> But changing the ways in which we use energy involves changing human behaviour, a very steep uphill battle.

While at the same time quoting ideal energy figures based on a shower duration roughly one tenth of the average duration - ie. based on a truly massive behavioural shift.

So basically, if you apply your maths to average US adult behaviour, you end up with more like $30 a year on showers, for one person.

Which is why your "impression" is a very odd thing to use as a basis for a decision on the cost-effectiveness of solar.

Ray,
First of all, Good on you - that's excellent conservation of power and water.

So a carbon price would raise your annual expense by $20 p.a. or so.

However your assumptions are wrong. Alas the nation is not a thrifty as you. The average household spends $450 per year on hot water. As much as we can wish everyone used a few litres a day of hot water , they don't. Hence solar hot water is cheaper for most people.

CPI rises for last 10 years is 35%, but electricity prices risen at double that rate (70% ) over that period (based on [Melbourne CPI).]( http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/meisubs.NSF/log?openagent&640109.xls&640…)

It is reasonable to assume that electricity will continue to rise at at-least the same rate (approx 7% p.a.) for the next 10.
Interest in saving accounts range currently from 2 to 4.5% p.a.. lets assume an interest rate of 5%. Calculating the savings on electricity at $300 in year one (base on previous post) and $321 in year two, 343 in Y3, etc (electricity cost rising at 7% p.a.). Then sub this in to a [present value calculator]( http://www.investopedia.com/calculator/NetPresentValue.aspx?viewed=1). Shows that the investment is profitable after ten years. With the PV (present value) of Expected Cash flows:$3,114.90. Giving a PV net gain of $114 .90

Or we could be conservative and allow for an interest rate averaging 7% over the next 10 years. Which yields a net gain if the savings continue for 11 years. However the solar components will yield savings for more than 20 years. Thus using present value calculations and a discount rate of 7, 10 or 15%, solar hot water is cheaper than electric for the average household.

So basically, if you apply your maths to average US adult behaviour, you end up with more like $30 a year on showers, for one person.

the truth.

but on the other hand, we could follow the ray approach to showers: why invest in solar water heating, when you can also just reduce the number of showers you take?

if you take just 3 showers of 9 sec length during the year, it will never pay out....

I have to say that I find many of you people quite irrational. It's almost as though you are programmed not to understand basic economics.

The basic economic reality I'm trying to get across is, as energy prices rise, our material prosperity tends to fall.

That's not difficult to understand, is it?

The question is, how can we prevent it falling as energy costs rise?

Well, one way is to produce more efficient machines and devices which do the same work consuming less energy. The energy-saving light bulb is a shining example. It consumes just 20 watts and produces the brightness of a 100 watt conventional light bulb.

Unfortunately, the savings are a bit deceptive because the initial cost of the energy-saving bulb is about 10x greater. You need to use it for many hours before you begin to save anything. I suspect they last longer than a conventional bulb, but I've never seen any comparisons.

Making machines more efficient to offset rising energy costs has its limitations. I don't believe it's possible to make the automobile engine more efficient to keep up with the rising cost of petrol, nor electric motors more efficient to keep up with the rising cost of electricity.

So what else is possible? Changing our behaviour; that is, changing the ways in which we use energy. That's one possibility.

You guys, so terribly concerned about AGW, must have heard that the American lifestyle is no longer a sustainable proposition for world development.

So what are you guys going to do? If you're not competent enough get a decent shower in one minute, I guess you're not competent enough to do anything much. You're stuffed.

> You can check out the cost of installing a solar water heater. It's substantial. An instantaneous water heater is relatively cheap.

> Posted by: Ray

Actually, you can do one for your very miniscule demands yourself (planning permission will not be needed unless your local housing association have a stick up their butts) for a cost of around £100 and two or three hours of your time.

With interest rates at some of the lowest in decades, you will come out about even even at your tiny rate.

However, I DO have one question: do you ever wash the dishes?

> So what are you guys going to do? If you're not competent enough get a decent shower in one minute, I guess you're not competent enough to do anything much. You're stuffed.

> Posted by: Ray

Oh, we definitely COULD take a shower in 1 minute. I can even get a good strip wash in 5-10 minutes and 1/3 a basin of warm water. Beat THAT.

However, your compatriots are not, on average as good:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_length_of_a_shower_in_the…

15 minutes.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/445121.html

8 minutes for 60%

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6075230.stm

7 minutes average in Australia

And aside from all that, you are so often obviously full of shit nobody thinks you do this anyway.

And it's looking like 8 minutes is the average:

http://www.greenerpeople.com/forum/everyday-tips-greener-people/111-tur…
http://crunchydomesticgoddess.com/2008/05/27/im-having-a-quickie-the-fi…

And do you use a power shower, Ray? 'cos that 1 minute shower could beat or equal the water I use in five minutes:

http://greenliving.lovetoknow.com/Water_Conservation_Calculator

Good Lord and Lady, are we STILL arguing with that idiot Ray? Here, let me put this in perspective: Ray came to this thread supporting a guy who had just published his nonsense in a LaRouchie publication. And ever since, he's echoed the LaRouchies' tone with every sentence: "everyone else is a programmed sheep, there's a huge evil conspiracy to stifle THE TRUTH, and I'm part of a vanguard of brave persecuted truth-seekers," yada yada yada.

Don't kid yourselves, folks -- no one is gonna change his "mind," for the same reason no one will change a birfer's mind or a flat-Earther's mind. They're lost without their paranoid delusions and conspiracy-stories, and for that reason they'll never give any part of them up. Arguing with such people is no more useful than arguing with raving homeless lunatics.

In addition to learning to research and think, Ray apparently needs to learn to read.

@510, I described a photovoltaic grid-tie system, and explained why such a system does not need batteries, because it uses the grid for 'storage.'

Ray responds with some utterly irrelevant tripe about cost of batteries, and then describes some calculation about a $3,000 solar water system - which Ray --IS NOT A GRID-TIE PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM!!!.

He then goes on to say that PV systems can't support normal household loads - GRID TIE, Ray. It means something.

He tries to imply that cost of maintainance is significant. For a grid tie system, typical maintainance consists of keeping the panels clean - washing them down once a month or so, and no big problem if you don't do it. There are no batteries to maintain.

Ray does not know what the fuck he is talking about.

Ray writes:
>I have to say that I find many of you people quite irrational. It's almost as though you are programmed not to understand basic economics.

>The basic economic reality I'm trying to get across is, as energy prices rise, our material prosperity tends to fall.

>That's not difficult to understand, is it?

Really, Ray you'd better switch to cheap renewables cause fossil fuel is rising in price. Even our dirty electricty has risen 70% in 10 years, that's twice the speed of CPI.

Here are some other basic economcis Ray: Our material prosparity falls when we spend more on airconditioning due to hotter temperatures. Our material prosparity falls when inflows into our major river systems drops. Our material prosparity falls when towns get burned to the ground. Our materail prosparity drops when rainfall events become conentrated and cause more flooding. Our material proparity falls when sea level rise erodes our coast. material proparity falls when the buden of desease inceases. Our material proparity falls when conflict over deminishing natural resources leads to war. (Oops, some of the super rich increase their wealth by selling weapons and selling conflict).

Ray how much do you spend on insurance? How does that effect your material prosparity?

Then we can discuss how our material prosparity is subsidiesed by taking the natural resource from others. So its an accounting trick.

I described a photovoltaic grid-tie system, and explained why such a system does not need batteries, because it uses the grid for 'storage.'
Ray responds with some utterly irrelevant tripe about cost of batteries, and then describes some calculation about a $3,000 solar water system - which Ray --IS NOT A GRID-TIE PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM!!!.
Posted by: Lee | July 15, 2009 4:14 PM

It's very sad to witness such a lack of understanding about such basic issues from you guys.

The facts are, producing electricity from solar voltaic panels on your roof is a very, very expensive way to generate electricity at the present time. What you do with that electricity doesn't change it's cost. Whether you operate your fridge with it, watch TV with it, or feed the electricity back into the grid, the cost of producing the electricity is not changed.

You might be quite happy to accept a government hand-out, or subsidy, in order to make the cost appear more attractive, but as I mentioned before, there's no free lunch. The full cost of that electricity is borne by the community.

Subsidies for PV panels may be justified in remote areas where there is no grid and no alternative electricity supply. In such situations, batteries are necessary for storage, which of course adds to the real cost of the electricity.

Feeding susrplus electricity back into the grid, if there is one, is clearly cheaper than battery storage, but the real cost of the initial production, per kilowatt hour, remains the same whatever you do with it, and that cost is very much greater than the cost of electricity from coal power stations or atomic power stations.

Batteries are not tripe. Lack of a cheap, powerful, durable and lightweight battery is one the major stumbling blocks in the development of alternative energy, particularly for the electric car.

Anyone who thinks solar voltaic panels are a good idea would presumably also have a solar water heater. In a large household in locations where there's no scarcity of water, solar water heaters might in the long run result in a real monetary saving, but probably only in relation to a life style which is unsustainable if AGW is a real threat.

The attitude that we can continue living as we are whilst using massively subsidised clean energy, is just laughable.

As the real cost of energy rises, it's necessary to change your lifestyle accordingly. That means running a smaller car with a more fuel-efficient engine (or taking a bus), taking a one minute shower instead of a 10 minute shower, switching off unnecessary lights and appliances in the hope that, as electricity costs rise, your electricity bill will remain the same.

If those of you who believe in the AGW scare are not already putting into practice such measures, then I'm sad to say you are either hypocrites are just plain dumb.

I'm out of here. I've had my say. Those of you who have a spark of intelligence will understand what I've been trying to get across.

Ray writes:

>The attitude that we can continue living as we are whilst using massively subsidised clean energy, is just laughable.

Ray, The attitude that we can continue living as we are whilst using massively subsidised dirty energy, is just laughable. (That is even before we count the costs of climate change. When you count climate change the costs of that attide are beyond laughing matters.)

I find your assertions about the understandig and efforts of others to be insincere or ill informed.

Shorter Ray: People should use less hotwater, but incentives to use less hotwater will reduce our material wealth.

We get it, Ray.

Batteries add huge costs to grid tie systems that don't need batteries, because the initial cost is so high that batteries somehow need to be included.

That about right?
And solar hot water costs tell us the PV costs are too high.

Ray, when I ran the numbers for our house, I did not assume any government subsidy or tax credit - because I don't know what those will be when we actually get the capital to do the install.

I did include the utility company rebate - because that money is a very, very cheap investment for the utility, in distributed on-peck generating capacity. In terms of their cost for on-peak capacity, my investment is subsidizing the utility.

I also included impact on tiered pricing here in California. Consistently avoiding higher tiered pricing adds a huge bump to ROI - and tiered pricing is a reality here.

i also assumed current contractor prices for installing the entire system - but reality is, I will do much of the mechanical part of the install myself, and hire the solar PV contractor to do the intertie work, where I don't know what I don't know and want to make sure it doesnt get fucked up. That reduces costs substantially, and makes the return even better.

We have a large household, with 4 adults and 4 kids in our home. We already do a lot to reduce energy consumption - over-code insulation, efficient windows, shaded windows, whole-house fan to replace at least some air conditioning loads, living with higher summertime temps and lower winter temps, a lot of attention to reducing or eliminating 'vampire' loads, and on and on.

With the current electric usage we still have - remember, 8 people living here - a grid tie system will pay for itself. The reduction in our annual-averaged utility bill will exceed the cost of paying off the loan, assuming reasonable interest rates and a 7-10 year loan. Not by much, but by a little. The savings begin immediately - if I incude possible government subsidy and the savigns from doing partial install myself, the savings are much larger. The numbers dont depend on that, though.

And once the debt is retired, the payoff is substantial - those panels maintain over 80% efficiency at 25 years, way, way after the debt is retired.

And none of this has a god damn thing to do with batteries or solar hot water - neither of which are necessary, desirable, or relevant for our situation.

Lee,

Out of interest, how are you heating your water. I'd have expected that California would be suitable to solar HW?

> Ray does not know what the fuck he is talking about.

> Posted by: Lee

We know, Lee.

Our efforts are in case some poor sod comes along reads Ray's lunacy and thinks he may have something because nobody rebutted it.

Ray, The attitude that we can continue living as we are whilst using massively subsidised dirty energy, is just laughable. (That is even before we count the costs of climate change. When you count climate change the costs of that attide are beyond laughing matters.)
I find your assertions about the understandig and efforts of others to be insincere or ill informed.
Posted by: MAB | July 15, 2009 11:11 PM

You can't count the costs of climate change because they are not known. They are estimated by scientist and economists in a manner which is extremely controversial and very approximate, and possibly wildly inaccurate.

What you can be certain about is your own consumption of energy.

There's no doubt whatsoever that my latest quarterly electricity bill was $123.46, and there's no doubt whatsoever that, if I stick to my one-minute shower routine per day, taking hot water showers will cost me approximately $3 per year. That's a very low carbon footprint for shower-taking.

If I were an AGW fanatic like the rest of you, I would insist upon only taking a shower after 9pm or before 7am, because that's the period of my off-peak rate.

My off-peak rate is 6.6 cents per kwh. My previous calculation used an average rate of 18 cents per kwh, which resulted in an annual charge of $3. If I apply the off-peak rate, the annual cost of one shower per day, for one person, in my house, is just $1.10.

That's right! The annual cost of keeping 'yours truly' clean and sweet every day, would be just one dollar and 10 cents, if I were an AGW fanatic.

But I don't care because I don't believe the case for AGW is proved. I'm prepared to splash a whole $3 per annum on shower-taking.

Ray, The attitude that we can continue living as we are whilst using massively subsidised dirty energy, is just laughable.
Posted by: MAB | July 15, 2009 11:11 PM

I keep reading these references to subsidised dirty energy. What do you mean? I'm not aware of any coal-fired power stations being subsidised, or oil and gas-fired power stations, or petrol-driven vehicles being subsidised.

Please explain yourself.

> Please explain yourself.

> Posted by: Ray

Please excuse yourself.

> I'm not aware of any coal-fired power stations being subsidised, or oil and gas-fired power stations, or petrol-driven vehicles being subsidised.

Nelson: I see no ships!

> But I don't care because I don't believe the case for AGW is proved. I'm prepared to splash a whole $3 per annum on shower-taking.

> Posted by: Ray

It's not about your belief, Ray.

There are PhD's who still believe that the earth is only 6000 years old and that Tryanosaurs were vegetarian in the Garden of Eden.

Belief doesn't make reality.

Ray, do your homework.

You are just spouting rubbish based on your ill informed impressions try doing some research. Fossil fuels receive in excess of 9 billion a year in subsides in Australia. (Our tax dollars).

Yes we can make engines more efficient, yes we can make cars more efficient, yes fluros last longer and yes fluros save money.

No off peak is is distortion to subsides the inadequacies of coal fired power.

No you have no idea of the carbon foot print of other posters here, now I that I have some idea of yours I'm confident that my whole family's footprint is lower than yours(100% Greenpower).

@MAB:
"Lee,

Out of interest, how are you heating your water."

As of right now, we have a standard natural gas storage tank system. We looked at solar hot water a few years ago, and decided it didn't make sense for us. The two over-riding facts for us, is that the systems we saw do require regular maintainence which we felt we were likely to not get done properly, and they didn't look like they would really save us anything for our particular situation.

We have 8 people in our household - 4 adults, 4 kids - and we mostly shower in stages in the morning. Without a very large, superinsulated and expensive storage tank, the system would simply not do what we need it to do.

Instead, we've done all the conservation things - limit shower durations, low-flow heads, insulated tank, insulated pipe.

If we can get the loan or capital to install the PV system, we'll probably replace our natural gas water heater with electric or gas/electric (but they are very expensive) on a timer, to take advantage as much as possible of our onsite generating capacity

You are just spouting rubbish based on your ill informed impressions try doing some research. Fossil fuels receive in excess of 9 billion a year in subsides in Australia. (Our tax dollars).
Posted by: MAB | July 16, 2009 8:24 AM

I never spout rubbish. However, I understand that I may appear to spout rubbish to people who are incapable of appreciating a sensible and reasonable argument. I can't help that. I am not responsible for other people's inability to see sense.

No you have no idea of the carbon foot print of other posters here, now I that I have some idea of yours I'm confident that my whole family's footprint is lower than yours(100% Greenpower).
Posted by: MAB | July 16, 2009 8:24 AM

I certainly have an idea, but unless you give me precise details, facts and figures, as I have given you, then it's true that I can't have an accurate idea of your carbon footprint. You might be confident, but you can't expect me to just take your word for it without backing up your claims with facts and statistics. After all, I'm a skeptic. That means being not only skeptical of AGW claims but your claims that you have 100% Greenpower.

All my views are based on facts as I see them. If my facts are wrong, then point them out and explain how and why they are wrong. There's no point in just saying they are wrong. I need a demonstration of how they are wrong. Why would any adult with even a spark of intelligence expect other people to accept that something is right or wrong just because (I, he, she) says so?

Here's why I'm skeptical of your claims you have 100% greenpower.

We live in a society where nothing moves, or happens, or is produced without expenditure of energy. All of the hi tech products we buy, whether solar water heaters, PVPs, or motor cars, need energy to manufacture, deliver and install. The amount of energy consumed in the production of any product or service is approximately proportional to its unsubsidised price which usually includes a profit margin and taxes to the government.

Assuming that anthropogenic C02 emmisions are a threat, just to humour you, then in order to determine how green you are, you need to be aware of how much 'dirty' fossil fuel was used in the manufacture of your so-called 'green' devices. The CO2 molecules in the atmosphere don't care about government subsidies.

Let's assume that you are using both a solar water heater and a grid-connected PVP for your energy supply. In order for you to be 100% green, all the metals and minerals used in the construction of these devices would have to be mined and processed using only greenpower. I think we can agree straight away that this is not the case. About 90% of all energy produced in Australia is from fossil fuels. Maybe even 95%, but let's not quibble.

Furthermore, the tradesman who installed your so-called 'green' systems, would have to drive to work in an electric car manufactured entirely from green energy sources. (Well, that's a bit unrealistic, isn't it!)

I could go on, and on, and on, itemising the 'greenness' of the tradesman's electric drill, and the terribly subsidised 'dirty fuel' nature of the aluminium in the tradesman ladder which was used to climb onto your roof to install your solar heater, not to mention the aluminium in your solar water heater, etc etc. etc. Suffice it to say that, in a society where 90% of the energy supplies come from fossil fuels, one can consider any item one buys as having an 'embedded' carbon footprint in proportion to its unsubsidised price.

If a government subsidy is involved, as is the case regarding the electricity subsidiy to the aluminium refining and smelting industries, then the carbon footprint of the aluminium in your PVP and solar water heater is not accurately reflected in the price. The price should be even higher. The true unsubsidised price of your solar heater should be a few hundred dollars more. No?

Let's assume that AGW is a real threat and we're fighting against time, then let's have a look at what really happens to the environment when we take all these factors I've enumerated into consideration.

I'll use my own situation because I have the facts and figures at hand.

My current electricity bill is about $500 per year, using conventional electricity from fossil fuel. Let's say I'm convinced about the real threat of AGW and decide to switch to a subsidised PVP connected to the grid.

Because I'm concerned about the environment and not just my own pocket, I'll do the calculations based on the unsubsidised cost of the PVP. That's because I'm a sincere, honest and thoughtful person.

I find that a 1kw PVP costs about $12,000. I try to find out if it was made with clean energy but can find no information on this. I assume that, if it was made with clean energy, the manufacturer would not be keeping it a secret, and that therefore it is reasonable to presume it was made with 'dirty' energy.

I'm currently using $500 per year of dirty energy. Does it make sense to install $12,000 of dirty energy in one go, in order to help the environment? The $12,000 equivalent of C02, from day one, is circulating in the atmosphere from day one and will continue to circulate in the atmosphere for many years, causing terrible devastation (according to the IPCC).

At the rate of $500 per year, it will take me 24 years to reach that level of C02 that installing a PVP would cause in one go at the time of manufacture.

Which is better, a gradual build-up to $12,000 equivalent of C02 over a 24 year period, or a sudden injection of $12,000 of C02 at the beginning of that 24 year period?

Perhaps you climate experts can answer that; help enlighten me.

Ray you spout rubbish such as:

>If I were an AGW fanatic like the rest of you, I would insist upon only taking a shower after 9pm or before 7am, because that's the period of my off-peak rate.

Ray, unlike you I have researched and calculated the energy payback period of solar hot water (few months), wind power (few months), and PV (less than 3 years). That is accounting for full lifecycle energy inputs. Unlike you, ill informed impression are not enough for me.

You have no idea of the carbon footprint of people on this site because you don't know our domestic energy use, our diet, our transport, our consumption of products and services, our community service and land rehabilitation projects.

So Ray, why do you take quick showers, scathe the average person for not taking quick showers but denounce economic incentives that reward quick showers?

If I were an AGW fanatic like the rest of you, I would insist upon only taking a shower after 9pm or before 7am, because that's the period of my off-peak rate.

My off-peak rate is 6.6 cents per kwh. My previous calculation used an average rate of 18 cents per kwh, which resulted in an annual charge of $3. If I apply the off-peak rate, the annual cost of one shower per day, for one person, in my house, is just $1.10.

That's right! The annual cost of keeping 'yours truly' clean and sweet every day, would be just one dollar and 10 cents, if I were an AGW fanatic.

No, if you were an 'AGW fanatic' you would use as little fossil fuel-derived electricity as possible, because dirty kWh would be your over-riding concern, not cost.

If you were thrifty you would shower in the off-peak time. Although even this wouldn't matter, because if you have off-peak hot water, by definition it isn't heated during the day, even if you use hot water then.

Anyone with more sisters than thumbs could tell you this.

[Insert pejorative root-vegetable substitute term here]

Ray provides a great example of how to make a nonsense argument by starting from nonsense assumptions.

I'm not sure if Ray understands that not every dollar spent produces the same CO2. This is possibly why 'the Rays' of this world cannot see that we can restructure economies to favor growth in low CO2 production.

In fact the only sustaible growth, is that which is not dependent on increasing exploitation of finite resoruces.

Ray, unlike you I have researched and calculated the energy payback period of solar hot water (few months), wind power (few months), and PV (less than 3 years). That is accounting for full lifecycle energy inputs. Unlike you, ill informed impression are not enough for me.
Posted by: MAB | July 17, 2009 2:05 AM

Then why are you keeping your calculations a secret? Why don't you share your calculations and demonstrate how it is possible to manufacture and install a solar water heater and a windmill for the cost of a few months of home energy usage and a PVP for less than 3 years usage. I'm sure lots of people would be interested.

If I think people have ill-informed impressions, I do my best to provide them with the facts and figures. Why are you not doing the same?

Are you afraid to discover your calculations might be bodgy?

> Are you afraid to discover your calculations might be bodgy?

> Posted by: Ray

You're terrified of it, Ray.

I'm not sure if Ray understands that not every dollar spent produces the same CO2. This is possibly why 'the Rays' of this world cannot see that we can restructure economies to favor growth in low CO2 production.
Posted by: Mark Byrne | July 17, 2009 2:39 AM

Ray understands very well that every dollar spent does not have exactly the same C02 value associated with it.

However, in economies like Australia and China that are 90% run on fossil fuels, the dollar value of an item is the best approximation we have of the carbon footprint associated with the item.

If an item is manufactured in a factory that is run entirely on renewable energy, then such a fact should be advertised and we might then deduce that the real C02 value associated with the item would be somewhat less than the dollar price would indicate.

Likewise, if we buy something made mostly from aluminium, we can deduce that the actual carbon footprint is slightly higher than the dollar price would suggest because aluminium is refined and smelted using fairly significant electricity subsidies. In other words, the true carbon footprint of the item is disguised by the subsidies.

The same is true of solar voltaic panels. You might be very pleased to pay only $4,000 and accept the $8,000 subsidy. However, the environment doesn't make a distinction between the price you paid and the size of the subsidy. If the PVP and constituent parts were not largely manufactured, at all stages, using clean renewable energy, then the carbon footprint of the PVP is approximately a whopping $12,000 equivalent of C02.

You're terrified of it, Ray.
Posted by: Mark | July 17, 2009 6:50 AM

Then go ahead and terrify me. I can take it. Just think of the good you will be doing for the environment.

Wind, [payback in months]( http://library.witpress.com/pages/PaperInfo.asp?PaperID=17822)

Solar hotwater, [payback in months]( http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200111/000020011101A0328248.php)

PV, [payback < 3 years](http://www.clca.columbia.edu/papers/Photovoltaic_Energy_Payback_Times.p…)

So Ray, why do you rebuke the average person for not taking quick showers but denounce economic incentives that reward quick showers?

Shorter Ray:

>I'll just dig my self deeper with nonses assumptions like the dollar value of an item is the best approximation we have of the carbon footprint associated with the item.

>Lets ignore the fact that we lack the carbon price to make this claim anywhere near accurate.

Nice try Ray, but back to school for you.

Better still, why don't you tell other that they don't understand energy economics, we get our jollies when you play that card.

> So Ray, why do you rebuke the average person for not taking quick showers but denounce economic incentives that reward quick showers?

> Posted by: MAB

Because he's a two-faced troll.

Lets ignore the fact that we lack the carbon price to make this claim anywhere near accurate.
Posted by: Janet Akerman | July 17, 2009 8:33 AM

But I haven't ignored it. Where did you get that idea from? If you re-read post #553 you will see that I've attempted to give a few examples of the sorts of things that make the dollar price of an item only a rough approximation of the carbon footprint, but at present it's the best guide we have in the absence of detailed information of the various types of energy consumption that have been applied at each stage of a product's manufacture.

I'll go through a couple of examples again, since some of you seem a bit slow.

(1) If you know an item has been heavily subsidised in the manufacturing stage (with regard to fossil fuel input), such as anything made from significant amounts of aluminium, then it's fair to deduce that the carbon footprint of that item is greater than the purchase price would tend to indicate. In this example the true quantity of the GHG emissions associated with the item has been disguised by the subsidy.

On the other hand, many products consist of a hunge range of different parts manufactured by different companies using different sources of energy and different practices, such as the motor car. In order to be sure of the precise quantity of GHG emissions associated with the finished and delivered product, you would need to have a system whereby a 'clean/dirty' energy rating was applied to each component in the manufacturing stage. Whilst one component made of aluminium, might have a 110% rating, another component made in a factory where green energy policies where applied stringently, solar voltaic panels and windmills used for much of the factory's energy requirements, for example, might attract of rating of 90%. One component offsets the other.

To apply a precise rating in this manner, which might be a more accurate guide than the dollar price, would be impossibly cumbersome, expensive and open to all sorts of abuse. In other words, simply not realistic.

(2) Consider an item made in China using the same processes that would be applied in Australia, same amount of electricity from the same design of coal-fired power station, same machinery and same efficient techniques, same everything, except the cost of labour. In both cases, the amount of GHGs emitted from the basic manufacturing process, is the same.

However, the Australian-made product is likely to be double the price of the Chinese-made product. How is this possible? According to my reasoning, the GHG emissions associated with the Chinese product should be half those of the Australian product, because the price is half and price reflects quantity of GHGs. Right? (What! You think I don't know what I'm talking about?)

Okay! I'm in a generous mood. I'll explain it for you.

The Australian-made product, in this example where the manufacturing process was the same, really does have double the GHG emissions associated with it. That's because the Australian worker him/herself causes greater pollution than than his/her Chinese counterpart. If you can't make a product without employing people, then the carbon footprint resulting from those employees' wages has to be included in the total carbon footprint of the finished and delivered product.

The Chinese worker rides to work on a bicycle because he doesn't get paid enough to buy a car. That's clearly more environmentally friendly (or would you like to dispute this?)

The Chinese worker does not get paid enough to run an air-conditioned house with swimming pool, or buy all the other luxuries that we in Australia take for granted but which each have their own carbon footprint.

In an economy which is run 90% on fossil fuel, the unsubsidised price of an item is the best indicator of the amount of GHG emissions associated with its manufacture, unless one has specific information about clean energy usage in the manufacturing process of such item.

However, if an economy produces significant amounts of clean energy, such as France where I believe more than 50% of all electricity generation is from atomic power, then it would be reasonable to suppose that any product wholly manufactured in France would likely (but not necessarily) have a lower GHG association than the price would indicate.

Shorter Ray:

It's extremely difficult to set good prices for carbon emissions. Therefore, according to Reason™, Rationality™, and Common Sense™, we Know™ that global warming mitigation is more expensive than global warming adaptation.

Ray, I am "a bit slow", thank you for setting me straight!

No wonder everything is so cheap from China, they require [more CO2 per dollar earned]( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_GDP_to_carbo…) than almost any of the nations of the world ( all but 17). In other words, China produces less GDP with every tonne of CO2 ($0.45/tonne CO2) , than nearly any other nation.

It all makes sense now, your argument explains why the average person in China earn less than the average in either Vietnam, Guyana, Togo, Eritrea, Chad, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Rwanda, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Vanuatu, Peru, Haiti, Sierra Leone, and most of the poorest people 5 billion in the world.

Your argument would also explains why people in Switzerland ($9/tonne CO2)earn that same as people in Afghanistan or Mali. And why people in Sweden or Iceland ($5/tonne CO2)earn the same as as people in Gabon. And why people in Australia ($2/tonne CO2) earn the same as in East Timor. Your reasoning would also explain why the people of Chad are the riches in the world.

Keep digging Ray,
>at present it's the best guide we have in the absence of detailed information of the various types of energy consumption that have been applied at each stage of a product's manufacture.

I guess that explains:

1) why an efficient carefully made motor is cheaper than a dodgy slapdash motor.

2) why a site specific designed house is cheaper than a slap dash, poorly designed house.

3) why no one has developed Life Cycle Assessments to accurately account for the energy, and CO2 of various activity.

Ray, you don t understand the basics.

your claims about subsidies (for renewables) are simply false.

their purpose is NOT just to make the energy they supply cheaper. it is helping to establish a market for them, moving the into mass production. and making them competitive with established technologies.
the subsidies on renewable energy are a good idea. by market mechanism, they support cheap appliances, that produce lots of energy.

even the rather problematic biofuels make sense.: some people assume that we could jump from generation zero biofuels to generation 5 (rubbish turned into high end petrol) without taking the intermediate steps. (and one can also learn a lesson about interest groups..)

you are also wrong about the CO2 imprint.

it is cheap energy, that gives a high CO2 value to basic goods. cheap energy allows stuff to be transported around, making even a breakfast cost a lot of fossil fuel.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/26/ING3PHRU681…

your way of calculating this, is mixing up cause and effect! (the expensive local product didn t use the fossil fuel of the transport of the cheap product, which is cheap because oil is cheap)

The Chinese worker rides to work on a bicycle

and then the product he produced is moved by bicycle as well?

you are also wrong on nuclear power.

we are tackling CO2, because we want to avoid consequences of global warming. nuclear power threatens similar devastating consequences by accident. it is pretty stupid, to fight one risk with a similar other one.

Ray, you don t understand the basics.
your claims about subsidies (for renewables) are simply false.
their purpose is NOT just to make the energy they supply cheaper.
Posted by: sod | July 18, 2009 5:09 AM

I'm afraid it is you who do not understand the basics.

Subsidies on solar devices do not and cannot make the energy they supply cheaper. They make it appear cheaper so that fools rush in. At the present time, clean energy is expensive energy. If you want it, fine. But there's no free lunch. You've got to pay for it, or in the case of subsidies, others have to pay for it.

Of course it's understood that their purpose is supposed to encourage the industry in the hope that eventually it will beome competitive with conventional energy. However, I'm questioning the wisdom of such a policy. Subsidies generally do not result in greater efficiency but tend to support and perpetuate inefficiency.

The current unsubsidised cost of installing a 1 kilowatt thin film panel in Australia is around $10,000. Such a device produces on average 1500 kilowatt hours of electricity per year. I use close to double that per year at an average cost of 18 cents per kwh from the grid. To generate my current electricity consumption entirely from solar panels, I'd need two of those.

I just don't think it makes good economic sense to pay $20,000 up front in order to generate $540 of electricity per year. Of course, I know that's not the price that I'd be paying after the government subsidy, but as I've said, someone has to pay for this. I would rather the subsidy go towards supporting research and development into cheaper methods of producing clean energy such as this organic photovoltaic process explained at http://www.csiro.au/resources/OPV-question-and-answer.html

The Chinese worker rides to work on a bicycle

and then the product he produced is moved by bicycle as well?

I thought I'd explained that. The human input at all stages is cheaper in China, including the cost of building the factory, building the trucks and the ships to transport the goods. The cheaper price of the finished and delivered product reflects the smaller carbon footprint of the product due to the smaller carbon footprint of all the Chinese workers involved in the production and transport process. (Well, not necessarily all. There are a few extremely wealthy people in China.

Keep digging Ray,

If I thought that anyone might take you seriously I'd pointout how many times you contractict your self in this thread.

But I think its a fair bet that anyone sensible reading this blog will work it out for themselves.

For the guys (and girls?) still posting here give your selves a break this Ray is a incoherent time waster. A zealot for ill informed assertions, and fallacious argument.

Ray, I am "a bit slow", thank you for setting me straight!
No wonder everything is so cheap from China, they require more CO2 per dollar earned than almost any of the nations of the world ( all but 17). In other words, China produces less GDP with every tonne of CO2 ($0.45/tonne CO2) , than nearly any other nation.
It all makes sense now, your argument explains why the average person in China earn less than the average in either Vietnam, Guyana, Togo, Eritrea, Chad, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Rwanda, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Vanuatu, Peru, Haiti, Sierra Leone, and most of the poorest people 5 billion in the world.
Your argument would also explains why people in Switzerland ($9/tonne CO2)earn that same as people in Afghanistan or Mali. And why people in Sweden or Iceland ($5/tonne CO2)earn the same as as people in Gabon. And why people in Australia ($2/tonne CO2) earn the same as in East Timor. Your reasoning would also explain why the people of Chad are the riches in the world.
Posted by: Janet Akerman | July 18, 2009 1:15 AM

Fair enough, Janet. At least you have provided a chart relating C02 emissions to GDP, which tends to blow my theory out of the water. I knew I would eventually learn something if I hung around long enough. I hadn't seen that chart before.

However, I did mention in relation to the China example the following, "(2) Consider an item made in China using the same processes that would be applied in Australia, same amount of electricity from the same design of coal-fired power station, same machinery and same efficient techniques, same everything, except the cost of labour. In both cases, the amount of GHGs emitted from the basic manufacturing process, is the same."

People in Mali and Afghanistan don't produce much. If you don't even have a coal power station and your main domestic product is handwoven carpets and pottery, then understandably, you're very green.

Nevertheless, I take your point. There are a lot of bad practices in place in many countries with regard to unfiltered emissions from coal-fired power stations. If we don't have specific information on the standard of emission controls used during the manufacture of a particular product, then the price may well be all we have to go by.

For example, I presume that at least a few power generators in China will employ world's best practice. If we knew a product was manufactured using relatively clean power, and we could believe the claim, then it would be preferred to a similarly priced alternative that made no such claim.

China has quite a few atomic power stations. Would you buy a product that was cheap and claimed to be made using atomic power, or would you prefer to desist from buying anything made in China on the grounds of China's nationally high C02 output?

Is there anyone reading this blog who never buys anything made in China, out of their concern for the climate? Just curious.

Whilst you've pointed out a flaw in my 'product price=GHG emissions' argument, I still think that in a developed country with legislated emission controls, such as Australia, that produces 90% of its energy from fossil fuels, that equation is the still the best gauge in the absence of specific information which may highlight alternative green energy use.

It's interesting that high up on that list you referred to, are two countries with substantial nuclear energy facilities, France and Switzerland. If Australia wishes to have a low carbon footprint and rise up that list, going nuclear would be the most sensible thing to do.

Shorter Ray:

Product prices are a good gauge of carbon emissions, because when they're not a good gauge, it only serves to show that putting a price on carbon is difficult, and that we should switch to nuclear power.

Therefore, we know that global warming mitigation is more expensive than global warming adaptation.

Ray uses the cost of a product as a measure of the CO2 impact associated with that product.

By that argument, the CO2 impact of buying and burning $12,000 worth of coal, is equivalent to the CO2 impact of a $12,000 PV installation.

This is pure and utter tripe, Ray.

I'll say it again - Ray does not know what the fuck he is talking about.

--

Regarding coal subsidies. This paper is out of date - it is from 1997 - but the analysis still appears sound. It argues that eliminating coal subsidies - just that one thing, nothing more - would lead to an 8% reduction in CO2 emissions by end of century compared to BAU, with a net INCREASE in economic efficiency and economic production.

http://dspace-prod1.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/40953/2/bdp135.pdf

> For the guys (and girls?) still posting here give your selves a break this Ray is a incoherent time waster. A zealot for ill informed assertions, and fallacious argument.

> Posted by: Observa

But the Big Lie requires that the Lie be Left Uncountered.

And, to be honest, Ray's insanity so blatantly obvious in his posting history ensures that he can get a new one ripped for each insane mumbling produced and nobody will feel any genuine sympathy.

He's a bit like that Muslim preacher in the UK who was extradited. Glass Eye, Hook. Pockmarked. Really Ranted about how Evil Western Society was.

He was so bad not one serious Muslim stood up for him. Except the muslim equivalent of the National Front, and the ordinary folk know they're completely hatstand just as the white version is.

Abu Hamsa. That was his name.

Ray is a denialist Abu Hamsa.

By that argument, the CO2 impact of buying and burning $12,000 worth of coal, is equivalent to the CO2 impact of a $12,000 PV installation.

This is pure and utter tripe, Ray.
Posted by: Lee | July 18, 2009 1:31 PM

It is indeed utter tripe. But that's not what I've said. It's your interpretation of what I've written that is utter tripe.

What I've said, or at least, what I've been trying to get across, is that a $12,000 PV installation that is built using $12,000 worth of energy derived from burning coal, will have a carbon footprint equal to the burning of the amount of coal required to produce that $12,000 worth of energy.

Of course, the amount of coal required to produce $12,000 worth of energy will cost a lot less than $12,000.
You can understand that, can't you?

Now, in practice of course, it is unlikely that any product could be manufactured entirely from energy produced from coal. Even the energy produced from coal includes an embedded cost of other energy sources, such as the diesel fuel used to operate the excavators that dig the coal, and the trucks and trains that transport the coal, and the fuel used by the employees of the coal station as they drive to work each day, and all the products of energy that the employees spend their wages on etc etc.

The fundamental principle that I'm trying to get across is: If a PVP is manufactured using energy from nothing but fossil fuels, and such PVP costs $12,000 to install, then the solar panel has to return $12,000 worth of electricity before it begins to help the environment with lower C02 emissions.

In Australia, such a PVP costing $12,000 produces about 1500KWH per year. At the current rate of 18 cents per KWH, it would take 44 years before the PV installation would begin to help the environment, assuming the PVP were manufactured entirely from energy supplied from coal, in Australia.

If the PVP were manufactured in China, then in effect you are importing China's dirtier energy practices. If the chart provided by Janet Akerman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_GDP_to_carbo…
is accurate, then one might unwittingly be actually causing further harm to the environment by installing a PVP made in China.

If what I'm saying is not correct, and let me add that I welcome any argument supported with facts that disproves what I'm saying, but see little point in ad hominem attacks, then do me a favour and point out any flaw or incorrect assumptions I've made.

If manufacturers of PVPs wish to demonstrate how green the energy is that they use to produce their panels, then that is a big plus and the energy payback period would be proportionally less than the worst-case scenario I've described.

Perhaps it's the case that PVP manufacturers usually generate as much of their energy as possible from the factory's own windmill farm or PVP farm. Perhaps all company vehicles, including the employees' personal vehicles, use LPg.

If this is the case, one would then have to do energy payback calculations on each of the 'green' power devices used by the manufacturer of the PVPs. Their own windmill farm may take 30 or 40 years of operation before it begins to overtake the 'dirty' energy used in its construction.

Such facts need to be known before one can be sure of the environmental benefits of such new technology.

Ray:
>If what I'm saying is not correct... then do me a favour and point out any flaw or incorrect assumptions I've made.

Ray,

You've gone past the point of warranting any further favours, time for you to got back to school and correct your dependence on ill informed impressions.

Too much time wasting on someone whose goal it seems, is to waste the time of people who study the evidence.

oh good god.

Ray: "Of course, the amount of coal required to produce $12,000 worth of energy will cost a lot less than $12,000. You can understand that, can't you?"

Ray, if I'm heating my home with coal in a coal burner, the amount of coal required to produce $12,000 of heat energy, is $12,000 worth of coal. This illustrates one extreme of the ludicrous practice of using cost of a product as a measure of its CO2 impact.

---

Ray: "If a PVP is manufactured using energy from nothing but fossil fuels, and such PVP costs $12,000 to install, then the solar panel has to return $12,000 worth of electricity before it begins to help the environment with lower C02 emissions."

Bullcrap. What matters is not how much it cost, but how much CO2-producing energy was required to produce it, vs how much CO2-producing energy is required to produce the energy it allows me not to buy. You are assuming that the CO2 impact per dollar of manufacturing and installing a solar panel is the same as the CO2 impact per dollar of buying electricity. Cost is not a reasonable measure of that.

You are treating the entire cost of that installation as if it were spent on energy. If there were $12,000 in energy costs in that panel and its installation, then it could not be installed for $12,000 - it would cost more. A lot more.

That $12,000 for a PV installation includes cost of materials acquisition, warehousing, manufacture, labor, transportation, marketing, sales, profit, retail markup, permits and licenses, contractor costs, contractor profit - I'm sure I've missed a lot.

Hell, cost doesn't even allow comparison between different energy sources, as you point out yourself. $12,000 of hydroelectricity from California's reservoirs has near-zero carbon output, $12,000 of electricity from the Moss Landing Natural Gas facility has quite a high carbon impact, and $12,000 from a diesel-powered peaking plant, has a very high carbon impact. But they are all $12,000 of electricity.

You assign every penny of every one of these costs as if they carry the same energy usage as $12,000 of coal used as direct energy. I'll say it again, Ray - and it is not ad hom, it is the result of analyzing your argument.

That is pure and utter tripe, Ray, and you don't know the fuck you are talking about.

--

Here is an analysis of the energy-payback break even point for PV systems, from the Engineering Dept of the Australia National University at Canberra.

"Summary

The use of photovoltaic systems on a large scale in order to reduce fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions requires that the energy associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of PV systems be small compared with energy production during the system lifetime. That is, the energy payback time should be short. The energy intensity and cost of PV systems are closely related. At present the energy payback time for PV systems is in the range 8 to 11 years, compared with typical system lifetimes of around 30 years. About 60% of the embodied energy is due to the silicon wafers. As the PV industry reduces production costs and moves to the use of thin film solar cells the energy payback time will decline to about two years. "

http://www.ecotopia.com/Apollo2/pvepbtoz.htm

8 - 11 years, Ray, and expected to decline to 2 years as thin film systems replace silicon wafer systems. Once more - you don't know the fuck you're talking about, Ray.

You are treating the entire cost of that installation as if it were spent on energy. If there were $12,000 in energy costs in that panel and its installation, then it could not be installed for $12,000 - it would cost more. A lot more.
Posted by: Lee | July 18, 2009 10:41 PM

Now we're getting somewhere. Yes. Absolutely true! I'm treating the entire cost of that installation as if it were spent on energy. Not only the entire cost of installation, but the entire cost of production of the unit, including a proportion of the cost of employing clerks to pay bills in the company's office, and a proportion of every associated cost indirectly involved in the installation of that PVP on your roof, including a portion of the wages of the janitor employed to clean the toilets in the factory, and (not let's forget) a profit margin which will be used in one way or another on further energy purchases, whether by the bank the money is invested in, or for research and development purposes, or simply as dividends to shareholders.

Now why am I doing this? Is it because I am mad? I don't think so. It's simply because I have never in my life ever bought any practical item, service or product, that didn't require energy to produce. I can't even imagine buying something that doesn't require energy to produce. Money always represents a quantity of energy in accordance to its value. Money which doesn't represent energy is totally worthless. Money which represents a small amount of energy is worth a small amount, like a US$1 bill. Money which represents a large amount of energy, like a US$1,000 bill, is worth a lot.

You might think there are exceptions like a work of art. A Van Gogh painting is worth more than the energy it originally cost to produce, but it has had a monetary value bestowed upon it, just like a million dollar note.

Is the penny beginning to drop?

> Is the penny beginning to drop?

> Posted by: Ray

For you, there is no penny.

You have reached the end of penny.

Lee, your Energy Payback study is already dated. The payback period for aSi went [below 3 by 2004](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/06/moncktons_vision_of_the_future…), thin film is below 2 years. And CdTe is below one year.

sod and Lee,

Had either of you seen the [learn curves for PV](http://www.heliotronics.com/papers/PV_Breakeven.pdf)? Showing how price decreased with cumulative production. Basically we get better with practice. Given that coal is increasing in price a cross over in price between PV and coal ($/Watt) is expected before 2020.

Even the [IEA are starting](http://www.iea.org/textbase/work/2007/learning/Nemet_PV.pdf) to pay attention.

Now why am I doing this? Is it because I am mad? I don't think so.

Well, you wouldn't think so, would you?

"The difference between Dali and a madman is Dali knows he's mad."

Ray is not Salvador Dali.

Ray.

I am curious where you live, and still very curious about what [off-peak](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/06/moncktons_vision_of_the_future…) electricity is defined as in that area.

See, in the places where I have lived, off-peak hot water is only heated off-peak. No matter the time of day I used it, I paid off-peak rates.

I really am interested to know, so that I can determine if you are arguing from a logical base that happens to be affected by regional peculiarities in definitions, or whether you are just shooting from the hip when you shoot from the mouth.

@MAB
Thank you. For the analysis of our proposed PV system, I did just enough research to know that the carbon payback was favorable, and then concentrated on the economics. It's good to know that the carbon impact is even better than I thought.

@Ray:
You continue to be incoherent. Money represent agreed value, not the CO2-producing energy content of the thing that has value. We are interested in impact of the system on greenhouse gasses, which is better reflected in the energy payback, not the economic payback. You argued that the energy/greenhouse gas payback time was 44 years, based on calculation that show that the economic payback is 44 years (which is absurd).

The economic payback time of a reasonable PV system is in the 8-20 year range. he energy payback time is 1-3 years (thanks MAB). The fact that there is a difference, and that it is this large, shows that your assignment of dollar cost entirely to energy input is simply incorrect.

The penny dropped long ago, Ray. Everyone here sees it but you.

Ray: You continue to be incoherent. Money represent agreed value.
Posted by: Lee | July 19, 2009 11:18 AM

True! And the value of everything, agreed upon or not, represents the total average energy associated with the product, since in our society nothing happens, nothing moves and nothing is produced without expenditure of energy.

For currencies like the US and Australian dollar, the agreed value fluctuates. For items that you buy with those currencies, the price differs from store to store and may also differ in stores that allow bargaining.

So you are quite right that, at the level of this individual transaction, the money you pay for an item may be a very poor approximation of the 'fossil fuel' emissions associated with its production, because the price for the same item varies considerably. If you buy something second hand, for a trivial sum, then of course that trivial sum does not represent the entire energy content of the manufacture, marketing and delivery of the product. That's already been paid for by the original purchaser. What you are doing is re-imbursing the original purchaser a portion of that original energy cost, for the privilege of owning the product second-hand.

It's also true that C02 is not the only GHG emission from fossil fuel, so I am using C02 as an abbreviation for all undesirable emissions from fossil fuels.

If we refer to the paper from the ANU Engineering Department you linked to, that calculates an energy payback of 6.9 years without taking all costs into consideration, they have this to say in relation to the fossil fuel input:

"By far the largest fossil fuel inputs for a photovoltaic system are associated with production and installation. Fossil fuel derived energy required for the operation and decommissioning of a PV system is trivial. Hydroelectricity and wind energy share this characteristic. Many studies have looked at energy inputs to PV systems. It is difficult to arrive at definitive numbers because production technology is constantly improving and because the fossil fuel intensity of various operations depends on production scale and production location."

In other words, it's difficult to put a precise number on the fossil fuel input for manufacture because there's so much variation in the efficiency of production techniques, and the efficiency of energy production from fossil fuel, and also by implication, it's difficult because of the mix of various types of energy sources that may have been used, either directly or indirectly, in a product's manufacture.

They also add in a rather cumbersome way that may confuse some readers who are not alert, that once the PV system has been built, the fossil fuel input for its operation and decommissioning at the end of its life is trivial, just as it is for other alternative energy sources such as Hydroelectrivity and wind energy. No argument there, but it's clear to see that this ANU paper is a piece of propaganda that attempts to disguise the full cost of the PV technology.

I suspect the reason why you find my arguments incoherent, is because I'm approaching the problem from the perspective of total GHGs in the atmosphere, whereas you seem to be approaching the problem from the perspective of your hip pocket. I'm saying that the average price paid for a product in a country that exclusively uses fossil fuels for all its energy requirements would be a good approximation of the GHG gasses associated with its production.

You may buy something at a bargain price. Someone else is ripped off. It all everages out.

Let's take an extreme example as an anaolgy, just to drive my point home, if that's possible.

I buy a good quality cup of coffee in a small cafe in the middle of the Mall and pay just $5. I get the ANU Enigineering Department to analyze the total energy input, from all fossil fuels associated with that cup of coffee.

(They'll probably get it wrong because they'll ignore a very small portion of the waitress' wage, on the basis that's it's an insignificant cost, and they'll probably ingnore a thousand other associated costs, each of which is small and insignificant, but which in total actually becomes significant. But let's not get side-tracked.)

After hours (days, even years) of analysis, the ANU Engineering Department comes up with a figure of 90 cents total energy input, leaving me wondering what happened to the other $4.10 I paid. Did it just evaporate? Was it given to charity perhaps, resulting in a response from the ANU, we don't do charity so we ignored that? Did someone burn the $4 and throw the 10 cents into a pond to see the splash? It's certainly a mystery, don't you think?

But, let's move on. The next cup of coffee I buy is in Tokyo, in one of these really expensive coffee houses where you have to book in advance. The price of a cup of coffee is a bit higher, as you would expect. Not $5 but $400. I enquire as to the brand of coffe and am surprised that it is the same brand as the last cup of coffee I bought in the Mall in Australia. Wow! I'm paying $400 for an item which the ANU Engineering Department has estimated costs just 90 cents to produce. What's happened to the other $399.10?

I then notice the coffe pot. Pure silver. The waitress is dressed like a geisha, in flowing, ornate robes. The interior of the coffee house is splendid. Magnificent murals and tapestries adorn the walls, and the hi fi system is something to die for. State-of-the art valve/transistor hybrid producing mellifluous tones one has never heard before. The waitress informs me that the coffee room itself has been acoustically designed to produce the most pleasing sound.

I do a bit of digging and find that the owner of the restaurant owns a Rolls Royce and employs a chauffeur, (of course). He lives in a mult-million dollar mansion in the most expensive part of Tokyo.

Now all is clear. I pay 90 cents for the cup of coffee, and $399.10 for everything else. I contribute to the cost of the owners' Rolls Royce, house, lavish lifestyle. Does anyone think that these additional things and activities do not involve an energy input? Am I at least being a little less incoherent?

Do you think the C02 molecules in the atmosphere care one stuff about how they were produced? Do I have to personify them to get my point across? "Whoopee! I'm a C02 molecule produced in the production of a lovely clean and green PVP. I'm going to let infrared radiation escape from the plant because that's the right thing to do."

"Aw shucks! I do envy you. I'm a miserable C02 molecule. I was produced by that idiot Ray during one of his one-minute showers using disgustingly dirty coal. I guess I'll just have to block all heat radiation that attempts to pass through me."

I sometimes wonder if you guys are smart enough to even determine if the penny has dropped.

Shorter Ray:

Maybe I can convince people I'm not talking nonsense if I write gibberish?

@Ray:
"Am I at least being a little less incoherent?"
No.

@Ray:
"Do you think the C02 molecules in the atmosphere care one stuff about how they were produced?"
No.

Do YOU think they care one stuff about how much they cost, Ray? Your answer to that seems to be 'yes' - which is why what you are writing is gibberish.

I have here next to me, tucked among the volumes on the bookshelf near my desk, two books.

One is hardbound, about 400 pages, a specialized technical manual that was produced in a print run of 250 and cost $600 - it was a gift from a very good friend.

The other is hardbound, about 400 pages, a controversial science popularization that I bought in the remainder bin for $6.00 - $5.95, actually, but let's make it even.

Ray tells us that the $600, 400 page book has 100x the greenhouse gas impact as the $6.00, 400 page book.

Apparently CO2 molecules don't care how they were produced, but do care how much they cost.

Ray is an idiot. That isn't an ad hom, it is the unavoidable conclusion of considering the data in this and other threads - quite an adequate sample size - and then carefully considering and analyzing that data.

sod and Lee, Had either of you seen the learn curves for PV? Showing how price decreased with cumulative production. Basically we get better with practice. Given that coal is increasing in price a cross over in price between PV and coal ($/Watt) is expected before 2020.

thanks for the link. i was aware of the trend, but the paper is a very nice sum up.

Ray is advocating (like many others) a "support research but don t pay subsidies for renewables" approach. but that is just a another way of advocating "doing nothing".

the experiences we collect from solar panel production are of extreme value. it was completely unclear, whether people would build such stuff on their roofs. we collect experiences about long term deployment of panels, and the real effectivity on different houses with different facings and angles.

Now all is clear. I pay 90 cents for the cup of coffee, and $399.10 for everything else. I contribute to the cost of the owners' Rolls Royce, house, lavish lifestyle. Does anyone think that these additional things and activities do not involve an energy input? Am I at least being a little less incoherent?

let me apply the Ray way of reasoning in two different ways.

1. i ll take a look at the oil price.

http://www.themarketguardian.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/oil-price-c…

now if we follow Ray, every $ paid ends up in energy. and as we know, a lot of that energy is based on oil. can you figure out, what that oil price spike would have made with ALL prices, if Ray was even only somewhat right?!?

2. i ll apply the Ray approach to coffee.

my thesis is: all the money spent ends up in coffee. obviously, if i buy a coffee, it is obvious that the money is spent on coffee. but if i buy a newspaper? obviously the journalist drank coffee while writing his story. as did the staff, while printing it.and the guy selling the papers, is having coffee all the time.

sooner or later, all money spent will end up in coffee! so the price of coffee is utterly crucial to our economy! an increase in coffee price (fair trade jumps to mind) would ultimately break the world economy!

sod another way to look at is, if energy is so important, shouldn't we be pricing it as such, to maximise efficiency, rather than using it up as fast as we can for short term gain?

I have here next to me, tucked among the volumes on the bookshelf near my desk, two books.
One is hardbound, about 400 pages, a specialized technical manual that was produced in a print run of 250 and cost $600 - it was a gift from a very good friend.
The other is hardbound, about 400 pages, a controversial science popularization that I bought in the remainder bin for $6.00 - $5.95, actually, but let's make it even.
Ray tells us that the $600, 400 page book has 100x the greenhouse gas impact as the $6.00, 400 page book.

I thought I'd explained that.

If you buy a collectors' item, the collector's item is like a banknote which, hopefuly, rises in value.

The money to buy the collector's item was brought into existence through energy input. Money represents energy.

A Van Gogh painting worth a million dollars is effectively a million dollar banknote. You can cash it in, any time, for a million dollars, hopefully more.

The fact that the painting actually cost $2 to produce many years ago (in terms of ink and paper), is irrelevant. We have now bestowed upon this painting a million dollar value, just as we bestow upon a million banknote the same value.

However you juggle the figures, the total greenhouse gasses emitted from any country depends on how green are their energy supplies.

I doesn't depend on silly projects like installing PVPs on roofs that take 40 years for a real energy/economic payback.

We kid ourselves if we think the energy payback is 2, or 3, or 4 years. But that's quite understandable. The main occupation of humanity at large would seem to be to kid itself.

Ray has left the building, hes is now off with the fairies,

PV pays back its energy inputs in [less than 3 years](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/06/moncktons_vision_of_the_future…).

Mind you, the Rays of this world don't need facts, he has his blind faith in his own ill informed impressions.

Ray has left the building, hes is now off with the fairies,
PV pays back its energy inputs in less than 3 years.
Mind you, the Rays of this world don't need facts, he has his blind faith in his own ill informed impressions.
Posted by: MAB | July 20, 2009 3:30 AM

Absolutely untrue. I'm always open to different interpretations supported by facts.

Provide the facts, and I'll do a complete about face. There's no 'loss of face' issue as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not here for ego purposes. Deliver the facts which meet my scrutiny and I'll eat humble pie.

Read the facts Ray, they are even [linked for you](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/06/moncktons_vision_of_the_future…).

Then Ray, go and substantiate your claim, [as requested](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/monbiot_on_plimer.php#comment-1…).

So, Ray, if I sell a Van Gogh to A for a million dollars, that represents a million dollars worth of energy, and of energy impact on the environment, right? Because "energy is money?"

If I then spend that million dollars to buy diamonds from B, is that another million dollars worth of energy, for the same million dollars?

B, the guy who sold me the diamonds, uses the million dollars to buy from A the same Van Gogh I sold - we have three million dollars worth of energy cost now? Three million dollars worth of greenhouse gas impact?

A now buys my diamonds - 4 million dollars of energy?

I buy back the Van Gogh from B - 5 million worth?

B buys back the diamonds from A - 6 million dollars worth of energy?

A has the million dollars he started with, B has the diamonds he started with. I have the Van Gogh I started with. We just did 6 transactions for a million dollars each, and ended up exactly where we started. We could have done it without ever even actually getting out of our chairs to hand off the money, painting, or stones, but instead just agreed among ourselves over a beer. Like futures traders. Ray says we just used 6 million dollars of energy, and added 6 million dollars of CO2 impact to the atmosphere.

Not only is ray idiotic when he argues that 'money represents energy,' he is also confusing money with transactions.

Hey Ray - I have a $100 bill. Can you break it for 5 $20s? Oh wait - that'll use up $100 of energy and add $100 worth of CO2 to the sky. Better not...

em>Read the facts Ray, they are even linked for you.
Posted by: MAB | July 20, 2009 4:31 AM
589
Then Ray, go and substantiate your claim, as requested.
Posted by: MAB | July 20, 2009 4:34 AM

Your link doesn't work. But never mind. There's such a thing as commone sense. Anyone who believes that a $12,000 solar panel can pay for itself in 2, or 3, or 5, or even 10 years, is off the planet.

I actually have some sympathy for Ray's equating of money with energy, as I have used that paradigm in my head for decades. However, he omits the wildcard of human irrationality, which hopelessly mangles the determination of genuine 'equivalence'.

An example of this would be the bubbles that swell (and burst) over a whole gammut of commodities, whether they be tulips, dot coms, or real estate. There is no real value (especially at a societal level) that justifies post hoc the prices paid at the height of such booms - it's irrationality that drives the market.

There is certainly no rational energy/money equivalence.

Conversely, theft/parasitism/enslavement can undervalue the real energetic quotient of a commodity. Such stealing can be surrepticious, as occurs when 'externalities' are ignored by economic mechanisms, and left to be paid for by future generations. Yes, robbing from those unborn (or unable to speak for themselves) is theft and parasitism, whether the sensitive petals with contemporary laissez faire 'free market' mindsets admit it or not.

Ray says:

You may buy something at a bargain price. Someone else is ripped off. It all everages out.

No, it does not.

How has the third world 'averaged out' its exploitation by the colonial powers? Has the non-human biosphere 'averaged out' its depletion by humans? Will future generations have the same opportunities of fossil-carbon use that we currently have?

How will future generations and ecosystems 'average out' the climatic consequences of current humanity's fossil energy binge?

Neither the energy/money relationship, nor the opportunity of access to resources in space and time, are normally distributed. And even if they were, the obvious variance in these relationships does not justify the current calls for business-as-usual.

The price of a cup of coffee is a bit higher, as you would expect. Not $5 but $400. I enquire as to the brand of coffe and am surprised that it is the same brand as the last cup of coffee I bought in the Mall in Australia. Wow! I'm paying $400 for an item which the ANU Engineering Department has estimated costs just 90 cents to produce. What's happened to the other $399.10?

I then notice the coffe pot. Pure silver. The waitress is dressed like a geisha, in flowing, ornate robes. The interior of the coffee house is splendid. Magnificent murals and tapestries adorn the walls, and the hi fi system is something to die for. State-of-the art valve/transistor hybrid producing mellifluous tones one has never heard before. The waitress informs me that the coffee room itself has been acoustically designed to produce the most pleasing sound.

I do a bit of digging and find that the owner of the restaurant owns a Rolls Royce and employs a chauffeur, (of course). He lives in a mult-million dollar mansion in the most expensive part of Tokyo.

Now all is clear. I pay 90 cents for the cup of coffee, and $399.10 for everything else. I contribute to the cost of the owners' Rolls Royce, house, lavish lifestyle. Does anyone think that these additional things and activities do not involve an energy input?

Pretty story, but your analogy fails.

However, if your were to rearrange the metaphor to make it operable, the planet's 20th/21st century Western-style generations would be the Rolls Royce-owning hotelier, and the planet's future generations and its biopshere would be the poor mug who has to pay $400 for a coffee.

Except that $400 might be a conservative estimate of the cost of that cup of coffee.

Ray, no one is arguing that you can get a monetary payback time of 4 years on a PV system. Stop with the straw man.

The carbon emission payback time is 2,3,4 years. Pay attention.

Oh BTW, MAB has posted that link about a half dozen times in this thread. Go find it and learn something.

So, Ray, if I sell a Van Gogh to A for a million dollars, that represents a million dollars worth of energy, and of energy impact on the environment, right?"
Posted by: Lee | July 20, 2009 4:54 AM

Absolutely true. Wow! You're smart. A million dollars is worth a million dollars because of the energy it represents. If it represents no energy, it's crap, like Zimbabwe currency.

You could put the money (energy) in the bank at 2% or 5% interest. But sometimes you'll get a better return by buying a Van Gogh.

In order to acquire that million dollars to buy a Van Gogh, a lot of industrial activity has to take place. Factory chimneys spewing C02, real estate being built and sold, all sorts of deals and financial manipulations, or perhaps just saving the money, week by week for 40 years from one's regular day job in an office.

You buy a Van Gogh for 1 million dollars which represents all the industrial activity that has taken place through all the shenanigans, and GHGs emission over the years. The Van Gogh then becomes the equivalent of a one million dollar banknote which, hopefully will increase in value at a greater rate than keeping the one million dollars in the bank.

The owner of the Van Gogh who receives your one million dollars, puts the money in the bank. The bank then invests that one million dollars in a really, really dirty coal-fired power station in China, in order to get the best return.

Got it? How far does the penny have to drop? Are we looking at 1 metre or 100 kilometres?

> Got it? How far does the penny have to drop?

> Posted by: Ray

You have no penny.

You've spent your penny long ago.

Money represents a medium of exchange.

It costs more energy to make a tin can than mow your lawn, yet your tin can costs pennies and you pay your mower dollars.

Then again you refuse to listen.

> I'm not here for ego purposes.

True. You're hear to talk not listen.

> Deliver the facts which meet my scrutiny and I'll eat humble pie.

> Posted by: Ray

Uh, who made you god? Why do you get to say what facts are and why they must pass YOUR scrutiny?

Seems I was wrong. You ARE here for ego reasons.

Uh, who made you god? Why do you get to say what facts are and why they must pass YOUR scrutiny?
Seems I was wrong. You ARE here for ego reasons.
Posted by: Mark | July 20, 2009 6:43 AM

Hhmmm! That's interesting! If I require facts to pass my scrutiny, I must be egotistical.

I never considered that before. I thought that questioning 'so-called' facts was part of the course.

This view of yours certainly seems to be consistent with the scientific consensus for AGW. How dare you question such a large body of scientific consensus??

Well, you see, Mark, this is what a skeptic does. He doesn't accept anything that doesn't make sense.

I know there are people who will accept anything that is endorsed by an expert, true or false, but I'm not one of them.

Ray writes:
> We kid ourselves if we think the energy payback is 2, or 3, or 4 years [for PV]. But that's quite understandable. The main occupation of humanity at large would seem to be to kid itself.

MAB writes
>Ray has left the building, hes is now off with the fairies, PV pays back its energy inputs in less than 3 years. Mind you, the Rays of this world don't need facts, he has his blind faith in his own ill informed impressions.

Ray responds:
>Absolutely untrue. I'm always open to different interpretations supported by facts.
>Provide the facts, and I'll do a complete about face. There's no 'loss of face' issue as far as I'm concerned.

MAB writes:
>Read the facts Ray, they are even linked for you. [I followed MAB's link [to here]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/06/moncktons_vision_of_the_future…), Yes Ray it worked, you needed to trace it through the numerous times it has been mentioned, and ignored].

Ray responds:
>Your link doesn't work. But never mind. There's such a thing as commone sense. Anyone who believes that a $12,000 solar panel can pay for itself in 2, or 3, or 5, or even 10 years, is off the planet.

Lee responds:
> The carbon emission payback time is 2,3,4 years. Pay attention.
>Oh BTW, MAB has posted that link about a half dozen times in this thread. Go find it and learn something.

So basically Ray open to the facts as long as they donât conflict with his ill informed impressions. Then facts for Ray are are unwelcome guests.

Ray better get used to a new title. It's 'pseudo-skeptic'. I don't think anyone here is fooled by your self description as skeptic. The number of times you tell other that you are skeptical gives a sense of how keen you are to be considered skeptical. However Ray, we've all got to earn our stripes we can't just claim a title we haven't earned.

And Ray you've provided strong evidence that you are psudo-skeptical, one who doesn't let the facts get in the way of ill-informed beliefs.

Ray better get used to a new title. It's 'pseudo-skeptic'. I don't think anyone here is fooled by your self description as skeptic. The number of times you tell other that you are skeptical gives a sense of how keen you are to be considered skeptical. However Ray, we've all got to earn our stripes we can't just claim a title we haven't earned. And Ray you've provided strong evidence that you are psudo-skeptical, one who doesn't let the facts get in the way of ill-informed beliefs.
Posted by: Janet Akerman | July 20, 2009 8:23 AM

Give me the evidence for my insincere skepticism. You never know, there may be some people who are fooled about my claims of skepticism. You owe it to them to expose me.

Ray,

Read one post up [at 598](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/06/moncktons_vision_of_the_future…).

A million dollars is worth a million dollars because of the energy it represents.

OK Ray, could you explain the reasons that a barrel of oil, which (over the short term) is surely relatively inelastically equivalent to a unit of energy, cost almost US$150 on 11 July last year, and was worth just under $34/barrel on 21 December? By your logic, there must have been less energy (whether embodied or real) in each barrel of oil, with the passage of just five months.

Oh, and I am [still curious](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/06/moncktons_vision_of_the_future…).

Ray.

A couple more interesting points...

1) In 2008 one US penny contained 2 cents worth of metal.

2) Oil prices are kept artificially low because many oil-producing nations, such as Saudi Arabia, peg their currencies to the US dollar.

What do these facts say about your statement that "[a] million dollars is worth a million dollars because of the energy it represents."?

You buy a Van Gogh for 1 million dollars which represents all the industrial activity that has taken place through all the shenanigans, and GHGs emission over the years.

again: this "everything is CO2 over the years" is a completely false idea!

as i showed with my example above: i buy coffee, or the person i bought from uses part of the money to buy coffee, or the person he buys from buys coffee, ....
so ever $ on the world ends up in coffee!

so apart from all money ending up in energy, all money ends up in coffee, and even at the same time!

the cause of this obvious logic flaw in your theory is a simple one. you are double counting transactions!

if i sell one of my van Gogh pictures to you, and afterwards refill the tank of my car with $100 of petrol, then the petrol is counted TWICE.

it shows up in my balance sheet (i transform $100 into energy), but it also shows up in your balance sheet. (as part of your "historic" van Gogh bundle.

when you sum up your transactions, then there are suddenly $200 invested in the same $100 worth of petrol. that is nonsense!

***

the real energy part of goods is pretty small. i guess between 5 and 20%, actually 10% might be a pretty good guess. anyone got a link or some good numbers?

sod, Bernard,

Save your juice, Ray seems to be trying to waste your time.

Ray is missing his chance.

If I pay $12,000 for an installed V system, Ray says that is equivalent to $12,000 energy cost, and $12,000 Carbon emission.

But before my contractor could install the system, he had to buy the components. Lets say he spent $6,000 on parts, and $4,000 for labor and overhead. So his cost is $10,000.

My $12k, plus his $10k is $22k. No wonder the caarbon emission payback sucks (40 years, Ray says) if my $12k PV system has $22k worth of energy cost.

But wait! His suppliers and the manufacturers had to pay for their supplies and energy too! He paid $6,000 - let's estimate an aggregate value of $5k for materials, overhead, utilities, labor.

Now my $12k Pv system has $27k of energy cost. Dayyum - Ray has a point!

Oh, wait! It's even worse! The contractor, suppliers, and workers are going to have spent their wages and profits too. Have to include that! My PV system is getting really, really energy expensive now, for my $12k cost! This is terrible.

I bet if I trace those dollars back far enough, the money flow is going to expand in not too many years to include nearly the entire economy, and the dollars in each of those years will have been flowing through the economy the year before, and the year before that, and so on.

So - I get it, Ray. The energy cost of my $12k PV system is equivalent to the total GDP of the planet, summed for eacxh year from the beginning of monetary economies through, say, 20-40 years ago (I'm being conservative on when the trace-back touches the entire economy), plus a diminishing portion of the global GDP in each year since then.

Dayyum, that's a lot of energy cost, Ray. No wonder the payback is 40 years instead of 2.

---

Oh BTW, Ray. You're a fricking idiot.

Ray,

If there is a net carbon cost (not a monetary cost) to energy now, doesn't the gradual transition to carbon free energy sources mean that the net carbon cost of energy will also go down?

Is that commonsensical enough for you?

Observa.

I tend to agree with you, but the perverse part of me is interested to see how long Ray will continue to make his claim that there is a direct and fixedly proportional relationship between money and energy.

This has been entertaining me as a non-economist, because I doubt that many real economists would take such a simplistic stance. For example, on first pass as an economic lay person, I would posit that P = iEND/S, where P = price, E = embodied energy, N = number of people in the economy, D = demand, and S = supply. I would suggest that a variable coefficient of irrationality is required that operates on demand, hence the i.

In this model taxes are an optional modifier, dependent on the nature of the economy: such charges/levies are not necessarily mandatory in understanding what determines price, so I omit them.

Considering this equation for a moment, it is trivially obvious that supply can modify price without the embodied energy of a product changing. One only needs to think how the cost of mangos drops after the first few weeks of the season, even though the embodied engery E in producing them does not change and the demand D might be stable.

Similarly, with Peak Oil the price (P) of energy (not to be confused with the cost factor E) increases as supply S diminishes. There is an additional effect as the remaining oil (or other fossil fuel) reserves become harder to tap, so P increases as a consequence of increased E as well as reduced S.

As I said, it's trivial stuff, but more nuanced than Ray's blathering has been up to now.

Of course, it's also fairly trivial to see how human irrationality might modify the demand component D, and hence final price P. The fun thing is, as I was considering how i may be defined by rearranging the equation, I realised that it (quite serendipitously!) comes out as:

i = SP/END

Says it all, really.

> Save your juice, Ray seems to be trying to waste your time.

> Posted by: Observa

Just do enough work to counter his idiotic postings.

Some poor deluded fool may think Ray has something.

We all agree he has something, but only a psychologist can help...

>"I tend to agree with you, but the perverse part of me is interested to see how long Ray will continue to make his claim that there is a direct and fixedly proportional relationship between money and energy."

Yes, it can be addictive. But I wonder if its healthy?

;)

Second pass.

Thinking about it, I would have better expressed D as being equivalent to 'mean level of desire', rather than 'demand'. Following on, 'demand' might be better expressed as being a function of 'mean level of desire' x N.

With such definitions, one could replace 'demand' in the [previous post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/06/moncktons_vision_of_the_future…) with 'desire' (D), and simply acknowledge that there is a separate composite entity, demand (Dd).

However, as I am a self-confessed economic ignoramus, no validity should be assumed!

Eg. Ray, you mention one person and its [Fred Singer](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer). Do you know who that is?

I guess most of the readers here have a predisposition to believe enviro-fanatics. Unfortunately you people have infiltrated and commandeered all the major media, so yes, anyone who would like to bring people the truth, must use alternative sources. Turns out all the anti-establishment types of the 60's have become the slave masters of the New World Order, completely silencing any point of view with which they disagree. Yet, for my part, I trust the Enquirer for unbiased journalism far more than Tim Lambert. Enjoy your tyranny, fools. "May your chains rest lightly upon you..."