although to be fair to one of the regular commenters on grist, there is a toll on ecosystems even building in the deserts...but I think we have a triage problem, and i don't think much of the desert would be impacted. I believe someone on this thread pointed to the grand solar one (sp?) project that has been advocated by some scientists -- just as the Plains states could provide all of our electricity from wind, so the Southwest could provide it all from solar (there are even reports showing that the sahara could provide all of the world's energy needs, more than electricity).
Now, yours truly thinks that the government should just construct them with public dollars, and make them publicly owned, but then we have the enormous weight of the utilities to contend with...but somehow Obama is trying to upgrade the grid, I would guess by shoveling money at the utilities, which might be the only way to get them to upgrade the grid since they don't make any profit from it (profit in these deregulated days seems to come mostly from generating).
This is also in response to Robert above, but there's a nice post by Gail the Actuary at theoildrum.com that is much more technical and thorough, about the grid.
Not we're doing anything with our deserts anyways. I can only imagine how much juice we could get with arrays in Death Valley alone! Or am I wrong here? To be honest, I'm not the engineer or scientist on here, but isn't Death Valley one of the hottest places in the US? Couldn't it work?
I believe the problem and last I saw this is one of the major infrastructure projects in the stimulus, hopefully it survives, is the power lines to transport the energy from wind farms do not exist.
The power grid generally in the U.S. is antiquated and analog technology and needs to be seriously updated for (how do I say this non-technically?) "better routing" algorithms.
To me, this one is a no brainer in terms of public works projects...just like in the 30's they built a water distribution and electricity distribution system. Those projects boosted the economy by raising income, i.e. demand (pure Keynesian) plus invested in the United States and made the nation highly competitive for business as well as war frankly after the depression was over.
and quite a bit more, in fact. The work of Mark Z. Jacobson at Stanford University has been critical on this. He has shown, for instance, that North Dakota alone could probably supply all of the electricity needs of the country from wind -- the big problems being transmission lines, first, and intermittency, second. Which is why Jacobson did a paper on how a nationwide grid of windfarms could solve much of the intermittency problem.
That, along with solar (you could have huge solar farms in the Southwest deserts, for instance), would probably do the trick. Gar Lipow at grist has done some good work on this; I should get a better list of references for you, and to flame just a bit, there ought to be much more research along these lines from academia.
as a general solution to peak oil, in my opinion. in fact, the collective wisdom at grist and most of the environmental community basically sees biofuels as a disaster, in many ways worse than oil. The basic reasons: for most sources of biofuels, they use at best almost as much energy as they provide; they lead to soil-destroying monocultural practices; they lead to further deforestation, as farmers convert their croplands to corn or other sources, then the formerly grown crop (such as soy) is grown in formerly rain forests in the Amazon, for instance; according to one statistic I read some time ago, you'd have to starve all nonamericans in order to grow enough biofuels to feed just america's cars.
The basic problem is this; most of the "free" energy we're getting from oil was providing by the geothermal energy of the Earth, that slowly cooked biological material into oil. It wasn't the biological material so much as it was the geothermal cooking, yet people think, "well, oil is from plants, so all we need to do is make more plants". No, all we need is an oven the size of Earth.
so I would definitely not list biofuels as a "green" alterntive, as attractive as it might sound. eventually, transportation will have to move from completely oil-based (almost) to completely electricity based (almost).
Note: the countries, not mentioned in this article, are third world countries. Our dumping of this dubious crop is very reminiscent of what other American corporations have done with baby formula and cigarettes.
A quote from it:
There are hungry ethanol plants and livestock, and grain processors and many countries welcome the technology, officials said. Prior to planting, farmers are informed by seed companies and dealers what countries accept a variety, and receive written documentation to sign.
Few biotech varieties aren't accepted by the nation's major export customers, such as Japan, China and Mexico. But even varieties not widely accepted overseas are easily sold domestically.
"Anything not EU approved needs to go to the (Jesup) feed mill," Stewart said. "They (farmers) know going in that particular bushels need to go to specific locations, otherwise they wouldn't be raising it."
Which explains all the noise about biofuels, never mind they take more oil to produce than they return in the form of gasohol....
And 'livestock processors' means you end up eating this stuff. The effect on humans who eat GMO fed animals or processed cereal?
Who knows?
One thing's for sure. Your government don't give a shit.
That probably know about the economic aspects of biofuels, Iowa, what is the most economical, etc. They are on here but both had their own blogs, columns as well. List of bloggers, users on the site links to their blogs (on EP, but they should have their own blogs listed here too, etc.).
"... "The extraordinary gall of these corporate lobbyists to align themselves with foreign corporations at this time is nothing short of economic treason," declared Buffenbarger. "Every other country in the world puts its own industries and workers first. For the sake of our nation and our economic recovery, our elected officials should do the same."
..."
What kind of piece is that FT article though? Take anti-anxiety drugs and go shopping and all will be well? I don't think so!
What is missing from the -3.8% GDP instead of -5.5% that was the estimate is inventory build up. without it the offset is -5.1% GDP, Q4 2008. The consumer spending is about in line with GDP contraction until one hits durable goods.
That said.....
Couldn't one consider the possibility here of a credit squeeze assisted in this 7+ drop in durable goods from Q3 to Q4? Autos alone contributed 2% of GDP contraction.
It would be interesting to see precisely the ratio of loan application denials/approvals on potential durable good orders during Q4. I read numerous reports on denial of credit to consumers, small business, no aggregate stats.
Another interesting thing would be interesting to see exactly how correlated "confidence" is when the unemployment rate goes up.
When it comes to fear, the origin is not the mind, it's in the pocketbook. That is my hypothesis.
We have numerous "you read it here first" posts at this point on EP, which is super cool juju, implies we're writing more from 1st principles/analysis in a lot of ways.
(yes I have some!).
I'm thinking of a deflationary wage spiral effect. Those layoffs stats are going to hit consumer spending, probably a little more delays because the true hemorrhage just started.
Ya gonna do a post on the correlation to unemployment?
I think in terms of raw data we have big woes because the stats, data collection has been repeatedly changed in order to make the employment picture look better (IMHO).
The evidence that simply "throwing money at it" does not work are the Bush "stimulus", including "tax cuts". It is where the money goes.
Keynesian economics, is a "trickle up" economics and is all about wages, wage levels and increasing spending (demand) at the bottom which is why he specifically recommends government infrastructure, or job creation.
I have no idea what you mean by "right wing media". From the posts I've written, I am looking at the legislation itself and then I am reviewing credible economists, plus the CBO and GAO analysis. For example, Zendi's multiplier effect or his "most bang for the buck chart" imply he is also using some Keynesian theory to derive those values.
With January over, it is apparent that Oil prices were essentially flat for the month. So if the deflation has only been about Oil, we should expect a significant seasonal uptick in inflation. If January CPI is flat or negative, we can pretty much rule out the "it's just about Oil" thesis. If January CPI is mildly upward on a non-seasonal basis, (+.1% or +.2%), the Jury is out.
... how hard it is to do, what matters is that it needs to be done, or else it will not be done. It definitely is an activity that has a massive benefit/cost ratio, but that is not the main issue with the stimulus bill ... the main issue is making high multiplier spending projects that have a quick impact. With states forced to make cuts to balance budgets, spending that forestalls cutting state budgets has the quickest stimulus impact of all ... once the funds are appropriated to be available within the state's fiscal year, it prevents cuts in state spending in the same week that the bill is signed into law.
I wasn't attacking the typo, I just don't listen to right wing media, so I didn't know whether the amount was millions or billions.
$1 and change per person in state spending on that program is obviously sound public policy ... $1,000 per person in state spending on that program would indeed qualify as absurd.
although to be fair to one of the regular commenters on grist, there is a toll on ecosystems even building in the deserts...but I think we have a triage problem, and i don't think much of the desert would be impacted. I believe someone on this thread pointed to the grand solar one (sp?) project that has been advocated by some scientists -- just as the Plains states could provide all of our electricity from wind, so the Southwest could provide it all from solar (there are even reports showing that the sahara could provide all of the world's energy needs, more than electricity).
Now, yours truly thinks that the government should just construct them with public dollars, and make them publicly owned, but then we have the enormous weight of the utilities to contend with...but somehow Obama is trying to upgrade the grid, I would guess by shoveling money at the utilities, which might be the only way to get them to upgrade the grid since they don't make any profit from it (profit in these deregulated days seems to come mostly from generating).
This is also in response to Robert above, but there's a nice post by Gail the Actuary at theoildrum.com that is much more technical and thorough, about the grid.
JR on Grist
Not we're doing anything with our deserts anyways. I can only imagine how much juice we could get with arrays in Death Valley alone! Or am I wrong here? To be honest, I'm not the engineer or scientist on here, but isn't Death Valley one of the hottest places in the US? Couldn't it work?
How about algae? My understanding is there are so algae which would increase green life, increase wetlands which also could be harvested.
That are economic, both in harvesting as well as Joules output vs. required energy for production.
Also, the sea/water in wetlands has a potential difference, i.e. it's a glorified biochemical battery.
I believe the problem and last I saw this is one of the major infrastructure projects in the stimulus, hopefully it survives, is the power lines to transport the energy from wind farms do not exist.
The power grid generally in the U.S. is antiquated and analog technology and needs to be seriously updated for (how do I say this non-technically?) "better routing" algorithms.
To me, this one is a no brainer in terms of public works projects...just like in the 30's they built a water distribution and electricity distribution system. Those projects boosted the economy by raising income, i.e. demand (pure Keynesian) plus invested in the United States and made the nation highly competitive for business as well as war frankly after the depression was over.
and quite a bit more, in fact. The work of Mark Z. Jacobson at Stanford University has been critical on this. He has shown, for instance, that North Dakota alone could probably supply all of the electricity needs of the country from wind -- the big problems being transmission lines, first, and intermittency, second. Which is why Jacobson did a paper on how a nationwide grid of windfarms could solve much of the intermittency problem.
That, along with solar (you could have huge solar farms in the Southwest deserts, for instance), would probably do the trick. Gar Lipow at grist has done some good work on this; I should get a better list of references for you, and to flame just a bit, there ought to be much more research along these lines from academia.
JR on Grist
Could windfarms in say North Dakota or southern Illinois be enough to power factories in say Indiana, Michigan or Ohio??
as a general solution to peak oil, in my opinion. in fact, the collective wisdom at grist and most of the environmental community basically sees biofuels as a disaster, in many ways worse than oil. The basic reasons: for most sources of biofuels, they use at best almost as much energy as they provide; they lead to soil-destroying monocultural practices; they lead to further deforestation, as farmers convert their croplands to corn or other sources, then the formerly grown crop (such as soy) is grown in formerly rain forests in the Amazon, for instance; according to one statistic I read some time ago, you'd have to starve all nonamericans in order to grow enough biofuels to feed just america's cars.
The basic problem is this; most of the "free" energy we're getting from oil was providing by the geothermal energy of the Earth, that slowly cooked biological material into oil. It wasn't the biological material so much as it was the geothermal cooking, yet people think, "well, oil is from plants, so all we need to do is make more plants". No, all we need is an oven the size of Earth.
so I would definitely not list biofuels as a "green" alterntive, as attractive as it might sound. eventually, transportation will have to move from completely oil-based (almost) to completely electricity based (almost).
JR on Grist
...'idiots...' Senator how come they are still calling the shots, eh?
And what does that make you and your colleagues?
Fine speech is great Senator but the time is right now for some effective action. So far...
...I don't see any.
...be sold to the EU. The entire crop is contaminated by Monsanto's insane 'pilot project' use of GMO corn. Read about it in Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products and What's at Stake for American Power'.
Or check out his article from the center of the disaster: Genetically modified grain exports remain strong.
Note: the countries, not mentioned in this article, are third world countries. Our dumping of this dubious crop is very reminiscent of what other American corporations have done with baby formula and cigarettes.
A quote from it:
Which explains all the noise about biofuels, never mind they take more oil to produce than they return in the form of gasohol....
And 'livestock processors' means you end up eating this stuff. The effect on humans who eat GMO fed animals or processed cereal?
Who knows?
One thing's for sure. Your government don't give a shit.
That probably know about the economic aspects of biofuels, Iowa, what is the most economical, etc. They are on here but both had their own blogs, columns as well. List of bloggers, users on the site links to their blogs (on EP, but they should have their own blogs listed here too, etc.).
Bad news. According to the Washington Post, all attempts to limit executive pay of those institutions receiving taxpayer money....
will not happen.
i.e. a Stimulus bill tallying now $900 billion bucks...
that is supposed to create jobs....
uh, is not going to create jobs for U.S. workers....
if they think the outrage over the TARP is bad....I think there will be riots.
But the key is to let the public know this situation.
http://sev.prnewswire.com/aerospace-defense/20090126/DC6284626012009-1.html
"... "The extraordinary gall of these corporate lobbyists to align themselves with foreign corporations at this time is nothing short of economic treason," declared Buffenbarger. "Every other country in the world puts its own industries and workers first. For the sake of our nation and our economic recovery, our elected officials should do the same."
..."
Iowa's green energy policy struggle -- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7861686.stm
: >
this so infuriates me -- i can't begin to tell you.
the "bailout" was horrendous enough, and "stimulus" is turning out even worse, i'd say.
posted yesterday, BEA GDP stats in Instapopulist, entire press release.
What kind of piece is that FT article though? Take anti-anxiety drugs and go shopping and all will be well? I don't think so!
What is missing from the -3.8% GDP instead of -5.5% that was the estimate is inventory build up. without it the offset is -5.1% GDP, Q4 2008. The consumer spending is about in line with GDP contraction until one hits durable goods.
That said.....
Couldn't one consider the possibility here of a credit squeeze assisted in this 7+ drop in durable goods from Q3 to Q4? Autos alone contributed 2% of GDP contraction.
It would be interesting to see precisely the ratio of loan application denials/approvals on potential durable good orders during Q4. I read numerous reports on denial of credit to consumers, small business, no aggregate stats.
Another interesting thing would be interesting to see exactly how correlated "confidence" is when the unemployment rate goes up.
When it comes to fear, the origin is not the mind, it's in the pocketbook. That is my hypothesis.
We have numerous "you read it here first" posts at this point on EP, which is super cool juju, implies we're writing more from 1st principles/analysis in a lot of ways.
(yes I have some!).
I'm thinking of a deflationary wage spiral effect. Those layoffs stats are going to hit consumer spending, probably a little more delays because the true hemorrhage just started.
Ya gonna do a post on the correlation to unemployment?
I think in terms of raw data we have big woes because the stats, data collection has been repeatedly changed in order to make the employment picture look better (IMHO).
The evidence that simply "throwing money at it" does not work are the Bush "stimulus", including "tax cuts". It is where the money goes.
Keynesian economics, is a "trickle up" economics and is all about wages, wage levels and increasing spending (demand) at the bottom which is why he specifically recommends government infrastructure, or job creation.
I have no idea what you mean by "right wing media". From the posts I've written, I am looking at the legislation itself and then I am reviewing credible economists, plus the CBO and GAO analysis. For example, Zendi's multiplier effect or his "most bang for the buck chart" imply he is also using some Keynesian theory to derive those values.
With January over, it is apparent that Oil prices were essentially flat for the month. So if the deflation has only been about Oil, we should expect a significant seasonal uptick in inflation. If January CPI is flat or negative, we can pretty much rule out the "it's just about Oil" thesis. If January CPI is mildly upward on a non-seasonal basis, (+.1% or +.2%), the Jury is out.
... how hard it is to do, what matters is that it needs to be done, or else it will not be done. It definitely is an activity that has a massive benefit/cost ratio, but that is not the main issue with the stimulus bill ... the main issue is making high multiplier spending projects that have a quick impact. With states forced to make cuts to balance budgets, spending that forestalls cutting state budgets has the quickest stimulus impact of all ... once the funds are appropriated to be available within the state's fiscal year, it prevents cuts in state spending in the same week that the bill is signed into law.
I wasn't attacking the typo, I just don't listen to right wing media, so I didn't know whether the amount was millions or billions.
$1 and change per person in state spending on that program is obviously sound public policy ... $1,000 per person in state spending on that program would indeed qualify as absurd.
Pages