Split from 2020 Elections: Energy Technology

[marshwiggle]

Yes, money put into subsidizing oil is money that wasn't spent on something else.  However, subsidizing convenient energy to the point that the lower middle-class folks can still participate in the modern society is often a social good that pays back much more than continuing to double down on the notion that something should work when the physical reality that we currently know replies back, nope.  Disenfranchising large numbers of people who have nothing left to lose because a decision maker just "knows better" is generally a way to foment uprisings by desperate people.

One really fun fact related to physical critical mass: if you hit critical mass in the wrong way, then you get a very exciting bomb instead of a controlled, sustained reaction that will produce power.  Focusing solely on level required for critical mass instead of how to get the desired sustained reaction doesn't work out in nuclear plants or, often, in social areas.  How you get to the critical mass and then pause at the right point matters much more than the general public thinks.

Sure, but your examples are of rapid increases in demand that outstrip supply.  My point is that oil subsidies have artificially given us access to cheap power for decades and stifled the natural growth of the alternative energy sector.  If oil based energy was a little more expensive all of these years, other approaches would have been more competitive and would have naturally developed the infrastructure so that supply may have developed as demand grew.  Wind and solar are now about on par with oil from what I have read, but this may have come much earlier if we were not subsidizing oil.

Even with fossil fuels, we've been using electricity for over a century, so there has been lots of incentive for battery technology to improve, even without advances in solar and wind. The fact that the progress has been as slow as it has suggests that subsidized oil may not have had as large an effect as some might believe.

The storage issue is very real, and a good reason we cannot simply drop oil (along with many other reasons).  However, that dosn't mean that we couldn't have a higher proportion of our energy come from renewable sources and use oil during off times without major issues.  Solar and wind can also be integrated into the grid and do not necessarily mean micro-generation as pgher describes.

But to have oil for off-peak times still requires pipelines, exploration, etc., all of which require funding, and so those nasty questions about subsidies reappear.

The cheap energy we have grown accustom to may increase our standard of living, but also encourages waste.  I think we all recognize that it is often cheaper in the long run to spend more on your shoes so they dont wear out as fast (for example).  Likewise, higher quality windows pay for themselves over time.  Perhaps instead of subsidizing oil, we should have been subsidizing windows...         
 

Better  windows won't make your car go farther. As many people have indicated, as soon as changes are proposed which will impact consumer lifestyles, people become a lot less "green". It's a much easier sell when it will only affect "those big oil companies".
Electric cars, for instance, will be more expensive, have a shorter range, and take longer to "refill". (Which may not matter for commuting, but on vacation, who wants to have to stop for an hour at a roadside fueling station every day?) And maintenance costs will probably be higher, and vehicle lifespan may be shorter, both due to increased complexity.

[Kron3007]

Yes, money put into subsidizing oil is money that wasn't spent on something else.  However, subsidizing convenient energy to the point that the lower middle-class folks can still participate in the modern society is often a social good that pays back much more than continuing to double down on the notion that something should work when the physical reality that we currently know replies back, nope.  Disenfranchising large numbers of people who have nothing left to lose because a decision maker just "knows better" is generally a way to foment uprisings by desperate people.

One really fun fact related to physical critical mass: if you hit critical mass in the wrong way, then you get a very exciting bomb instead of a controlled, sustained reaction that will produce power.  Focusing solely on level required for critical mass instead of how to get the desired sustained reaction doesn't work out in nuclear plants or, often, in social areas.  How you get to the critical mass and then pause at the right point matters much more than the general public thinks.

Sure, but your examples are of rapid increases in demand that outstrip supply.  My point is that oil subsidies have artificially given us access to cheap power for decades and stifled the natural growth of the alternative energy sector.  If oil based energy was a little more expensive all of these years, other approaches would have been more competitive and would have naturally developed the infrastructure so that supply may have developed as demand grew.  Wind and solar are now about on par with oil from what I have read, but this may have come much earlier if we were not subsidizing oil.

Even with fossil fuels, we've been using electricity for over a century, so there has been lots of incentive for battery technology to improve, even without advances in solar and wind. The fact that the progress has been as slow as it has suggests that subsidized oil may not have had as large an effect as some might believe.

The storage issue is very real, and a good reason we cannot simply drop oil (along with many other reasons).  However, that dosn't mean that we couldn't have a higher proportion of our energy come from renewable sources and use oil during off times without major issues.  Solar and wind can also be integrated into the grid and do not necessarily mean micro-generation as pgher describes.

But to have oil for off-peak times still requires pipelines, exploration, etc., all of which require funding, and so those nasty questions about subsidies reappear.

The cheap energy we have grown accustom to may increase our standard of living, but also encourages waste.  I think we all recognize that it is often cheaper in the long run to spend more on your shoes so they dont wear out as fast (for example).  Likewise, higher quality windows pay for themselves over time.  Perhaps instead of subsidizing oil, we should have been subsidizing windows...         
 

Better  windows won't make your car go farther. As many peole have indicated, as soon as changes are proposed which will impact consumer lifestyles, people become a lot less "green". It's a much easier sell when it will only affect "those big oil companies".
Electric cars, for instance, will be more expensive, have a shorter range, and take longer to "refill". (Which may not matter for commuting, but on vacation, who wants to have to stop for an hour at a roadside fueling station every day?) And maintenance costs will probably be higher, and vehicle lifespan may be shorter, both due to increased complexity.

Perhaps battery technology would not have gone faster, I dont know.  However, if large scale electrical generation from wind/solar was more common there would have been a bigger need and perhaps it would have.

Yes, off peak use of oil requires pipelines etc., but that dosnt mean we need to subsidize it.  We would have to pay more to use it, but I still don't see a need to subsidize it.  We should be paying the real price of oil.

You are right that windows wont make cars run longer, but it was one of few examples.  Perhaps smaller cars, or efficiency standards would be a better example.  In reality, it should be all of the above and many more.  The point is that instead of promoting oil and cheap energy, the governments should have been promoting efficiency.  Of course, this is not good for the bottom line of oil nations... 

[polly_mer]

Perhaps battery technology would not have gone faster, I dont know.  However, if large scale electrical generation from wind/solar was more common there would have been a bigger need and perhaps it would have.

Faster development or not, because of limitations on materials, we cannot make enough solar panels and the related batteries to meet more than a modest fraction of our current electricity demand.  We cannot make additional rare earth metals--they are elements and what we have is what we have*.  That is an upper limit on how many of these systems in any configuration.

To bring in another facet, China controls most of the sources of rare earth metals that would be needed: https://www.businessinsider.com/rare-earth-metals-elements-what-they-are-2019-6 is very readable and gives an overview.

For those who skipped the link, not only are rare earth metals important to the energy generation aspects, but also for many of the electronics that use the electricity.  It is bad to have multiple industries competing for exactly the same supplies.  It's worse when those industries are interlinked so that the optimum solution is spread across all of them to ensure that devices have the electricity to operate and that the electricity will have something to power.


* If anyone wants to quibble about how nuclear reactions work, then I remind you about the huge energy investment to get the rare earth metals we want.  The scaling does not work.

[polly_mer]

Whether subsidizing oil is good or not, many states get a noticeable fraction of their state budgets from fossil fuels.  A good enough overview is https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2020-09-24/its-time-for-states-that-grew-rich-from-oil-gas-and-coal-to-figure-out-whats-next

These poor, rural states (for the most part) will not be able to replace the place-bound jobs for the people who will be affected.  Having more jobs elsewhere that need different skills doesn't help the communities built around the mines, rigs, and fields.

[dismalist]

Whether subsidizing oil is good or not, many states get a noticeable fraction of their state budgets from fossil fuels.  A good enough overview is https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2020-09-24/its-time-for-states-that-grew-rich-from-oil-gas-and-coal-to-figure-out-whats-next

These poor, rural states (for the most part) will not be able to replace the place-bound jobs for the people who will be affected.  Having more jobs elsewhere that need different skills doesn't help the communities built around the mines, rigs, and fields.

Subsidizing anything is bad! There are cheaper ways of helping those who lose.

[polly_mer]

Whether subsidizing oil is good or not, many states get a noticeable fraction of their state budgets from fossil fuels.  A good enough overview is https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2020-09-24/its-time-for-states-that-grew-rich-from-oil-gas-and-coal-to-figure-out-whats-next

These poor, rural states (for the most part) will not be able to replace the place-bound jobs for the people who will be affected.  Having more jobs elsewhere that need different skills doesn't help the communities built around the mines, rigs, and fields.

Subsidizing anything is bad! There are cheaper ways of helping those who lose.

What solution are you proposing for the states that currently get more than 25% of their budget from selling fossil fuels?

[dismalist]

Whether subsidizing oil is good or not, many states get a noticeable fraction of their state budgets from fossil fuels.  A good enough overview is https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2020-09-24/its-time-for-states-that-grew-rich-from-oil-gas-and-coal-to-figure-out-whats-next

These poor, rural states (for the most part) will not be able to replace the place-bound jobs for the people who will be affected.  Having more jobs elsewhere that need different skills doesn't help the communities built around the mines, rigs, and fields.

Subsidizing anything is bad! There are cheaper ways of helping those who lose.

What solution are you proposing for the states that currently get more than 25% of their budget from selling fossil fuels?

States worry me not. People have my thoughts.

Carbon tax with some or much  of the proceeds given to those individuals and families that lose from the policy, over and above Unemployment Insurance.

States will become efficient with respect to energy usage. :-)

[polly_mer]

Whether subsidizing oil is good or not, many states get a noticeable fraction of their state budgets from fossil fuels.  A good enough overview is https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2020-09-24/its-time-for-states-that-grew-rich-from-oil-gas-and-coal-to-figure-out-whats-next

These poor, rural states (for the most part) will not be able to replace the place-bound jobs for the people who will be affected.  Having more jobs elsewhere that need different skills doesn't help the communities built around the mines, rigs, and fields.

Subsidizing anything is bad! There are cheaper ways of helping those who lose.

What solution are you proposing for the states that currently get more than 25% of their budget from selling fossil fuels?

States worry me not. People have my thoughts.

Carbon tax with some or much  of the proceeds given to those individuals and families that lose from the policy, over and above Unemployment Insurance.

States will become efficient with respect to energy usage. :-)

My point was how will those states replace the funds that are currently going to schools, libraries, and social programs.

A carbon tax on the much less fuel being sold that goes to some entity that is not even the state, let alone schools, libraries, and social programs will actually make matters worse for poor people in the states that currently have more than a quarter of their budget coming from fossil fuel sales.

Texas will be fine because their state budget isn't reliant on oil sales.  Alaska, last year before Covid, was cutting higher ed, partially due to lower than expected oil sales.  I don't even know how a state copes with a loss of 30-40% of their revenue in a year or two, but some states will do something in the next two years.

People at non-flagship universities in some states will find out pretty quick as states deal with Covid.  Maybe the lessons learned will carry over to the states that need to transition away from fossil fuel revenues, but don't have any good backup possibilities.

[dismalist]

Let me repeat: I don't care about States. They can take care of themselves. People are worth caring about. Taxing carbon, nationally, generates revenue that can be redistributed to those who lose from the policy.

If this is too much to ask, one can ask our elected representatives if they see global warming as a serious problem. Given policy, I infer they do not.

So, nothing to worry about from lack of State oil revenues! :-)

[spork]

An article about how to plan (or not) for the future:

https://slate.com/technology/2017/09/how-social-discounting-helps-explain-why-we-dont-prepare-for-disasters-like-hurricane-harvey.html.

[Kron3007]

Whether subsidizing oil is good or not, many states get a noticeable fraction of their state budgets from fossil fuels.  A good enough overview is https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2020-09-24/its-time-for-states-that-grew-rich-from-oil-gas-and-coal-to-figure-out-whats-next

These poor, rural states (for the most part) will not be able to replace the place-bound jobs for the people who will be affected.  Having more jobs elsewhere that need different skills doesn't help the communities built around the mines, rigs, and fields.

Subsidizing anything is bad! There are cheaper ways of helping those who lose.

What solution are you proposing for the states that currently get more than 25% of their budget from selling fossil fuels?

So do we allow the world to go down to save Alaska?  Do we keep dead industries alive to save jobs? 

States will adapt.  People will adapt.  Times change, and industries become obsolete as new ones develop.  Oil dependent states should have seen the writing on the wall and started diversifying their economies long ago.  Instead, many of them have been living above their true means and running irresponsible budgets.

[polly_mer]

Interesting. 

To summarize what I'm reading:

* The collective groups of people don't matter because only the individual people matter.

* The individual people should figure it out all alone because it's not worth the collective effort.

* The science doesn't matter; only the politics matter.

* We have to save the planet, but only for the people smart/lucky/priviledged enough to be able to adjust.



Wow, I thought I was pragmatic to the point of being cold.  Didja vote democrat to save the world, but just the good people who matter, not those unlucky fools who chose to be born poor in flyover country?

[Parasaurolophus]

That looks like a straw summary to me, if ever I saw one.

[dismalist]

An article about how to plan (or not) for the future:

https://slate.com/technology/2017/09/how-social-discounting-helps-explain-why-we-dont-prepare-for-disasters-like-hurricane-harvey.html.

That article is really, really good, Spork! Lays out the temporal dimension of the problem.

It even gets into insurance, as it should, though there is surely an error there.

No worries, my piffle.

[spork]

What's the error? I thought the NRDC's economist was assuming loss aversion behavior.