Search Results for: Photo

Climate Change Activism

One thing I really despise is climate change activists who have decided on what their ideal target for climate change would be, and that we must meet those ends, by using any means possible. You’ve certainly heard the logic, “we must limit climate change to 1.5 degrees Celsius, to ensure a livable climate and therefore must do the following…”

That’s assuming there is only definition of a livable climate, and that there should be no debate on how clear or polluted we want our environment to be. It also is a form of ends justifying the means, rather then taking into careful consideration the means and how they relate to the ends. A higher climate target such as 2 or 3 or even 5 degrees Celsius global temperature mean might be entirely realistic when we consider the costs of  the most aggressive plans for climate change.

I think a better plan would be to take a look at current technology and what people desire from existing energy services like motoring, electricity, and heat, and see what improves can be made to the system in a realistic time period. We should take a hard look at the likely climate outcomes, and see if this motivates society to step up it’s game — but keep everything in context. Rather then choosing an unrealistic climate goal of 1.5 degrees for a livable climate, I think we should look at the unlivable climate we are moving towards, work to adapt society to the changing climate and take reasonable steps to promote conservation like increased fuel efficiency, more renewables.

Ice Covered Pond

Fossil Fuels are an Addiction.

I often like to compare fossil fuel addiction to heroin addiction …

To which I often get response that fossil fuels aren’t chemically addicting, they don’t change the brain’s chemistry, re-wiring it to crave more and more of them. But is that true? There is a lot of evidence that humans become as addicted to fossil fuels as opioids and that the behavior around fossil fuels is very similar to a person who is addicted to heroin, although fossil fuel addiction is much more socially acceptable.

Speed, warmth, light tickle and change our brains

Humans crave speed, warmth, and light — especially colorful lights. Our fossil fuel society makes such things very possible and easy to access. How to make people happier? Go faster, make it more comfortable, make it more bright and colorful.

Spending enormous amounts of money on the habit

Fossil fuel production and consumption is an enormous part of our economy. The average household spends $1,977 a year on gasoline alone. Is that amount of money spent to incinerate refined dinosaur bones, a largely non-sensible activity, is a classic sign of an addiction.

Denial of an addiction

Most people are in denial that they have a problem with fossil fuels and energy consumption more generally. They often dismiss how much energy they consume, they make excuses that it is necessary for modern living. People often react strongly when their utility rates or gas prices go up, or efforts are made to restrict motoring by reducing the number of lanes on roads or parking spaces.

Bizarre behaviors as a result of addiction

Addicts often engage in bizarre behavior when they high. Not only are people likely to defend oil and gas development in terrible places, they’re much too willing to accept climate change, as the price of fossil-fuel freedom. Wasting energy is totally acceptable, if it makes us happy.

Seeking alternative ways to get high

How do people plan to address the climate crisis? Usually it involves building industrial wind turbines and large solar farms, and switching to electric cars. Conservation is often pushed to margins of debate. And lifestyle change is dismissed as being impractical. People — at least on paper — want to address climate change by driving to Walmart in electric car.

Another oil well along the road. Again, not running

Bogart Road Solar Farm

One of the new ones found on the latest round of aerial photography from NYSGIS, south of Cario and Roundtop off NY 32.

Rural electricifican

The other day driving past the hunting camps and rural homes up on the dirt roads around Gas Springs NY, I was a bit surprised how far the electric lines extended into this area to very remote farms and camps on dirt roads. I guess I shouldn’t have been surprised – rural electricifican has extended to nearly all corners of our country – but it seems like in an era of solar power, batteries and inverters, to be incredibly expensive and wasteful to have run lines all that way out there.

Power Lines

While rural electricifican efforts got underway in the 1930s, many of the more remote farms and homes didn’t get electricity until the 1950s or even 1960s. It seems hard to imagine a modern dairy without electricity to run the pumps or coolers but many other farms certainly did. They had all kinds of belt driven equipment that often ran off of Blackstone and other primitive motors. The modern tractor PTO had yet to be standardized.

Abandoned Coal Facts

There are 215,430 acres or 337 square miles of abandoned coal mines in Pennsylvania.

92,231 acres are dry strip mine, 6,710 acres are strip mine filled with water. 86,317 acres are coal mining refuse, 722 acres of it is currently burning. Underground coal  fires burn on an additional 2,609 acres.

Data Source: Abandoned Mine Land Inventory Polygons, 2019 – Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. http://www.pasda.psu.edu/uci/DataSummary.aspx?dataset=459

Coal Strip Mine Along Corridor H

Competitive Markets are Better than Regulated Monopolies

Samuel Insull brought the world Commonwealth Edison of the greater Chicago area and the concept that monopolies were acceptable as long as they were regulated for the public good.

Commonwealth Edison made its profits two ways – by constant growth and by expanding the size of the generating plants so they could produce more electricity at a lower price per unit. After all, many of the costs of a generating plant are fixed – a larger facility can often put out more energy more efficiently.

With Commonwealth Edison and most large utility monopolies, prices are regulated by the government regulating agency on a cost plus basis. Capital projects like new generating facilities or additional lines are approved by the government, with the costs of construction directly paid by rate payers. Insull embraced this as it guaranteed his business would be profitable with little risk to himself.

Got Power?

The problem with this model is it shuns market forces to keep efficiency up and prices down. Regulators work to protect consumers but there is little incentive to economize or innovative in the grid. Why should a power company take a risk when they know they will get paid building the preferred government technology of choice?

I believe competitive markets are always a better idea than government monopolies. While everybody agrees that there has to be one owner of the physical wires that deliver power, there can be multiple companies that sell power and multiple companies that sell services to consumers. Competition can help hold prices down and give consumers the option to switch providers that meet their needs.