Comments on: The real greenhouse denialists, part 2 http://andrewnorton.info/2008/04/the-real-greenhouse-denialists-part-2/ Observations from Carlton's Lone Classical Liberal Fri, 05 Sep 2008 05:49:43 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Double or Nothing : Tree of Knowledge http://andrewnorton.info/2008/04/the-real-greenhouse-denialists-part-2/#comment-19154 Double or Nothing : Tree of Knowledge Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:23:28 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2008/04/15/the-real-greenhouse-denialists-part-2/#comment-19154 [...] (a left-wing PR and polling firm) that they supported a carbon emissions trading scheme…. A Climate Institute survey earlier in the year suggested that very few were prepared to pay the kinds of prices needed to significantly change [...] [...] (a left-wing PR and polling firm) that they supported a carbon emissions trading scheme…. A Climate Institute survey earlier in the year suggested that very few were prepared to pay the kinds of prices needed to significantly change [...]

]]> By: Andrew Norton » Blog Archive » The real greenhouse denialists, part 3 http://andrewnorton.info/2008/04/the-real-greenhouse-denialists-part-2/#comment-17362 Andrew Norton » Blog Archive » The real greenhouse denialists, part 3 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 10:33:37 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2008/04/15/the-real-greenhouse-denialists-part-2/#comment-17362 [...] here was any indication of what level of price increases respondents would be prepared to pay. A Climate Institute survey earlier in the year suggested that very few were prepared to pay the kinds of prices needed to significantly change [...] [...] here was any indication of what level of price increases respondents would be prepared to pay. A Climate Institute survey earlier in the year suggested that very few were prepared to pay the kinds of prices needed to significantly change [...]

]]> By: The Bartlett Diaries http://andrewnorton.info/2008/04/the-real-greenhouse-denialists-part-2/#comment-12747 The Bartlett Diaries Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:57:37 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2008/04/15/the-real-greenhouse-denialists-part-2/#comment-12747 <strong>The politics of veganism on the Bush Telegraph...</strong> When Earth Hour was happening at the end of last month and millions of people turned their lights out for an hour on a Saturday night, I put out a media release suggesting that another easy personal action people could take which would have a much bi... The politics of veganism on the Bush Telegraph…

When Earth Hour was happening at the end of last month and millions of people turned their lights out for an hour on a Saturday night, I put out a media release suggesting that another easy personal action people could take which would have a much bi…

]]> By: NPOV http://andrewnorton.info/2008/04/the-real-greenhouse-denialists-part-2/#comment-12748 NPOV Thu, 17 Apr 2008 02:10:21 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2008/04/15/the-real-greenhouse-denialists-part-2/#comment-12748 Sure, I'd accept if the generation costs for wind power were only twice as much as coal power w/h for w/h, then a 30% increase in retail price would be about right. In fact, from various figures I've seen around, wind power is less than twice as expensive to generate than coal power, so I may well be overpaying for green power...but those figures were for the U.S. and Europe where different conditions apply. Sure, I’d accept if the generation costs for wind power were only twice as much as coal power w/h for w/h, then a 30% increase in retail price would be about right. In fact, from various figures I’ve seen around, wind power is less than twice as expensive to generate than coal power, so I may well be overpaying for green power…but those figures were for the U.S. and Europe where different conditions apply.

]]> By: Rajat Sood http://andrewnorton.info/2008/04/the-real-greenhouse-denialists-part-2/#comment-12749 Rajat Sood Wed, 16 Apr 2008 23:48:41 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2008/04/15/the-real-greenhouse-denialists-part-2/#comment-12749 NPOV, don't forget that electricity generation costs are only about one-third of retail tariffs. The remainder is for the recovery of distribution (50%) and transmission (10%) network costs, the retailer's margin and other misc charges. Therefore, even a doubling of generation costs would only increase retail tariffs by about 30%. Mind you, a doubling might be conservative given the low 'load factor' of wind and solar plants, driven by the low reliability of such sources of energy. This means that you need to build much more renewables capacity (in MW) than you would thermal plant capacity. In Europe, many customers on solar energy have benefitted from favourable 'feed-in' network tariffs, I suppose on the basis that more local/distributed generation avoids the need to spend money on network infrastructure. However, this only makes economic sense if distributed generation makes such networks truly avoidable. If you have a solar panel but still need to use the grid from time to time, you cannot avoid building distribution networks and hence should not receive rebates on network tariffs. NPOV, don’t forget that electricity generation costs are only about one-third of retail tariffs. The remainder is for the recovery of distribution (50%) and transmission (10%) network costs, the retailer’s margin and other misc charges. Therefore, even a doubling of generation costs would only increase retail tariffs by about 30%. Mind you, a doubling might be conservative given the low ‘load factor’ of wind and solar plants, driven by the low reliability of such sources of energy. This means that you need to build much more renewables capacity (in MW) than you would thermal plant capacity.
In Europe, many customers on solar energy have benefitted from favourable ‘feed-in’ network tariffs, I suppose on the basis that more local/distributed generation avoids the need to spend money on network infrastructure. However, this only makes economic sense if distributed generation makes such networks truly avoidable. If you have a solar panel but still need to use the grid from time to time, you cannot avoid building distribution networks and hence should not receive rebates on network tariffs.

]]> By: NPOV http://andrewnorton.info/2008/04/the-real-greenhouse-denialists-part-2/#comment-12750 NPOV Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:54:13 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2008/04/15/the-real-greenhouse-denialists-part-2/#comment-12750 Sacha, presumably at some point they would have to tell customers that they had insufficient capacity. I did actually ask our retailer this when we first signed up, and they basically said that there are so few customers on 100% green power that it's not an issue...yet. It does seem strange to me that the uptake is so low - for anyone on an above-average salary, the extra cost is barely noticed, and it's far less hassle than constantly remembering to keep lights off, turn appliances off at the point, and myriad other techniques for reducing electricity usage that various people I know do actually make an effort with. I'd happily pay 30% extra for "100% green gas" for heating too if such a thing existed. Sacha, presumably at some point they would have to tell customers that they had insufficient capacity.
I did actually ask our retailer this when we first signed up, and they basically said that there are so few customers on 100% green power that it’s not an issue…yet.
It does seem strange to me that the uptake is so low - for anyone on an above-average salary, the extra cost is barely noticed, and it’s far less hassle than constantly remembering to keep lights off, turn appliances off at the point, and myriad other techniques for reducing electricity usage that various people I know do actually make an effort with. I’d happily pay 30% extra for “100% green gas” for heating too if such a thing existed.

]]> By: Sacha http://andrewnorton.info/2008/04/the-real-greenhouse-denialists-part-2/#comment-12752 Sacha Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:01:09 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2008/04/15/the-real-greenhouse-denialists-part-2/#comment-12752 I don't know what would happen if a lot (e.g. 50%) of consumers chose green power. A lot of electricity is coal-generated and those plants often cost less to run than gas or renewables. I don’t know what would happen if a lot (e.g. 50%) of consumers chose green power. A lot of electricity is coal-generated and those plants often cost less to run than gas or renewables.

]]> By: JC http://andrewnorton.info/2008/04/the-real-greenhouse-denialists-part-2/#comment-12753 JC Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:29:55 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2008/04/15/the-real-greenhouse-denialists-part-2/#comment-12753 <i>Indeed, only about 30% wanted nuclear power.<i> i bet a good portion of that 70% would vote against nuke too. Amazing. And what the public wants to spend to mitigate doesn't equal the real bill, not even by a fraction. Moreover the 30 electorates that decide elections are always looking for extra cash in their pocket. Is the public on planet earth here? LOL. Or The most optimum policy isn't being introduced, which raising a carbon tax and offsetting income taxes. Indeed, only about 30% wanted nuclear power.

i bet a good portion of that 70% would vote against nuke too. Amazing.

And what the public wants to spend to mitigate doesn’t equal the real bill, not even by a fraction. Moreover the 30 electorates that decide elections are always looking for extra cash in their pocket.

Is the public on planet earth here? LOL.

Or

The most optimum policy isn’t being introduced, which raising a carbon tax and offsetting income taxes.

]]> By: NPOV http://andrewnorton.info/2008/04/the-real-greenhouse-denialists-part-2/#comment-12754 NPOV Wed, 16 Apr 2008 07:36:32 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2008/04/15/the-real-greenhouse-denialists-part-2/#comment-12754 Pedro, AIUI, it isn't so much the solar technology itself that is the price barrier, but the supporting storage technology needed to enable base-load power. But I agree that there is good reason to believe that solar-power will become price-competitive with coal within the next 10 years. On that basis, if we left it entirely to the market, low-carbon energy sources would probably completely replace fossil-fuel based energy sources within 50 or 60 years. With a relatively low carbon levy, that surely could be brought down to 30 or 40, which, unless the worst-case "tipping point" scenarios really are true, would seem to be sufficient. Rajat, my point is that 100% green power should cost a lot more than 30% extra. So somebody is subsidising us somehow, surely? Pedro, AIUI, it isn’t so much the solar technology itself that is the price barrier, but the supporting storage technology needed to enable base-load power. But I agree that there is good reason to believe that solar-power will become price-competitive with coal within the next 10 years. On that basis, if we left it entirely to the market, low-carbon energy sources would probably completely replace fossil-fuel based energy sources within 50 or 60 years. With a relatively low carbon levy, that surely could be brought down to 30 or 40, which, unless the worst-case “tipping point” scenarios really are true, would seem to be sufficient.

Rajat, my point is that 100% green power should cost a lot more than 30% extra. So somebody is subsidising us somehow, surely?

]]> By: Rajat Sood http://andrewnorton.info/2008/04/the-real-greenhouse-denialists-part-2/#comment-12755 Rajat Sood Wed, 16 Apr 2008 06:46:33 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2008/04/15/the-real-greenhouse-denialists-part-2/#comment-12755 Retailers typically make a margin on their costs (energy purchasing and network charges), so I can't see why they wouldn't make a similar profit on green energy contracts than on regular contracts - possibly more if they assess a higher willingness to pay on behalf of green power customers. The government regulation is due to the fact that most customers do not want to pay an extra 30% on their bills. Retailers typically make a margin on their costs (energy purchasing and network charges), so I can’t see why they wouldn’t make a similar profit on green energy contracts than on regular contracts - possibly more if they assess a higher willingness to pay on behalf of green power customers. The government regulation is due to the fact that most customers do not want to pay an extra 30% on their bills.

]]>