Should we develop alternative fuels?
Until someone convinces me otherwise, I'm going to go with "no" -- at least if by "fuels" you mean carbon compounds that are used to release energy through combustion. Combustion of carbon compounds produces carbon dioxide, which aggravates global warming. If we're running out of oil, let's just run out, start driving less, flying less, doing less of things that produce greenhouse gases, and doing the remainder more efficiently. Or else let's find replacements that don't involve "fuels" in the sense I described: try electric cars that run on power from wind, solar power, hydroelectric power, nuclear power, etc..
From an environmental point of view, running out of oil is a good thing, an opportunity to slow down climate change, and are we now to try replacing that oil with other combustibles? When opportunity knocks, close the curtain and pretend you're not home?
If the government is going to subsidize anything, let it subsidize alternative sources and uses of electric power, or solar heating, or something like that. Why subsidize products that are going to aggravate our environmental problems?
From an environmental point of view, running out of oil is a good thing, an opportunity to slow down climate change, and are we now to try replacing that oil with other combustibles? When opportunity knocks, close the curtain and pretend you're not home?
If the government is going to subsidize anything, let it subsidize alternative sources and uses of electric power, or solar heating, or something like that. Why subsidize products that are going to aggravate our environmental problems?
Labels: economics, energy, global warming, oil, Pigou club
posted by knzn at 6/16/2008 07:40:00 PM
20 Comments:
Alternative fuels may contain carbon, but if it is just carbon that has been fixed, that is, carbon removed from the atmosphere, the fuel is carbon neutral. If the process to create it is also carbon neutral, using it does not pose any hazard from a climate change problem. That is caused by fossil fuels. Processes such as algae based bio fuels can be carbon neutral. If used to mitigate carbon produced by coal fired power plants, it can even be beneficial. It can be just another form of stored solar energy.
I think that carbon neutrality (in this context at least) is a bogus concept. You can separate the photosynthesis from the use of fuels, and there is no reason to consider them together. Plants are good, but once you've installed those plants, it doesn't matter whether you use fuel created by the plants or fuel taken from underground. There is no reason to invest in biofuels technology, because you could get the same "carbon neutrality" by planting trees and using fossil fuels -- technologies that we already have.
To put that another way, if you can reduce CO2 by switching from coal to algae-based biofuels, you could reduce it even more by just growing the algae, ignoring the biofuels, and switching from coal to nuclear. The former is "carbon neutral"; the latter is (if it's the right terminology) "carbon negative." Again, there is no advantage to investing in biofuels technology, and indeed there is a significant opportunity cost, because the same resources could be used to develop wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, nuclear, etc. while we use well-established low-cost technologies (planting trees, &c) to reduce CO2.
But, Knzn, when I was little I was told that what matters is what consumers want, not what Knzn wants, so I'm really confused right now.
I see a lot of people telling us what to do and what not to do and very few people trying to determine what's the right course of action by democratic means (and I mean that even in a weak sense, i.e. have debates about it).
But doesn't "telling us what to do and what not to do" and explaining ones reasons constitute having "debates about it"?
Any kind of subsidy, such as subsidies for alternative fuel development, is messing with the effects of consumers' preferences. So the burden of proof is on those who advocate such subsidies. I don't think the case for alternative fuel subsidies is very strong.
On the other hand, there is an identifiable missing market here in that property rights to the atmosphere cannot be enforced, especially at the global level. Implementing the collective will of consumers might include providing subsidies for things, such as reforestation and alternative means of generating electricity, which will help limit the extent to which people interfere with one another's atmospheric rights.
It seems to me that if you look at this from a libertarian point of view, there is no reason that the implementation has to be democratic: just come as close as you can to enforcing property rights. In this case, the closest you can come might be to have a dictator impose a system of Pigovian taxes and subsidies. (Unfortunately, right now, it seems that undemocratic governments are tending to do just the opposite, subsidizing things that interfere with atmospheric rights and taxing things that don't.)
In practice, democracy may be the only way to implement this kind of policy, but in that respect, I still think democracy is a means to an end -- and a second best means at that -- rather than something that is valuable in its own right. Not that democracy doesn't have inherent value, but the correctness of a policy is independent of whether voters like it.
knzn - you say: "the correctness of a policy is independent of whether voters like it". I agree. Democracy could only lead to the correct policy if the electorate knows what it is, which often requires that politicians perform the role of advocate and educator.
There is little sequestration in the natural world. The weathering of mountains and oceanic absorption does soak up some, but plants don't bury themselves, and forests burn. Mostly they are just recycled.
The energy problem of oil is producing it and the carbon from using it. The energy problem of alternatives is storing it. It may well be most efficient to store energy in fuels. It is by no means apparent producing oil by drilling will be cheaper than algae bio fuels. It is by no means apparent photovoltaic electricity will be cheaper than algae absorption. Algae in stromatolites converted the early earth's atmosphere from carbon dioxide to oxygen after all. We certainly will never have electric aircraft, ships, or trucks, that have large mobile energy requirements (though some ships may be large enough for nuclear).
Sigh, the young knzn obviously didn't pay attention to lesser subjects such as biology.
Big plants such as trees do indeed lock up carbon and keep it out of the atmosphere, sometimes for a long time. But little plants like algae grow, fix some carbon then one of two things happen to them -- they die and decompose, releasing carbon dioxide back into the system or they get eaten by something else and the carbon is released in a little process that keeps us all alive called 'respiration'. No matter what happens to those algae -- burnt for fuel, eaten or...dying a good death after living a long and fulfilled algae life -- there's no way the algae will be 'carbon negative'.
knzn can has pritty pik-tuar to 'splain carbon cycle:
http://eo.ucar.edu/kids/green/cycles6.htm
It depends what you do with the alage. If you bury them (down where there's no oxygen) before they have a chance to decompose, they are carbon negative. You could even extract the fuel and then bury that. But once you've extracted the fuel, it isn't any better than a fossil fuel. From a carbon point of view, you're better off burying it, so why bother with the extraction process? If we were to stockpile biofuels, it would still be better, from a greenhouse effect point of view, if we develop nuclear/solar/wind/etc. power to replace those biofuels and keep the biofuels in storage. So again, why bother with the extraction, if it's cheaper to extract fossil fuels?
Well, I think I agree with knzn here. But I need some help with some of this calculus. What about the use of left over cooking oil as fuel? Should we bury it too instead? And what about capturing methane gas released from agriculture and using it as a fuel? This should be ok since the methane is released anyways, right?
knzn, you miss the point of biofuels.
Biofuels can be used in transport, whereas nuclear, renewables etc can only generate electricity. Electricity isn't the critical factor in electric cars - it's battery cost, among others.
All very interesting.
Well I suppose it's all a matter of opportunity cost. We really need to understand and add up the emissions behind the production and the consumption of the various energy alternatives.
We could consume less as well.
Biofuels can be used in transport, whereas nuclear, renewables etc can only generate electricity. Electricity isn't the critical factor in electric cars - it's battery cost, among others.
Indeed, and the reason the biofuel advocates are winning the battle right now is because one group is saying, "We'll invest in wind/nuclear/whatever, but all you US drivers will have to invest in small, expensive new cars," while the biofuel folk say "We'll invest in ethanol/whatever, and you can burn it in your existing car".
It doesn't matter that they can't produce enough biofuel to run the existing fleet, the US consumer only hears the part about not having to buy a small expensive new car.
I think we should all take the bus, walk, or cycle, the vast majority of time. That's my kind of "biofuel". And, it's good for the body and soul.
too bad global warming is a joke
I support an oil tax of $4/gallon simply because I believe it will reduce the price of oil down to $2/gal. So instead of making Russians or Arabs rich, we can make our geeks rich.
Ekonomix
http://turkeconomy.blogspot.com/
The reason we have subsidies for alternative fuels is more for security and energy independence reasons than for economic or environmental purposes. So regardless of how much you want to bury algae(?), there will continue to be government investment in domestically produced alternative fuels.
小吃餐車加盟連鎖「一條龍的創業模式」複製成功開店經驗
更新日期:2009/08/25 17:19
(中央社訊息服務20090825 16:19:17)大環境不景氣，工作難找，有不少人就想乾脆自己創業當老闆。為強化國內創業能量，五路財神開店總部於8月20日-9月20日舉辦「2009夢幻小餐車創業成果展」歡迎蒞臨參觀。針對國內一窩蜂創業加盟潮，餐車達人陳滌五總監提醒創業者，加盟不失為一條創業捷徑，但若選擇加盟，品牌知名度、產品獨特性及是否擁有差異化優勢就顯得格外重要。
近年來以成本低的小吃餐車最受創業者青睞。沒經驗的失業族 大部份都選擇餐車擺攤，最多人都想在創業市場闖出一片天。在台中成立的五路財神開店總部，小吃餐車用品牌方式來營運，總經理陳滌五用自己的經驗來現身說法。以國人創業首選的小吃餐車來說，如何在同質性高的市場中殺出重圍？雖然是路邊攤小餐車，營運上的重要撇步是關鍵；在企業經營戰略中，唯有領先核心競爭，保持差異化優勢才是生存之道。
陳總分享成功關鍵，「五路財神餐車與其他路邊攤最大的差異化，在於餐車外觀亮眼與眾不同的加分效果，及秉持結合好的小吃產品用品牌方式來經營的理念」。總部成立初期因觀察到傳統路邊攤想要爭得一席之地，大多考量商品創新的迷思，卻忽略創業者經營能否持久性的問題。所以五路財神餐車將傳統小吃商品，用創新工法為策略，顛覆傳統路邊攤的概念，長期下來在台灣建立起最多元品牌的餐車王國。
很多創業者最憂心沒經驗，業界首創從餐車打造、生財器具、原物料配方、技術教學、促銷廣告、開幕指導，「一條龍的創業輔導」模式，使得五路財神餐車品牌特色更為彰顯。陳總說，不景氣下小吃餐車經營是加倍艱辛，建議創業者不但要瞭解小吃經營的核心價值，凸顯產品獨特性及差異化之外還要定期和你商圈的客人互動，「好餐車、好商品、好客人」，三個好，如此才有可能成為「不敗的小吃攤」。
|加盟創業|滷味加盟|加盟|餐車|安親班|廚具||開店|新民管樂
Baker bedtime ferry tales
ミュゼ 盛岡店
ミュゼ 浜松店
脱毛リンリン浜松店
スリムビューティーハウス 自由が丘
エルセーヌ 千葉
エルセーヌ 博多
シーボン札幌店
シーボン立川店
メンズTBC水戸店
スキンケアスタジオBALI 銀座店
エステタイム 天王寺店
エステTBC土浦店
エステTBC府中店
エステTBC枚方店
ソシエ 水戸店
たかの由梨 仙台店
たかの由梨 亀有店
たかの由梨 高松店
エステサロン ラ・セーヌ楠店
脱毛 BDC 福岡店
リゲルグランド 渋谷店
シーズラボ 名古屋
ラパルレ 藤枝店
メンズ ラパルレ枚方店
ダンディハウス仙台店
ミスパリ ダイエットセンターつくば店
ノッツェ京都支店
サンマリエ札幌
ツヴァイ町田
結婚相談所ウェブ 高崎支店
品川美容外科 札幌院
メンズTBC体験コース
メンズTBC体験コース
Post a Comment
<< Home