|
Post by franbarlow on May 19, 2012 18:45:04 GMT 9.5
Thanks ... but I worked that out. It's the reply functionality that is hard to work when quoting others
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 19, 2012 19:52:22 GMT 9.5
Not really. We build large buildings all the time -- blocks of apartments, car parks, office blocks. Lets say we are storing 2Ml of water at a head pressure of 100m. That's 544MWh in the bank. For that you'd need a cylinder with a radius of just under 80metres and a height of 100m. Admittedly, it would have to be raised 100m above sea level, but if your headland is about 40metres above that's only an extra 60metres. A 100 m tall cylinder of 80 m radius is quite a bit more than 2 ML (in fact it's about 2 GL) though you got the potential energy pretty much right (even then you'd need many GWh of storage, possibly TWh to backup renewables, then you get the fact that the whole thing won't be 100% efficient). We're going round in circles here. We do have the technology to store quite a bit -- as Nicholson points out -- at acceptable cost. We can store quite a bit, just that quite a bit isn't necessarily enough. What's less clear is whether politically, people will pay the premium needed to scale up renewables as needed. I understand that the Green power programme the government is running isn't getting many takers so probably true. I'm not sure they will, but I do believe they might scale up to the 2020 target, which is a lot less ambitious. By that time we could re-argue the case based on what is known then. I highly doubt there'll be a major breakthrough which will significantly change things in that time frame. If we are worried about the poor though (I am) we can compensate them either in cash or in kind for extra costs. Yes, that's one possibility (in fact I'm in favour of just giving the proceeds from a carbon tax to every citizen equally without attempting to use it either as extra funds or to reduce other taxes). It would be possible to subsidise food coops, Why not supermarkets? and allow them to use stored value cards to buy staple household items that might be especially impacted (though much of what we purchase comes from overseas anyway). Stored value cards are pretty much just an invitation to fraud (there's a reason your bank doesn't ask you how much money is in your account). But which items would you expect to be especially impacted? You're overlooking the possibility of heat from local sewage processing (an anaerobic digester perhaps) in the more high density complexes, and also solar hot water on the rooves. High-rise buildings don't have much roof space compared to floor space so solar hot water won't provide much of their needs (but could probably still be a useful supplement). Not really sure I like the idea of doing the sewage processing in each building though there might be some scope there (though getting energy from sewage can be done wherever it is treated). Perhaps, but it isn't really. It's a reduction in a notional service -- the provision of surplus space -- but in the end, you have to clean and maintain that space yourself so in net terms, it's arguably not. Those who paid more for a bigger house might disagree with you on that, they may very well consider cleaning and maintaining the extra space to be a small price to pay to have it. Once you consolidate the suburbs, this problem diminishes a lot. You can get a lot more viable tailored service. Yes, but consolidating the suburbs isn't going to be easy (those who already live there might want to stay, those who live in what you want to be higher density might prefer lower density and be willing to fight you). I doubt many people living outside the 25km wouldn't prefer to live inside if they could afford it. Oh they probably could afford it, at least if you mean switching to a one bedroom apartment instead of their 3 bedroom house. Yes, very few people want to live far from the city, but then again, many of them do that because they have to compromise other things to live close to it. The idea of "saving suburbs" is misdirection. Maybe, but those people do exist. We can rebuild communities that work far better than what we have now. From your point of view maybe. There are not many suburbs in Sydney that you don't drive through to get some place else, or suburbs where you can get everything you need within walking distance. Having a supermarket or milk bar within walking distance would cover most of the things you'd need and I'd be very surprised if there were many people in suburbia who didn't have one of those close enough to walk to. Of course if you've got 10 or more bags of shopping having a car could make things much easier than trying to carry them all home. I'd abolish most of the sales taxes, duties and fees, and replace them all with a road usage charge so that pretty much every mile you did on a significant road was paid for by you. It would take account of TARE, emissions, your driving credentials, and contention on the road. Fuel taxes would probably deal with emissions the best while a congestion charge could be applied to inner city streets to give people yet another incentive to take the train (as if the congestion and parking costs aren't already enough). More toll roads would also be a good idea (at the very least there should need to be a very good reason for opening a new untolled freeway). At the moment it's too expensive for even middle class people to live in an innier city apartment. You really have to be on $150k with dual incomes to think about that. Those people could afford inner city apartments, they just couldn't afford one as big as the house they have in the suburbs. Checking realestate.com.au I was able to find quite a few apartments in Melbourne for less than $200,000 if you only need one bedroom, even in the $300,000 to $400,000 range it's one bedroom with the odd two bedroom while houses in Pakenham (at the end of the longest suburban train line, so pretty much as far out from the CBD as you can get) in that price range and 3 bedroom with the odd 4 bedroom. This will open a new box to type into, which is headed with Tags for bold, italic, insert hyperlinklink, insert quote, etc - just hover on them to ascertain what each button is for. There is also a group of smileys which you may use if you wish. Under the box in which you have typed you will see options for spellcheck, preview, modify post etc which give you more opportunities to amend or correct what you have written. I've found the preview option to be the most important one.
|
|
|
Post by franbarlow on May 20, 2012 9:49:58 GMT 9.5
in reply to @anon ...I said: Not really. We build large buildings all the time -- blocks of apartments, car parks, office blocks. Lets say we are storing 2Ml of water at a head pressure of 100m. That's 544MWh in the bank. For that you'd need a cylinder with a radius of just under 80metres and a height of 100m. Admittedly, it would have to be raised 100m above sea level, but if your headland is about 40metres above that's only an extra 60metres. @anon said: Yes -- I confused numbers of Kl with litres -- 1000l per M3. Ta. But it shows does it not that storing about 700GWh wouldn't require all that great an engineering project. You'd probably want to have that capacity scattered across a number of smaller facilities close to load centres. Nicholson was speaking of 700GWh -- about 5% of 35GW -- a pretty standard calculation, especially since some of Australia's capacity is hydro anyway. That said, I'm not fussed. If people want to be super safe and have 10day's supply -- i.e. about 7TWh I haven't a problem with that. We are not talking about crippling sums here. RTE at 75% implies storage wanted + 0.33. I said: What's less clear is whether politically, people will pay the premium needed to scale up renewables as needed. @anon said: Just so, although to be fair, there has been a bit of debate about whether the premiums people are paying really add in net terms to use of renewables. In my experience, few people who are paying the premium can explain exactly how it contributes. I'm not convinced it does and so haven't taken it up, though I would if I could be sure that it was adding to the takeup of clean power by industry. @anon said: If you're right, then the case for nuclear power will sound much more loudly in the ears of those currently opposing it. If you're wrong, then we really have lost nothing in practice. I said: If we are worried about the poor though (I am) we can compensate them either in cash or kind for extra costs That would mean that wealthier people -- like me, were getting paid off. I don't see that as good policy. People as well off as I am or even better off -- don't need compensation. It would be far better to look after the bottom 40% generously and the next 20% modestly (so they aren't worse off). The upper middle class and the upper class can adapt well enough. I wrote: It would be possible to subsidise food coops, Why would we want to subsidise supermarkets? A food coop could do things a profit-making body can't. It could get people directly involved in the business of buying in bulk, in preparing meals and training people in nutrition. (And with a subsidy) it would exclude low nutrition consumables and provide meals for those on low income or homeless. I continued: and allow them to use stored value cards to buy staple household items that might be especially impacted (though much of what we purchase comes from overseas anyway). @anon:I don't see that as a problem. We have stored value cards in most shops now. But which items would you expect to be especially impacted? I suppose some energy intensive food items -- those needing lots of fertiliser and refrigeration and produced locally might be impacted. But I'd be allowing stored value cards to pay for public transport, dental and medical, staple foods, standard consumables like washing powder, toothpaste and soap, and so forth. What we want is for any adjustment to lifestyle to come out of the more frivolous choices people on low income make. That won't stop them from using their money to gamble, drink or eat at Maccas, but at least we can be assured that a cap is put on that and the system hasn't prejudiced their real interests. I wrote: You're overlooking the possibility of heat from local sewage processing (an anaerobic digester perhaps) in the more high density complexes, and also solar hot water on the rooves. @anonI'm thinking a maximum of about six stories anyway. As to the sewage, I see that as part of greywater reticulation. If you can avoid moving water, you save energy. So by capturing water and processing locally you - reduce the net water being pumped to and from the complex
- capture nutrient that can be used as fertiliser
produce lignin and chitin (soil conditioners) that are the end stage of methanogenisis
- produce methane to produce power which can be made available to the grid or used locally to reduce the call of the premises
- produce heat that can be used locally or in a second cycle to run a heat pump.
I wrote: Perhaps, but it isn't really. It's a reduction in a notional service -- the provision of surplus space -- but in the end, you have to clean and maintain that space yourself so in net terms, it's arguably not. That's a matter for them, but what we would do is tip the economic scales in favour of having less individual space per person and more common or shared space. It makes sense. I wrote: Once you consolidate the suburbs, this problem diminishes a lot. You can get a lot more viable tailored service. Quite probably. That's politics. There are a range of opinions on urban design. Yet if we want sustainable cities, the answer does entail a lot of urban consolidation. Urban sprawl is radically inefficient -- and not just in energy terms either. My point is that it can be done, and with the right policies, is something that is plausible over the next decade or so. I said: I doubt many people living outside the 25km wouldn't prefer to live inside if they could afford it. That's not practical for those who aren't childless couples and probably not practical even for many of those who are. What this means is that the settings are all wrong. What we need to do is to change how housing is done. As things stand, it's seen as an investment good, whereas we should make it a public good. We need to stop subsidising real property speculation and put the decision to the hands of people trying to secure a roof over their heads. We need a different model -- one that is both equitable and ecologically sustainable. see above ... I wrote: There are not many suburbs in Sydney that you don't drive through to get some place else, or suburbs where you can get everything you need within walking distance. That's not nearly enough. You need services -- like schools, GPs, dentists, mechanics. You need a medicare office, a bakery, a cheap clothing store, a diverse range of restaurants and entertainment venues -- like the local LAN centre and other places for juveniles to hang out. My own suburb -- which is well inside the 25K doesn't have all of that at walking distance to for everyone. (assumes walking distance = 1km) Of course, if your high intensity shopping were either in your building, or the one next door or only 600metres down the road, you could just use a trolley. I said: I'd abolish most of the sales taxes, duties and fees, and replace them all with a road usage charge so that pretty much every mile you did on a significant road was paid for by you. It would take account of TARE, emissions, your driving credentials, and contention on the road. I don't like the artificiality of fuel taxes/excises. I prefer to attach cost to externalities -- emissions, road contention, intangible liability and so forth. The advantage of my system is that everyone would be charged a fee peculiar to their own personal contextual usage. Much tidier. There would probably be cheaper insurance too as collisions would decline. So would thefts (biometric data in vehciles and vehicle tracking). So cheaper and more environmentally friendly. I'd also build large carparks serviced by shuttlebuses on MCRs at 12 and 25kms out, so that people could park and ride. These carparks would be cheaper than the city ones and employers would be tempted to bundle parking out there for many of their employees. If people had PEVs they could charge them there. They could elect to have them grid tied so that these would provide further backup to the system and/or further storage. That would also effectively extend the range of EVs, since the return trip would be covered. Meanwhile, the MCRs would have much lighter traffic. Travel times would sharply decline. The carparks themselves could have retail, commercial and residential in them.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 20, 2012 13:16:18 GMT 9.5
Yes -- I confused numbers of Kl with litres -- 1000l per M3. Ta. But it shows does it not that storing about 700GWh wouldn't require all that great an engineering project. You'd probably want to have that capacity scattered across a number of smaller facilities close to load centres. A watertight 160 m diameter cylinder, 100 m high and 100 m off the ground is a pretty big project though and you'd need a lot of them (for backing up renewables like wind and solar I would insist on an least 1 week of storage which will put you in TWh territory). Nicholson was speaking of 700GWh -- about 5% of 35GW -- a pretty standard calculation, especially since some of Australia's capacity is hydro anyway. That said, I'm not fussed. If people want to be super safe and have 10day's supply -- i.e. about 7TWh I haven't a problem with that. We are not talking about crippling sums here. That would be at least ten thousand such towers. Just so, although to be fair, there has been a bit of debate about whether the premiums people are paying really add in net terms to use of renewables. I'd be very surprised if they do. From what I can see it (and pretty much all other carbon offsetting schemes) look more like indulgences. At the very least they are probably too cheap to actually be able to do anything much. In my experience, few people who are paying the premium can explain exactly how it contributes. The money collected does go to those who generate new renewable energy and is thus meant to make it more economical (never mind that it's a pittance compared to the subsidies they get). I'm not convinced it does and so haven't taken it up, though I would if I could be sure that it was adding to the takeup of clean power by industry. I suspect a lot of the bigger customers (i.e. businesses) don't even care. That would mean that wealthier people -- like me, were getting paid off. I don't see that as good policy. People as well off as I am or even better off -- don't need compensation. It would be far better to look after the bottom 40% generously and the next 20% modestly (so they aren't worse off). The upper middle class and the upper class can adapt well enough. I was proposing something easy to administer but even so, the poor would tend to use less energy than the rich so they'd pay less in carbon tax than they'd get back (while the rich would pay more in carbon tax than they'd get paid). At the very least it'd be a significant improvement over using the carbon tax proceeds as general revenue (which would make it a regressive tax, tax and equal dividend would be progressive). Why would we want to subsidise supermarkets? I personally don't see all that much reason to direct the subsidies to them but I don't see any reason to subsidise any other food stores. A food coop could do things a profit-making body can't. It could get people directly involved in the business of buying in bulk, in preparing meals and training people in nutrition. Supermarkets could sell in bulk (if enough people want to buy in bulk they'll do it) and for the others isn't that why there are cooking classes in school? (And with a subsidy) it would exclude low nutrition consumables and provide meals for those on low income or homeless. No reason you have to go through a food coop to do that, supermarkets could do it just as well. I don't see that as a problem. We have stored value cards in most shops now. Unless they are not actually stored value cards but instead just a number and looking up a database those shops are opening themselves up for anyone with a smartcard writer (and they aren't exactly expensive) to rip them off. I suppose some energy intensive food items -- those needing lots of fertiliser and refrigeration and produced locally might be impacted. Importing food from where it's cheapest to make does happen to make sense but I'd expect those to be mostly the more exotic varieties which get affected. But I'd be allowing stored value cards to pay for public transport, dental and medical, staple foods, standard consumables like washing powder, toothpaste and soap, and so forth. What we want is for any adjustment to lifestyle to come out of the more frivolous choices people on low income make. That won't stop them from using their money to gamble, drink or eat at Maccas, but at least we can be assured that a cap is put on that and the system hasn't prejudiced their real interests. Who are we to say what their real interests are and who are we to say that the choices they make are frivolous? I'm thinking a maximum of about six stories anyway. Even six storeys is not going to leave you with much less roof space per unit of floor space (and a six storey building will sill need lifts, even if they aren't as necessary as for hundred storey buildings). As to the sewage, I see that as part of greywater reticulation. If you can avoid moving water, you save energy. Yes, using waste water on the gardens isn't such a bad idea and could help but there's still a limit to how much you can do (and I suspect that for full processing that a big centralised facility is going to be better). So by capturing water and processing locally you - reduce the net water being pumped to and from the complex
- capture nutrient that can be used as fertiliser
produce lignin and chitin (soil conditioners) that are the end stage of methanogenisis
- produce methane to produce power which can be made available to the grid or used locally to reduce the call of the premises
- produce heat that can be used locally or in a second cycle to run a heat pump.
Of course the other side benefits could be done in a big sewage treatment plant (probably better due to the larger scale). Quite probably. That's politics. There are a range of opinions on urban design. Yet if we want sustainable cities, the answer does entail a lot of urban consolidation. Urban sprawl is radically inefficient -- and not just in energy terms either. My point is that it can be done, and with the right policies, is something that is plausible over the next decade or so. Urban sprawl does have its advantages, otherwise it wouldn't be happening, though the increased cost to provide services over the lower density should be paid for by those who live in it (that would help higher density get around its inherent higher construction costs, though then you run the risk of pricing everyone out of home-ownership). That's not practical for those who aren't childless couples and probably not practical even for many of those who are. No, if you want it to be you'll need to do something about the high cost of apartments. What this means is that the settings are all wrong. What we need to do is to change how housing is done. As things stand, it's seen as an investment good, whereas we should make it a public good. The treatment of houses as primarily investments probably is a problem (there are plenty of houses where the land is worth more than the house). OTOH investment houses do end up on the rental market. We need to stop subsidising real property speculation and put the decision to the hands of people trying to secure a roof over their heads. We need a different model -- one that is both equitable and ecologically sustainable. What do you propose instead of what we currently have and why do you think it'd be an improvement? I mean the current system has its problems but it does at least to some degree work. That's not nearly enough. You need services -- like schools, GPs, dentists, mechanics. You need a medicare office, a bakery, a cheap clothing store, a diverse range of restaurants and entertainment venues -- like the local LAN centre and other places for juveniles to hang out. There tends to be primary schools within walking distance of most places and GP clinics tend to be pretty common. I see no reason you can't get bread at a supermarket or milk bar. Though where I am (somewhat outside 25 km from the city) I can think of how to get to everything other than the medicare office a couple of suburbs over and the diverse range of restaurants and entertainment venues by walking (and the train station is walkable and can get you to the other things that aren't local). A mechanic also would be a bit of stretch to walk to but if you're going to a mechanic it seems reasonable to assume you can drive (a lot of them can pick you up anyway). Of course, if your high intensity shopping were either in your building, or the one next door or only 600metres down the road, you could just use a trolley. High-rise apartment buildings often have supermarkets on the ground floor for that very reason. Using a trolley might be a problem given the tendency of people to just abandon the trolley after they're done with it (that's why some places have technology to render the trolley useless once it leaves the car park). I don't like the artificiality of fuel taxes/excises. I prefer to attach cost to externalities -- emissions, road contention, intangible liability and so forth. Of course fuel is where the CO 2 emissions of cars comes from so fuel is where any tax aimed at that should be put. Fuel usage also does tend to correlate with a lot of things such as vehicle mass and driving style. It's also easy to collect (just include it in the price of fuel, no need for monitoring where everyone goes). The advantage of my system is that everyone would be charged a fee peculiar to their own personal contextual usage. Much tidier. Hard to say, your system probably wouldn't do much better if at all on CO 2 emissions and would also seem to require that government monitor the movements of basically every car to figure out what to charge the driver. Though charging people extra to drive through areas which tend to be congested isn't necessarily a bad idea, I just don't see the need to do it for every single road when merely increasing the fuel tax would have about the same effect. There would probably be cheaper insurance too as collisions would decline. Highly doubtful, risk-taking drivers will take stupid risks whether or not they are charged for them (though having the compulsory third party insurance be based on a persons driving record would probably be a good idea (might be a good idea to move some of it out of rego and into the licence fee), people who tend to get a lot of traffic infringements probably are more likely to hurt others on the road than those with a perfect record). So would thefts (biometric data in vehciles and vehicle tracking). Immobilisers seem to be pretty effective at that and being able to track a vehicle would only matter if the police know it's been stolen. Then there are those who would just try to steal credentials from other vehicles (people have already been known to steal number plates) so that they don't have to pay. I'd also build large carparks serviced by shuttlebuses on MCRs at 12 and 25kms out, so that people could park and ride. Most train stations in the outer suburbs are already park and rides (and there are some bus ones for where there isn't a train line, not to mention train stations tending to also act as bus hubs) so we've already largely got them (though improvements in the bus network to better serve the outer areas could help). These carparks would be cheaper than the city ones and employers would be tempted to bundle parking out there for many of their employees. If people had PEVs they could charge them there. It's still going to take a lot of land unless you do more expensive multi-storey. They could elect to have them grid tied so that these would provide further backup to the system and/or further storage. Vehicle to grid is probably not a good idea given that batteries have a limited number of cycles they can handle (wearing out expensive parts of peoples' cars to prop up renewable energy seems a bit silly). That would also effectively extend the range of EVs, since the return trip would be covered. I doubt many of the people using them would live very far away (I'd be surprised if there were many cars in the average suburban train station from more than 10 km away). Meanwhile, the MCRs would have much lighter traffic. Travel times would sharply decline. You'd probably need to have some kind of dedicated right of way to actually be able to beat the cars.
|
|
|
Post by franbarlow on May 20, 2012 15:06:26 GMT 9.5
A watertight 160 m diameter cylinder, 100 m high and 100 m off the ground is a pretty big project though and you'd need a lot of them (for backing up renewables like wind and solar I would insist on an least 1 week of storage which will put you in TWh territory).
But not impossible. And even if you had 10,000 of them still not a project on the scale of say, the NBN (which I support).
I was proposing something easy to administer but even so, the poor would tend to use less energy than the rich so they'd pay less in carbon tax {price} than they'd get back (while the rich would pay more in carbon tax {price} than they'd get paid. At the very least it'd be a significant improvement over using the carbon tax {price} proceeds as general revenue (which would make it a regressive tax {impost}, tax and equal dividend would be progressive) {my amendments}
As noted, it's not a tax. It's a price or charge on emissions. The revenue is not being added to general revenue. The revenue collected is exceeded by the compensation.
Supermarkets could sell in bulk (if enough people want to buy in bulk they'll do it) and for the others isn't that why there are cooking classes in school?
The idea would be for the coop to buy in bulk and make it possible to pass on the lower prices to patrons. Because it is a coop though it also has an educative function. Yes, there are cooking classes in school but not everyone does them. Certainly, parents don't do them. They are also more general whereas at the cop they'd be more aimed at a practical outcome -- feeding people in real time.
Unless they are not actually stored value cards but instead just a number and looking up a database those shops are opening themselves up for anyone with a smartcard writer (and they aren't exactly expensive) to rip them off.
Definitely a stored value item with authentication at a dBase (just as with CCs).
Who are we to say what their real interests are and who are we to say that the choices they make are frivolous?
Their peers. They are being compensated by the community so as to ensure that their legitimate rights to basic support are not compromised. At no point is the community endorsing their right to waste their money or neglect dependants. They can do that out of their own pockets, if they must. The community is concerned not just for them, but also those depending on them, and of course, the compensation comes from a finite pool.
Yes, using waste water on the gardens isn't such a bad idea and could help but there's still a limit to how much you can do (and I suspect that for full processing that a big centralised facility is going to be better).
The trouble is that you have to pump the sewage all the way to the big centralised facitlity. Just as moving biomass starts to be irrational the further you move it, so too moving waste water is irrational if you can treat it locally.
Urban sprawl does have its advantages, otherwise it wouldn't be happening, though the increased cost to provide services over the lower density should be paid for by those who live in it (that would help higher density get around its inherent higher construction costs, though then you run the risk of pricing everyone out of home-ownership).
As you note above the advantage comes in the form of an externality. I also see no intrinsic good in 'home ownership'. What people want is secure, comfortable accomodation. Whose name is on the title deed is neither here nor there.
What do you propose instead of what we currently have and why do you think it'd be an improvement?
My model would be built around public housing -- coops regulated by the state, leasing land on which to build and developing business plans in conformity with reasonable public policy goals. The land itself would be progressively acquired by the state from private hands. I also favour changing the rules around lending for real property. Incrementally, the required minimum equity at loan time would be raised to 20% and not allowed to fall below that. If the bank failed to do that, its rights of recovery would be limited to that extent on default. Over time, this would cap price rises because buyers would have much less scope to bid up the price. People would buy property (and improve it) out of concerns for utility rather than capital gain. This would make it easier to move as well since buying in the wrong place would not cost you. It would also encourage more saving since borrowing big would be out.
Anyway ... must go out and do shopping before the bakery closes or there'll be no bread this week!
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 20, 2012 16:07:37 GMT 9.5
But not impossible. And even if you had 10,000 of them still not a project on the scale of say, the NBN (which I support). I suspect it'd make the NBN look puny by comparison. As noted, it's not a tax. It's a price or charge on emissions. Yet it looks like a tax (and there are other ways to price emissions, cap and trade for example (which I don't think is a good idea)). The idea would be for the coop to buy in bulk and make it possible to pass on the lower prices to patrons. Isn't that what part of what supermarkets already do? Because it is a coop though it also has an educative function. So who exactly would be running these things anyway? Yes, there are cooking classes in school but not everyone does them. Certainly, parents don't do them. Yes they do, when they are in school (except for the real oldies where only the girls did cooking, but that problem has been fixed for sometime now). The trouble is that you have to pump the sewage all the way to the big centralised facitlity. Just as moving biomass starts to be irrational the further you move it, so too moving waste water is irrational if you can treat it locally. The current system involves pumping the water up to about 100 km to the treatment plant for most cities and that seems to be working pretty well. Of course you'd need a more detailed analysis to actually determine which is better but given what we're currently doing seems to be working I wouldn't rule it out. As you note above the advantage comes in the form of an externality. Much of it yes, but even if it were priced properly there would likely still be people willing to pay a premium to live that way. I also see no intrinsic good in 'home ownership'. What people want is secure, comfortable accomodation. Whose name is on the title deed is neither here nor there. True, but whether a person owns their house or rents it, they must still be able to afford to live in it. My model would be built around public housing -- coops regulated by the state, leasing land on which to build and developing business plans in conformity with reasonable public policy goals. The big problem I foresee here is it being just a form of shortage economics like the housing market in the Soviet Union (actually pretty much the entire Soviet economy). I also favour changing the rules around lending for real property. Incrementally, the required minimum equity at loan time would be raised to 20% and not allowed to fall below that. If the bank failed to do that, its rights of recovery would be limited to that extent on default. I'd rather just let the banks lose out if they reposes it when owed more than a property is worth and make it clear that any financial institution which takes on a loan which may go upside down is the one that gets stuck with the risk of same. Over time, this would cap price rises because buyers would have much less scope to bid up the price. Probably only by the percentage of equity you require. People would buy property (and improve it) out of concerns for utility rather than capital gain. This would make it easier to move as well since buying in the wrong place would not cost you. It would also encourage more saving since borrowing big would be out. People will always buy with an eye towards capital gain unless you make property investing unprofitable (a bad idea, as then you'd have no rental properties).
|
|
|
Post by franbarlow on May 20, 2012 22:44:39 GMT 9.5
@anon said:
Yet {the price} looks like a tax (and there are other ways to price emissions, cap and trade for example (which I don't think is a good idea)).
Not really. It lacks key features of a tax. It's a charge for a service (in this case dumping industrial effluent), which the courts have held is not a tax (See for example Commonwealth v Air Caledonie 1988) It's also merely an interim measure designed to facilitate a full permit trading system, which will produce a form of security. So really, it's simply a phase of an ETS.
It would be possible to have a carbon tax instead. One could for example, simply levy all fossil HC at harvest a fee, perhaps based on their potential emissions. That would clearly be a carbon tax (or perhaps an excise), since what people did later about emissions would be unrelated to the levy. Another option would be to levy all products based on their fossil HC inputs. That too, though complex, would be a tax (or perhaps simply a levy or tariff). I doubt this would be the best policy.
So who exactly would be running these things anyway?
Some community based organisation that had put in a proposal and had passed due diligence. There would be a procedure for showing you could comply with the regulations (perhaps a competency-based course) and you'd get assistance setting yourself up and then if you passed, you'd get the gig. Nothing like formalised skills training.
even if {residential property} were priced properly there would likely still be people willing to pay a premium to live that way.
In which case I'd let them go for it. If that's how they want to live and they harm nobody else's legitimate interests, by all means, live out in the boondocks.
The big problem I foresee here is it being just a form of shortage economics like the housing market in the Soviet Union (actually pretty much the entire Soviet economy).
Not really. The process would not be an overnight change in housing but an incremental process of gradually accruing stock in an orderly way, doing developments and moving on.
People will always buy with an eye towards capital gain unless you make property investing unprofitable (a bad idea, as then you'd have no rental properties).
Don't be silly. People would simply buy properties to (gasp) live in. They might then rent them out if they decided to live some place else, or sell them to others. People buy cars without expecting capital gain. Indeed, they buy them despite expecting serious and rapid capital loss. They count that as a running cost. Car rental companies rent out cars and factor that loss in.
Vehicle to grid is probably not a good idea given that batteries have a limited number of cycles they can handle (wearing out expensive parts of peoples' cars to prop up renewable energy seems a bit silly).
Whether it's a good idea depends on the term of the deal. If people get to sell power from their batteries at peak price and recharge when they get home at off-peak, they may think that a pretty good trade. If they get paid a flagfall just for being on standby with available power plus a bonus if there is a drawdown, then the cost of the cycle may be worth it. Moreover, if the batteries are not theirs anyway but simply leased then it may not bother them at all. That <em>Better Place</em> scheme proposed that people would pull into their stations and switch their deplted batteries for non-depleted ones and pay a charge for the service and power used. One suspects that if such a service ever does see the light of day that these businesses will be working on ways to get more cycles out of their stock of batteries. This system wouldn't simply be "propping up" renewables, but standing behind the fossil grid, saving it from having to run expensive spinning reserve and other redundant capacity on those 15 days each year when it gets hot and people go nuts with A/C.
Speaking of my proposed traffic monitoriing system, @anon said:
risk-taking drivers will take stupid risks whether or not they are charged for them
Yes but in my system, they will get first cautions then realtime infringements, in vehicle. Moreover, if they fail to heed directions to observe traffic signals, the speed limit, road separation lines etc. their vehicle will become subject to progressive remote shut down. Within 1km or so the vehicle's speed would be reduced to a complete standstill, much as if you'd run out of fuel. A call would be placed to the police. Good luck risktaking with that!
being able to track a vehicle would only matter if the police know it's been stolen.
The mere fact that a non-authorised driver would be in the vehicle (recall they log in with biometric data) would set up a flag. If an authorised driver calls in that it's been stolen, they are going to take less than 10 seconds to find it and start immobilising it.
It's still going to take a lot of land unless you do more expensive multi-storey. I would -- perhaps six stories of car park times two blocks (one either side of an expressway or MCR). Parking for perhaps 10,000 vehicles; multiple entry and exit points.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 21, 2012 0:08:38 GMT 9.5
Don't be silly. People would simply buy properties to (gasp) live in. They might then rent them out if they decided to live some place else, or sell them to others. People buy cars without expecting capital gain. Indeed, they buy them despite expecting serious and rapid capital loss. They count that as a running cost. Car rental companies rent out cars and factor that loss in. Houses are much more durable than cars and tend to be usable much longer (you wouldn't want to drive a 30 year old car every day, but you probably wouldn't give buying a 30 year old house a second thought). Whether it's a good idea depends on the term of the deal. If people get to sell power from their batteries at peak price and recharge when they get home at off-peak, they may think that a pretty good trade. If they get paid a flagfall just for being on standby with available power plus a bonus if there is a drawdown, then the cost of the cycle may be worth it. Still, to make it worthwhile for people to actually agree to it it'd probably have to be a pretty expensive energy storage method. Moreover, if the batteries are not theirs anyway but simply leased then it may not bother them at all. It would bother the company which owns the batteries (who may well include conditions like not using it to feed the grid into their contract). That <em>Better Place</em> scheme proposed that people would pull into their stations and switch their deplted batteries for non-depleted ones and pay a charge for the service and power used. One suspects that if such a service ever does see the light of day that these businesses will be working on ways to get more cycles out of their stock of batteries. There's already quite a bit of research on batteries going on so I doubt those people would make all that much difference. This system wouldn't simply be "propping up" renewables, but standing behind the fossil grid, saving it from having to run expensive spinning reserve and other redundant capacity on those 15 days each year when it gets hot and people go nuts with A/C. You'll need to run the spinning reserve anyway to be ready for those millions of car battery packs not to feed back into the grid. Yes but in my system, they will get first cautions then realtime infringements, in vehicle. Moreover, if they fail to heed directions to observe traffic signals, the speed limit, road separation lines etc. their vehicle will become subject to progressive remote shut down. Within 1km or so the vehicle's speed would be reduced to a complete standstill, much as if you'd run out of fuel. A call would be placed to the police. Good luck risktaking with that! A bit too much out of 1984 for my liking. I would -- perhaps six stories of car park times two blocks (one either side of an expressway or MCR). Parking for perhaps 10,000 vehicles; multiple entry and exit points. With that much car parking you'd better be building heavy rail because I don't see anything else handling that kind of load. Though I should just note that a lot of transport planners consider park and ride a bad idea (they think that you should have feeder bus services instead).
|
|
|
Post by franbarlow on May 21, 2012 0:58:14 GMT 9.5
Houses are much more durable than cars and tend to be usable much longer (you wouldn't want to drive a 30 year old car every day, but you probably wouldn't give buying a 30 year old house a second thought).
Yes but you will have cars for as long as you have houses and all of them depreciate. Capital gain is cream on the cake rather than essential.
Still, to make it worthwhile for people to actually agree to it it'd probably have to be a pretty expensive energy storage method.
Not that expensive. If you're selling at 29cents and buying at 8 plus getting a charge for supply of a couple of cents that sounds pretty good. Even better if you're recharging your batteries from rooftop PV.
It would bother the company which owns the batteries (who may well include conditions like not using it to feed the grid into their contract).
That's to be seen. Perhaps they just factor that in, since they aren't going to know the difference between your own discharge and a grid tie. Better if they just assume you will and charge you accordingly.
I said:
|
|
|
Post by BNC Moderator on May 21, 2012 13:33:37 GMT 9.5
MODERATOR Fran and Anon - you were drifting off-topic but now it has become circular and you are spinning over the edge ;D If you want to continue in this vein I suggest you start a new topic in an appropriate thread (perhaps Sustainability)and I can move this discourse over to the new topic. Otherwise please let it stop here. Thankyou.
|
|
|
Post by franbarlow on May 21, 2012 13:54:08 GMT 9.5
Fair enough Mod ... it did seem a long way from Nicholson's point about energy storage.
|
|
|
Post by jagdish on May 29, 2012 18:30:38 GMT 9.5
Most of the densely populated areas of the world are on sea-coast or along major rivers. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_density Highly concentrated energy production, which is nuclear, could be placed on floating platforms. This will combine the advantages of factory production with location close to consumption centers like coastal China, Japan, Vietnam,Singapore or Java island in Indonesia. There are such places in Europe and Americas and other continents too. There was an interesting episode in India where the local agitation went against commissioning of Kudankulam power station and could only be convinced by availability of additional electric power. Russians have already started building of small floating NPPs and now is the time for medium sized plants.
|
|
|
Post by david jones on Jun 9, 2012 17:53:40 GMT 9.5
Fran Barlow, I’m afraid your heart is in the right place but your engineering understanding is far removed from reality. The supposed 2 Gl cylinder would hold 2 million tonnes of water. It is not viable to hold such a mass on pillars and the only plausible way to hold this aloft would be to sit it on top of another 100m of water. In other words you would build a 200m high cylinder and only half empty it in operation. For comparison; the Gordon Dam is an elegant, double arch construction which is the most material efficient type of dam wall. This dam is 140m high and 192m long or roughly one tenth of the size of the cylinder wall needed for your 2 Gl storage. Such a “cylinder” would cost many billions of dollars to build – just for one of them. However, all is not lost. That same Gordon Dam has a storage capacity of more than 12000 Gl (or 6000 times as much water as the nominal cylinder), just demonstrating how effectively a big dam stores water, and energy. As one alternative to the Gordon Below Franklin (aka Franklin) Dam, the HEC proposed a Gordon above Olga Dam which would have been immediately below the existing Gordon Dam. This dam of about 2000 Gl could potentially have been used with the Gordon Dam to provide a pumped storage scheme of about 500 GWh. Sufficient energy to run the whole NEM for one day. There are a number of locations in Australia where similar and larger schemes could be built if we had the political will to do so.
|
|