To: yard_man who wrote (102146 ) 5/14/2001 6:45:26 PM From: Mark Adams Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 436258 transmission losses are less than 2% of the energy produced -- distribution losses are a little greater Thankscan you imagine what it would cost to shift industry to making all ICEs with this new technology (of course a retro-fit is out of the question), there also might be reliability problems that the writer has glossed over I don't see a change to the engine assembly (removing the cam/exhuast valve in exchange for electo-mechanical valves) as a high cost item- this is usually farmed out by the auto mfgs anyway. There may be a reliablity issue- good point. I'd be happy to take a 15% increase in miles per gallon, and if I could get 30% by using 4 cylinders instead of 6 at highway cruise speed, even better. Without any background in the industry, I'd think there is more technology risk in running cylinders part time than a simple move to the electronic valves- fuel injection took us half way there. I think dual overhead cams was thinking inside the box- decrease flow friction- while fuel injection was a new paradigm that improved operating efficiencies. Of course, there already are hybrid electrics available for a price, which proves a larger paradigm shift than a simple elctro/mechanical substitution.I think the causal link between recent greenhouse gas production and global warming, and even the extent to which temperatures have really risen vs. historical temperatures, is still debatable I'd agree with this. certainly whether we should embark on a course of action (adopt Kyoto) that will increase our energy production costs by a large percentage in coming years is debatable. Many of these policies simply amount to a tax of some form or another anyway -- CO2 is a natural result of burning coal -- The carbon tax was a way to allow market forces to encourage more responsible energy use. Coal results in more Co2 than NatGas, but then so does wood. The Carbon tax, if implemented gradually to prevent dislocations, should result in migration to cleaner technologies. I think part of the emphasis on gas fired generation was in part due to anticipation of potential higher costs associated with the higher emmisions coal power production. I do believe we have cleaner coal technologies available- ie some of the work Sasol has done. At this time, entrenched technologies have the mindshare though. Maybe if we spend a few more billion on research, we will discover the technology already exists <ng>The electric utlities do wield control through the regulatory structure which was put in place to prevent monopolistic misadventure. That's true and what you would expect? -- there are huge sums of money involved. Hopefully, the PUCs retain enough independence to prevent all-out abuse of monopoly power. It depends on the type of people that sit on the boards and the quality of information that they have available to them. Conservation is great, but doesn't increase revenues for electric utilities. No surprise there -- imagine INTC embarking on a program to sell fewer processors (don't give me any of that 'creative destruction' bs -- that's what it is). Without state intervention or considerably higher prices investment in conservation doesn't get done. I'm all for conservation, but must agree with those that contend it is a "marginal contributor" to the overall problem of having enough energy as it simply "puts off" invetment in production. Which was one of the points the author tried to convey- letting the utilities 'fund' conservation efforts resulted in pervsion of the original intention, as it's contrary to the utilities best interests, short term. Longer term, having the Aluminum companies relocate smelting to Indonesia due to lower power costs there may be a natural intermediate term market response to this short term thinking on the part of the utilities to maximize revenue, hence ROR. Eventually, higher power costs will result in low-power high-value added functions concentrating in the high power costs regions. As a nation, we can evolve to be the biotech/legal/research/education capital of the world, dependent on other contries for industry, durable goods and even food.But whether such research should be funded by the government or private industry is a difficult decision. SOme say they need critical mass for the technologies and the funding has to come from somewhere. Others say -- if the market won't support development of the technology -- wait till prices get high enough and it'll get done if it is economic. I think there is a happy medium -- government sponsored research has a role to play. Agreed. I see some areas where publically funded greenfield R&D can improve size of the pie. Edison, EPRI are industry funded initiatives -- you have to expect them to serve industry goals -- don't look there for innovation on the conservation front. Our tax dollars support a number of government institutions which are largely devoted to energy research -- don't like the priorities? -- make oyur case to your congressman. You might have a little bit of influence ... Which was another point of the article- my influence is minor in comparison to the leadership of the utilities who provide financial support to the pols. The entreached system uses the gold to keep the status quo, regardless of the longer term/larger ramifications of such outcome. Maybe you left out a <g> following that suggestion? <g> Maybe I should recogonize that I've not created a position of influence for myself. Rather, prefering instead hiding in the weeds with the likes of Earlie, watching for a buck to cross my scope- and pointing out the pitfalls of choices others make. Back seat drivers. Uhgg...