Yet the polar bears survived with no polar ice cap at all that particular summer. Could it be that the Polar Bear is a terrestrial animal? Perhaps that’s why so many tourists travel to Churchill, west of the Hudson Bay to view them on the land from large vehicles designed just for that purpose.

I don’t share your certainty on the last part. Although I said previously that I don’t give a rat’s ass about the climate science, I exaggerated. What I meant was that I don’t think it matters in order to make a compelling case for renewables (and conservation) on a cost-benefit level. So let’s ignore CO2 for the sake of argument. Let’s talk about the health effects of burning fossil fuels. In a previous post I mentioned a recent study by the American Lung Association of California indicating the health (and thus economic) benefits of eliminating fossil fuel-propelled vehicles. Should we ignore that while preparing our balance sheet? That’s one of those “external costs” that rarely ever get figured into even the most thorough life cycle analysis of any fuel source. But according to the Lung Association study it reaches over a hundred billion of dollars over a 20 year span on health costs alone — in California alone. That’s not chump change. Okay, compared to the Iraq war it is, but according to most other metrics it isn’t. And by the way (and somewhat surprisingly), in terms of “traditional” (i.e., non-GHG) emissions per capita, California is second lowest of all the states. Should the oil, gas, and coal industries pay for that? If not, why not? If so, how?

Now let’s ignore the health costs AND CO2 and just concentrate on internals — i.e., how much it costs to build and operate a utility plant. Gas and coal plants are certainly the cheapest to build — right now anyway. In fact, in general, they’re quite a bit cheaper right now (that’s not exactly true, but let’s assume thta for simplicity). But approximately 60% of the cost of operating one (in 2004 anyway) is the cost of the fuel. Thus, as prices fluctuate, so does the cost of operation. According to this article, coal prices went up 73% in 2007, and is expected to double again this year. That’s “at mouth” prices (i.e., the price when it leaves the mine). Then you have to transport it. And those costs are exploding too. Then there’s the cost of burning it. And it is on that last level, and essentially on that level alone I think, where Evan’s, and others, comments about the potential “wrongheaded” effects of government policy come in. I’m sensitive to that. But I can’t figure out a way to fairly explain what I mean on a notecard, so I’ll leave it for another rant.

On the other hand, though wind, solar, or geothermal plants (nuclear too) are more expensive to build, their operating and maintenance costs are low (a little higher for wind maybe, but not that much). So basically once such a plant goes on line you’ve essentially locked in your rate throughout the lifetime of the plant. That’s the benefit, and it’s an important one. But it makes comparisons based on estimations of “levelized costs” very tricky, because the levelized cost estimate of a gas or coal-fired plant is based on the price of the commodity at least a couple of years in the past rather than upon estimates of future fuel prices. Thus, the levelized cost of such a plant is always based on past commodity prices. But really, how realistic is that? Remember, whatever choice you make now has to stand for at least 40 years — unless it becomes apparent in the mean time your choice really sucked and you pull the plug and accept your losses. Again, Inspector Callahan’s question comes to mind: how lucky do you feel?

That difference in cost structure is one factor contributing to what I mean by, “you either pay now or pay later”. But as M. Simon indicated, wind technology in particular (situated on shore in a category 4 or above location) is already competitive with the cost of coal-fired plants, even it is assumed the cost of coal will go no higher for the next 40 years (the expected operational life of most utility plants). How likely is that? Geothermal is too — assuming you know where to drill (and that’s actually not as big a question mark as it may sound). The current levelized cost of a solar thermal plant is more than double that of the current levelized cost of a traditional coal-fired plant, so the (delivered) cost of coal would have to almost quadruple in the next 10-15 years to make it cheaper in the long run. Considering how things are going with “at mouth” coal and gas prices, combined with transportaion prices, that sounds like a pretty good bet. Others may have a different perspective. But it has to be recognized that you’re betting no matter which way you choose. In that regard I’m guessing that many of those communities that decided to scuttle their half-built nuclear plants 20 years or so ago would like to rethink that decision now. Regretfully, that’s not an option anymore. And it’s usually the decisions that don’t work out that leave a taste in your mouth, and the ones that you remember (and perhaps blame on others). Decisions that do work out, on the other hand, tend to be forgotten — regardless of how contentious they were at the time. But that doesn’t make them any less relevant or important. Take the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo project (i.e., the moon project) for example. For those who lived through the late 50s and early 60s, how did it make you feel when the Soviets were launching satellites with and without people in them that spun around the earth while we couldn’t get a vehicle very far off the launch pad without exploding? It took a good long while before we did something the Soviets didn’t do first. Almost a decade after we started trying, in fact. But still, we made it to the moon before they did. How did that make you feel? Exhilarated, I would imagine.

But then, so what? It cost an immense amount of money, all of it at the government till. And for what purpose? We haven’t been back in more than 30 years. So what?

I’ll just let that question hang, because I really think it needs to percolate down into peoples’ psyches to really appreciate. Personally, I can think of all sorts of technologies, even attitudes, that came out of it that were nothing short of transforming. And personally, I think we are on the threshold of another equally contentious, but transforming event. Maybe it doesn’t have the same pizzaz as walking on the moon, but as far as transforming goes, it has a considerable amount of punch. But now, as it was then, it’s impossible to predict the future with absolute certainty. But I get the impression from many of the comments here that because we can’t predict the future with absolute certainty we shouldn’t even try. But I think it’s important to understand that neglecting to make a decision is a decision in itself. And either way, it carries as much import.

So much for soaring through space. Back on earth — and even worse, into policy detail… Unfortunately, most utilities are required to couple their profits with their output. If operating costs go up, they can pass them onto the consumer (and they make a percentage profit on that increase). Capital costs, on the other hand, can’t be passed on to the consumer, becaues the finances are structured completely differently. Under that scenario, what sense does it make to spend a lot on capital costs if your operating costs are almost certainly going to remain low? IMO, one of the smartest things the CA legislature did was allow utility companies to decouple their profits from consumption levels (and by extension fuel costs). That allowed them to profit from conservation efforts and truly levelize their construction costs with operating costs. Regretfully, they didn’t do that until sometime after they privatized the major utility companies, and that allowed the consumers to get preyed upon by energy traders like Enron. That was pretty miserable. But hey, growing pains happen. And it was the kind of mistake that could be revisited and corrected. And to their credit, they eventually they got it right. That, I would say, is a good example of a situation where the “wrongheaded” government response would be to not respond at all, or to continue to respond badly. It is also another example of what I mean by, “you either pay now or pay later”. And because they eventually responded — rightheadedly, I would argue — it’s one of the reasons why CA is now booming with alternative energy activity. It is incorrect to assume that all it takes is for the government to get out of the way. To call for it makes for a powerful talking point, and it fits well on a notecard. But it doesn’t fit with reality. It simply isn’t possible. As Immelt said, there is no such thing as a truly free market. Even Evan has acknowledged that the government has a right to regulate sulphur, particulates, heavy metal emissions, and the like. Apparently Evan also advocates government involvement in assisting the poorest countries to “rich up quick”. I can’t say that for certain, because he hasn’t provided so much as a single detail. But I’m pretty sure he doesn’t expect individual companies, or even individual industries to help much without a supporting governmental framework. Or maybe he expects Bono, the Gates foundation, the Clinton foundation, and the WHO to do the heavy lifting.

Related to that, I have a question… where are the conservative-leaning organizations in the equation?

George Bush deserves credit for the initiatives he championed in Africa to combat AIDS, malaria, and other diseases. Of course, he didn’t do it out of pocket — he used US government funds. And though he helped to lead the way, other agencies collectively contributed more to the effort than did the US gov’t. And so far the entire effort has amounted to what… $1.5 billion or so ($500 million has been offered by the US gov’t)? Is that the level of initiative required to assist the poorest countries to “rich up quick”? I’m guessing it might require more. And frankly, other than the money pumped into supporting domestic politicians, think tanks, media operatives, or other pundits, I can’t think of a single conservative-leaning organization that’s actually out there on the front lines trying to do good for no other reason than doing what’s right. I can think of a lot of left-leaning organizations that are. And I think that’s sad. Houston, we have a problem.

On the transportation fuels front, here’s a very interesting bit of news: PetroSun, Inc announced they will commence operation of their first commercial scale algae-to-biofuels facility on April 1. As far as I know, it’s not just their first, but the first commercial scale algal biofuels plant anywhere. So it’s big news. They project they can produce a minimum of 4.4 million gallons of algal oil and 110 million pounds of biomass on an annual basis. 4.4 million gallons/yr isn’t much, but it’s a start. They plan to establish additional algae farms and algal oil extraction plants in Alabama, Arizona, Louisiana, Mexico, Brazil and Australia during 2008. I guess we’ll see.

Not only that we know the learning curve. Cost of wind declines by 1/3 for every doubling of turbine size. We have at least 2 more doublings to go before we run into technological limits. Right now wind is cheaper than natural gas and the best sites compete with coal even steven.

BTW the USA is the Saudi Arabia of wind. We have enough potential to supply all our electrical needs with wind.

Really. The anti-AAGW folks (I’m one - the first A stands for alarmist) generally do not know enough about wind technology.