Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Take advantage of Black Friday with 15% off sitewide with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" on Slashdot Deals (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re:Science! (Score 1) 737

You manifestly don't believe that smoking is good for you so I assume you don't smoke tobacco.

Likewise you think that hydrocarbons will kill you, your offspring and the planet so I assume you don't use them either. Because let's face it the only way to stop hydrocarbons being used is to stop using them. No petrol or diesel, no plastic, no coal powered electricity, no copper or aluminium, no cement, no building materials. Nothing that comes from hydrocarbons.

Are you doing that? Are you setting a good example and encouraging everyone you know to follow it?

Craig King

Yes, I don't smoke tobacco. And I generally avoid sitting in confined spaces with tobacco smokers.

However, I don't believe hydrocarbons will kill me, my offspring, or the planet. I do think that atmospheric CO2 negatively impacts the climate and lowers all of our standards of living. And I think ocean acidification is bad. Furthermore, I don't think you should be subsidizing my price of hydrocarbons.[1] And if I choose to use hydrocarbons once the direct and indirect subsidies are removed, that should be my right -- that's how a well functioning free market works. People who don't drive cars shouldn't subsidize those who do. Government, through fossil fuel subsidies, shouldn't be "picking winners"

This isn't about "setting examples" but is about an off-balance sheet liability for the planet which will be a drag on productivity and standards of living for future generations.

[1] http://www.worldenergyoutlook....

Comment Re:Science! (Score 1) 737

So, you opposed the RICO investigation (1999-2006) of the so-called "science" which said that cigarettes are safe?

Yes. The way to counter speech that you disagree with, is not censorship, but MORE SPEECH. It is especially effective if you can back up your speech with data.

My read is not that the academics and scientists are trying to counter "speech" but to counter "crime." The way you counter crime you don't agree with is change the LAWS.

Comment Re:Carbon and fuel taxes (Score 2) 577

Rarely have I wished to have mod points as much as I do now to mod parent up.

Pollution is an externality. By not internalizing the cost (through a revenue-neutral tax), we are subsidizing the polluter. Yes, level the playing field and let the market figure it out.

At $24/ton CO2, the price of electricity (100% coal) would increase $0.024/kWh. For natural gas derived electricity, $0.013. Assuming a fuel mix of 50% coal, 25% gas, 25% CO2 free, then that's an increase of $0.015, assuming no market-based substitution. And if revenue neutral, that money would be returned to tax payers.

Perhaps someone can explain why we should continue to subsidize coal?

Comment Re:No (Score 1) 503

You clearly would not be a candidate for this car then. This is a luxury sports sedan. Generally luxury sports sedans get well below 25 MPG.

I'd also suspect, if your electricity is $0.18, then your gas is likely higher than $3.50.

It also appears that the Tesla roadster gets 4 miles / kWh and some super-efficient electric cars are above 10 miles per kWh. So yes, the calculations are very sensitive to the inputs.

As a matter of policy, I'd prefer to see the (US) government get out of the business of subsidizing oil and picking winners and let the market produce whatever the consumer demands. I think we'd see a lot more people (in the US) driving cars like yours -- 45 MPG.

Comment Re:No (Score 5, Informative) 503

Perhaps the most important question is what is the all-in cost per mile of operation and how many miles to I need to operate it annually for it to make financial sense. For a SWAG: Assume $0.10/kWh, 3 miles/kWh, or $0.033/mile for electricity, vs. 25 MPG, $3.50/gallon, $0.14/mile for gasoline. Effective difference of $0.10/mile. At a US average annual distance of 12,000 miles, the fuel cost difference is $1,200. Electric vehicle advocates also suggest that you save another $200/yr on oil changes, oil filters, etc.. If you assume an average ownership period of 10 years, that's a $14,000 savings in OpEx. Of course, currently the car is more expensive, you're limited (slightly) in range, and there are (currently) limited number of places where you can fast-charge (15-20 minutes full charge).

Since when do Slashdot readers bet against technology?

Comment Re:Here's The Thing. (Score 1) 413

On what do you base your assertion that [insert climate action] will wreck the economy?

From a passionate moderate standpoint, I think the scientists have done a better job demonstrating a causal relationship between our CO2 emissions and climate change than the skeptics have done in demonstrating that doing anything about climate change will wreck the global economy.

God is real, unless declared integer.