Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization by Lester Brown
Posted by Gail the Actuary on October 6, 2009 - 10:28am
Lester Brown released a new book this week called Plan B 4.0, Mobilization to Save Civilization. The book is for sale, but it can also be downloaded free as a PDF.
I participated in a conference call with Lester Brown, in which he talked about the book, and several of us asked questions. In this post, I will give you at least a brief introduction to the book.
Chapter 1 is an Introduction. This book really addresses problems of the whole world, not just a single area, such as the United States.
Chapters 2 and 3 give Brown's diagnosis of the problem. Chapter 2 is about population pressure on land (food) and water. Chapter 3 is about the issues of climate change, and also mentions that oil supply is decreasing. Brown indicates that he advocates a phaseout of coal because of its climate issues and because it is the "most easily replaced of the three fossil fuels" (p. 75).
Chapters 4 through 9 are all about solutions. According to the telephone call, Brown's goal is to reduce CO2 emissions by 80% by 2020, and more after that. Brown is very ambitious is what he would like to do, in only a few years.
Chapter 4 is about an Energy Efficiency Revolution.
The energy component of Plan B is straightforward. We raise world energy efficiency enough to at least offset all projected growth in energy use from now until 2020. We also turn to wind, solar, geothermal, and other renewable sources to largely replace oil, coal, and natural gas. In effect, Plan B outlines the transition from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy by 2020. Difficult? Yes. Impossible? No! Page 80
The chapter talks about a shift to LED lighting, energy efficient appliances, LEED certified buildings, electrified transport, greater recycling, a smart grid, and retrofitting buildings. After describing all of these things, he says
One simple way to achieve all these gains is to adopt a carbon tax that would help reflect the full cost of burning fossil fuels. We recommend increasing this carbon tax by $20 per ton each year over the next 10 years, for a total of$200 ($55 per ton of CO2), offsetting it with a reduction in income taxes. High though this may seem, it does not come close to covering all the indirect costs of burning fossil fuels. It does, however, encourage investment in both efficiency and carbon-free sources of energy.Page 108
As far as I can see, this is the only mention of paying for all of the changes mentioned in this chapter.
Chapter 5 is about Shifting to Renewable Energy. According to Chapter 5:
With the Plan B energy economy of 2020, the United States will get 44 percent of its electricity from wind farms. Geothermal power plants will supply another 11 percent. Photovoltaic cells, most of them on rooftops, will supply 8 percent of electricity, with solar thermal power plants providing 5 percent. Roughly 7 percent will come from hydropower. The remaining 25 percent comes from nuclear power, biomass, and natural gas, in that order. (Page 137)
I don't see any indication of how this would be paid for. I also don't see any mention of the huge infrastructure changes that would be needed to accommodate such a change, either.
Chapter 6 is about Designing Cities for People. In this chapter, Brown covers topics such as redesigning cities for people, rather than cars; redesigning urban transport systems; the return of bicycles; reducing urban water use; farming in the city; and upgrading squatter settlements. He even mentions of the idea of starting new cities from scratch. The chapter concludes:
As the new century advances, the world is reconsidering the urban role of automobiles in one of the most fundamental shifts in transportation thinking in a century. The challenge is to redesign communities so that public transportation is the centerpiece of urban transport and streets are pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly. This also means planting trees and gardens and replacing parking lots with parks, playgrounds, and playing fields. We can design an urban lifestyle that systematically restores health by incorporating exercise into daily routines while reducing carbon emissions and eliminating health-damaging air pollution. Page 166
Chapter 7 is about Eradicating Poverty and Stabilizing Population. In this chapter Brown talks about educating everyone, improving nutrition, reducing childhood mortality, curbing the AIDS epidemic, reducing tobacco smoking, stabilizing populations, rescuing failing states, and eliminating poverty. Unlike previous chapters, this chapter has a budget for its worldwide goals. This is it:
Chapter 8 is about Restoring the Earth. Topics include protecting and restoring the forests, by reducing paper use and by developing alternative sources of energy; planting trees to sequester carbon; conserving and rebuilding soils; regenerating fisheries through marine protected areas; and protecting plant and animal diversity; and restoring water table. This section also has a budget.
About restoring water tables, Brown writes:
For stabilizing water tables, we have only a guess [about costs]. The key to stabilizing water tables is raising water productivity, and for this we have the experience gained when the world started to systematically raise land productivity beginning a half-century ago. The elements needed in a comparable water model are research to develop more water-efficient irrigation practices and technologies, the dissemination ofthese research findings to farmers, and economic incentives that encourage farmers to adopt and use these improved irrigation practices and technologies. . .
In some countries, the capital needed to fund a program to raise water productivity can come from eliminating subsidies that often encourage the wasteful use ofirrigation water. Some times these are energy subsidies, as in India; other times they are subsidies that provide water at prices well below costs, as in the United States. Removing these subsidies will effectively raise the price of water, thus encouraging its more efficient use. In terms of additional resources needed worldwide, including research needs and the economic incentives for farmers to use more water-efficient practices and technologies, we assume it will take an annual expenditure of $10 billion. (Page 214)
Chapter 9 is called Feeding Eight Billion People Well. Topics include raising land productivity (higher yielding crops, more fertilizer, double cropping), raising water productivity (more efficient irrigation), producing protein more efficiently (more fish farms, crop residues to grow cows); localization of agriculture; strategic reductions in demand (eat less meat); and elevating responsibility for food security. These are a few of his ideas:
One way to quickly reverse this deteriorating political situation is for the United States to restrict the use of grain to produce fuel for cars. Given the turmoil in world grain markets over the last three years, it is time for the U.S. government to abolish the subsidies and mandates that aredriving the conversion of grain into fuel. That would help stabilize grain prices and set the stagefor relaxing the political tensions that have emerged within importing countries.
And finally, we have a role to play as individuals. Whether we bike, bus, or drive to work will affect carbon emissions, climate change, and food security. The size of the car we drive to the supermarket and its effect on climate may indirectly affect the size of the bill at the supermarket checkout counter. If we are living high on the food chain, we can move down, improving our health while helping to stabilize climate. Food security is something in which we all have a stake—and a responsibility. Page 237
The last chapter, chapter 10, is Can We Mobilize Fast Enough?. The chapter starts out:
There is much that we do not know about the future. But one thing we do know is that business as usual will not continue for much longer. Massive change is inevitable. “The death of our civilization is no longer a theoryor an academic possibility; it is the road we’re on,” says Peter Goldmark, former Rockefeller Foundation president and current director of the climate program at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). Can we find another road beforetime runs out?
In this section, he talks about shifting taxes and subsidies (carbon or gasoline tax), phasing out coal, and stabilizing climate. About stabilizing climate he says:
Earlier we outlined the need to cut net carbon dioxide emissions 80 percent by2020 to minimize the futurerise in temperature. Here we summarize the Plan B measures for doing so, including both reducing fossil fuel use and increasing biological sequestration.
After energydemand is stabilized by dramatically improving efficiency, replacing fossil fuels with renewable sources of energy for generating electricity and heat will reduce carbon emissions in 2020 by more than 3.2 billion tons. (See Table 10–1.) The biggest single cut in carbon emissions comes from phasing out the use ofcoal to generate electricity. Other cuts come from eliminating all the oil and 70 percent of the natural gas used to generate electricity.41
In the transport sector, the greatly reduced use of oil will eliminate 1.4 billion tons of carbon emissions. This reduction relies heavily on the shift to plug-in hybrid and all-electric cars that will run on carbon-free sources of electricity such as wind. The remainder comes largely from shifting long-haul freight from trucks to trains, electrifying freight and passenger trains, and using green electricity to power them.42 Page 253
Brown talks about a mobilization, in a way similar to war mobilization, and shows war budgets, that could presumably be used for peaceful activities. He ends about talking about what you and I can do--
One of the questions I hear most frequently is, What can I do? People often expect me to talk about lifestyle changes, recycling newspapers, or changing light bulbs. These are essential, but they are not nearly enough. We now need to restructure the global economy, and quickly. It means becoming politically active, working for the needed changes. Saving civilization is not aspectator sport.
Inform yourself, read about the issues. If you want to know what happened to earlier civilizations that found themselves in environmental trouble, read Collapseby Jared Diamond or A Short History of Progressby Ronald Wright or The Collapse of Complex Societies by Joseph Tainter. If you found this book useful in helping you think about what to do, share it with others. It can be downloaded free of charge from the Institute’s Website, earthpolicy.org.68
Pick an issue that’s meaningful to you, such as tax restructuring, banning inefficient light bulbs, phasing out coal-fired power plants, or working for streets in your community that are pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly, or join a group that is working to stabilize world population. What could be more exciting and rewarding than getting personally involved in trying to save civilization?
Clearly Brown believes that technology can save us, if we can make changes quickly enough. A lot of his ideas are good, if there are really resources available to do them. I am a doubter in this area, but I will leave the issue to others to discuss.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
$110 B to restore the earth? Are you sure the units are right? Not billions but 100 billions - if not trillions?
It struck me the same way as well. I don't think Brown has really sat down and looked at the numbers. I copied the exhibit directly, to make sure I had the units right.
He doesn't mention numbers at all in the renewable energy change proposals. I am wondering if he is thinking they are also inexpensive.
I had the opposite impression. Nearly every dollar we spend is going to require the burning of fossil fuels, the equivalent of one pint of oil per dollar on average by one calculation (I believe this was McKibben, but I don't have the source in front of me).
Mostly we don't have to do more; we need to do a whole heck of a lot less--
less spending
less consuming
less breeding
less travel, especially by plane and car
less heating and cooling our homes
less eating meat and long-distant and highly processed food
less extraction of that safely sequestered carbon known as fossil fuels (a lot less, given to the nearly daily findings of how much further along we are toward runaway global warming than we had thought just months ago)
....less, less, less.
And doing and using less costs...
nothing.
Not trillions, hundreds of billions, billions...
99.9% of powerdown must be simply not doing most of the things we have been doing. Rushing to spend lots of money on the next fix will most often produce more problems, generally worse than the ones they were trying to fix. This has ever been the case.
What can we do more of?
Singing, dancing, meditation, talking, sharing (non-procreative) loving--the best things in life that are free and that really make life worth living.
But that is not what he is talking about, at least in the first 10 years or so. He is talking about a huge amount of new infrastructure for renewable energy, built with fossil fuels. He wants us to replace appliances and light bulbs more efficient ones, and replace other transportation with electric trains and electric cars. He wants more efficient food production--more fertilizer, more double cropping.
There are some things he is talking about less of, but it seems like at first several years (and maybe for quite a while) there may even be a net increase in fossil fuel use. Certainly the dollar investment will need to be quite high. If he is talking about erasing poverty around the world, this by itself would be an ambitious goal, and would normally require a considerable amount of fossil fuels (even if the fossil fuels are only used to make, say, solar panels, for cooking).
One sees this more and more. The further we overshoot, the narrower our window for doing anything; the more grandiose the plans get in scope and ambition. I've learned useful things from Lester Brown, but he has been decoupling from the world I know for quite some time.
I have sampled the work of folks such as Brown and Amory Lovins occasionally over the years.
They are helpful in getting the word out but in the late stages of peak oil they may do more harm than good by attracting an early audience of interested but technically niave readers.
The audience has a tendency to either swallow the easy solutions bait whole( liberal well educated acquaintances who believe wind , solar , hydrogen , batteries , etc, will save bau) or reject the entire subject as the ravings of a nincompoop (acquaintances who are conservative realists who see the shortcomings of solutions presented as gospel and therefore dismiss the entire message-if the author of a book is obviously deluded in one respect, how much credibility does he have in other respects?)
So the baby gets thrown out with the bath water.
Remember that most people don't read and that most who do read too many romances and sports stories and very few serious books.
I kind of agree with this. Brown describes the problems well enough, but ends up still within, though perhaps on the outer limits of, the BAU spectrum - his solutions are not consistent with his own description of the problems. (Based on 2.0 and 3.0 -- I haven't read 4.0 yet.)
Significant retrenchment is totally unavoidable.
Why not just go straight to "Plan C," actually the name of a much better (in my view) book by Pat Murphy. It emphasizes contraction and convergence. Still a bit optimistic, but it faces the enormity of the catastrophe in a more hear-on manner, IMO.
That sounds interesting. Perhaps you could entertain us with a few more words about Plan C?
Phsing out coal and replacing it with wind is at little to no increase in net cost AFAIK. Right now, wind and coal seem to be about the same in terms of cost, and the ~2c+/kWh in coal's externalized costs are more than enough for the transmission infrastructure needed to integrate more than ~20% wind into the grid. 8% PV and 5% solar thermal would probably be cheaper than natural gas peaker plants and approach baseload power costs given their likely lifespan. Hydro/nukes will stay the same, and natural gas will probably decrease. All at little or no increase in long run electricity costs. EVs are more of the same. Greater initial costs, but lower maintenance/fuel costs, overall they're about the same, maybe less considering how often the average car is replaced due to expensive repair bills. All told, the changes he's outlining tend to pay themselves off, which is probably why he didn't look at costs much.
No. Wind competes with natural gas, which is generally (but not necessarily right now) more expensive than coal. T. Boone Pickens was talking tonight that to make wind competitive, natural gas would have to go up to $7 mcf. Natural gas is currently a little less than $4. So wind is close to double coal's price, right now, and that is with cheap financing. If the cost of financing goes up, wind will be quite a bit more expensive (or simply not available).
The PV will be expensive too, as will be the solar thermal electricity. Natural gas plants are cheap; the issue is the price of the natural gas. Solar PV and Solar thermal don't really compete with peaking plants. The peaking plants help balance out wind on a short time line--solar PV and solar thermal don't.
We have discovered the economy goes into recession as the price of oil goes up. I would expect exactly the same thing, as the price of electricity goes up (assuming that the increase is a real increase, and not a tax that is rebated elsewhere, as it is on gasoline in Europe) because of the higher cost of the substitutes. It doesn't matter that the new source is renewable. The bill to the homeowner will be higher, so the homeowner will have less money left for other things.
Gail, you make several claims that cannot be taken at face value.
-- The bill to the homeowner will be higher, so the homeowner will have less money left for other things.--
This claim completely ignores the effect of a crash energy efficiency component to a comprehensive climate policy. A climate policy centered around efficiency can lower the electricity bills of homeowners, even though rates may go up. McKinsey and others have well-documented this.
-- We have discovered the economy goes into recession as the price of oil goes up. --
If you are claiming that the current recession is due to oil prices, and not financial mismanagement, then I think you need to revisit current history. In fact, the demand destruction of oil consumption with the most recent $140 barrel oil was very dynamic, and I expect the price of oil will play a diminishing role in future economic cycles.
--If the cost of financing goes up, wind will be quite a bit more expensive (or simply not available). --
If you haven't noticed, there is almost no ability to finance the risk of new coal generating plant in the US. Fuel price risk, political risk, carbon regulation risk, and the immense fixed capital costs are limiting coal expansion - I would not call COAL cheaper than the alternatives in almost any sense.
Lester Brown is correct. We do have the societal resources available in the energy sector to be redirected toward a clean and efficient energy system - with a total cost of less than 1% of GDP in 2030. This cost is dwarfed by the damage we are creating by completely destabilizing the climate, acidifying the oceans, and raising the seal levels.
I believe Lester Brown has presented one of the clearest choices ever presented to mankind. But I am not confident our political system can respond - though I am more than confident that, if the prices were made accurate, the economic system would respond adequately.
This claim completely ignores the effect of a crash energy efficiency component to a comprehensive climate policy.
A crash energy efficiency programme will not be cheap. It also implies a huge ramp up in the products required for energy efficiency. We'd also have to be careful of the rebound effect, or Jeavon's Paradox.
If you are claiming that the current recession is due to oil prices
A number of analyses have reasonably suggested that the oil price spike was certainly a factor in the recession. You might disagree, of course, but the case, for me, has been argued fairly strongly. Here's a couple of them:
Causes and Consequences of the Oil Shock of 2007-08 (PDF), Jeff Rubin: Oil Prices Caused the Current Recession but I've seen others.
I believe Lester Brown has presented one of the clearest choices ever presented to mankind. But I am not confident our political system can respond - though I am more than confident that, if the prices were made accurate, the economic system would respond adequately.
Lester Brown is definitely a technology optimist. His future is a high tech world that is sustainable. However, it's not a world that is much different from the one we always hear about in popular science mags (and have done so for many decades). There always seems to be a clear cut technological answer to any problem, in this future. However, we still get stuck in a finite world with the reality that using any resource beyond its renewal rate is not sustainable.
Gail is right to question the costs. When Lester talks about replacing power generation, that means that the build cost of providing that power doubles (two generating plants for the same power output). Crash programs can suck up a lot of resource quickly. So called renewable energies take non-renewables to build and use, and take away from the natural energy flows that sustain (just) our planet's biosphere.
I've read large tracts of earlier versions of Plan B (how come something called Plan B can have 4 versions?) and Lester Brown does seem to be trying to continue BAU with a few technology tweaks. It's doomed to failure, though I share your pessimism that our political system can respond to even this rosy plan.
Fortunately, Jevon's Paradox should have no ill effect for wind or solar. It's only a bad thing where the resource is non-renewable. Getting better and better at using up sunlight more completely won't be a problem for a LONG time!
Of course it will have an ill effect. It would eventually require even more capacity. More generating capacity consumes more resources, not just renewable. And where is the research to show that removing x amount of energy from the natural energy systems has no impact? What would x be? Just saying that we won't have a problem for a long time (with an exclamation point) doesn't make it so. Where is the research?
We should move to renewables but we need to rethink our living arrangements from scratch and figure out just how much resources we really need to live a satisfying (but sustainable) life.
I wasn't thinking with enough scope. Granted it will have some adverse resource impacts over a longer time-scale IF growth continues, but much less than where we're headed otherwise. The energy impact should be low, though, as the energy taken from sun or wind still ends up returning to the environment after use by humans -- it all ends up as heat or light somewhere. Only changes that shift the overall rate of planetary absorbtion/radiance should make a big difference, though arguably small shifts in how the energy is channeled could have some effect.
You're completely right that this all turns into a game of Whack-a-Mole as each resource depletes under continued growth, which is the real problem. Working backward in order of importance, the "real" issues to solve are population growth, per capita energy consumption, sustainable energy generation, and resource shortages...but the way we're actually approaching the problem is the other way around, which means it is really no solution at all.
This is only a problem if the expenditures take a long time to be repaid. If you have a 10-year program to make changes with a 3-year payback, the total usage goes negative in the third year. Lots of things have much faster energy payback.
Doubtful. Expanding energy consumption would require more capital expenditure, which would tend to discourage it. (BTW, it's "Jevons' Paradox.")
Roofs and pavements (to give two examples) are not natural energy systems, and a temporary redirection of the energy falling on them is going to have minuscule effects.
I don't deny that wind competes with NG, but wind also competes with coal too. As of 2006, the levelized cost of coal was about .3c/kWh greater than wind, and when we look at the cost of CCS, it pushes coal way above wind, not to mention the increase in coal prices w/ higher oil prices or a reduction in wind power costs.
Solar competes directly w/ natural gas peakers in most of the country because it's output mimics the usual increase in demand, barring some of the east where demand jumps up at night due to resistive heating. The cost issue isn't really the price of natural gas, but the cost of building a NG peaker plant that's rarely operated and is quite expensive as a result. With concentrated and PV solar at or approching the price of NG peaker plants, a suitably small (~10+% of grid nameplate capacity) amount of solar power would cost little to nothing more than what we pay for NG peaker, and over the long run, probably far less.
While oil prices from 2005-2008 did increase the worldwide cost of oil by about three trillion, consumer credit and mortgage debt in America alone increased by about three trillion too, and I imagine the world wide credit/equity bubble was much larger than what we saw in the U.S. The decline in world equity markets in 2008 alone was about 26 trillion. While I don't doubt oil prices were pushed higher due to fundametals, they were also pushed higher due to a credit/equity bubble in the tens of trillions, and if anything caused the recession I'm putting my money on the huge credit/equity bubble popping as opposed to oil prices. If anything, at least some potion of the oil price increase was caused by the credit/equity bubble.
Like I just illustrated, electricity from renewables won't be signiicantly higher than what we have now, maybe a cent/kWh higher, ignoring the reduction in costs due to the reduction in externalities. The biggest difference will be who gets paid for electricity generation and how much crap we get to deal w/ due down the road to GCC/pollution.
The cost per MWh is irrelevant. What matters is the cost of delivering electricity. Your myopic analysis has the most valuable generation, NG peaker plants, as the most expensive.
Simply replacing coal with wind will require more NG peaker plants and you need to look at the combined cost instead of the cost of an unusable MWh of wind. Solar is at best a partial substitute for a peaker plants. In general, by overbuilding solar and wind, the need for NG is alleviated somewhat but the cost of overbuilding needs to be taken into account as well.
Wind can be cheap for consumers who adapt their consumption to the wind supply but this adaptation has a cost and the only way to make it happen is to make the cost of on-demand electricity prohibitive.
I agree about the relationship between the oil price and the macro picture. The whole "$100 oil broke my economy" thing is just sad and doomers who buy it should examine their motives for doing so.
Pumped hydro storage and demand-dispatched loads would be the preferred response to intermittent wind/solar.
Of course nuclear could still offset base load, and if we're throwing money at the problem overbuilding for wind and adding peak consumers (solid state ammonia plants?) would make as much sense as peak generation.
I wonder if anybody has done a study to see what fraction of today's hydro could be upgraded (with the necessary pumps and downhill storage) to support pumped hydro storage?
Preferred, yes (see my other posts on this page). But would it be cheaper than idle NG plants? In order for pumped hydro alone to reliably offset wind/solar intermittency, costly overbuilding would be required.
This is not to say that pumped hydro opportunities should be discarded of course. Diversification is golden.
I'm not a nuke fan either but it indeed sounds like a nuke renaissance could be cheaper than wind/solar if the goal is BAU. Nukes + pumped hydro works well. I would rather BAU be abandoned but I'm not making policy...
Besides the fact that North America already has 175 GW of hydro power capacity installed, I don't see a reason why the power of almost any hydro dam shouldn't be increasable.
This is currently being done on a bunch of dams in Switzerland - one example:
A turbine with 4.4 MW is supplemented by a turbine/pump combination with 1000 MW
No way.
Assuming a 24 daily cycle with nukes 'charging' pumped hydro between 9 pm and 9 am(night) and 'discharging' between 9 am and 9 pm(day).
The US has about 80 Gwe of hydro (313 Twh) and Canada has 67 Gwe of hydro(341 Gwh).
The US has 107 Gwe of nukes today and Canada has 13 Gwe.
Pumped hydro is 75% efficient.
Assume the US has 175 Gwe of hydro/pumped hydro(fantasy).
175 Gwe of hydro would require 233 Gwe of nuke(175/75%) to do the night pumping.
This would produce 233+175=408 Gwe during the daytime or 4.9 Twh per day for an input of 5.6 Twh per day of nuke input.
4.9 Twh x 365 days is 1790 Twh per year.
So hydro now produces 654 Twh or 1.8 Twh per day but 4.9 Twh per day would be required.
I doubt that real world reserviors can be reconstructed to almost triple daily capacity.
US baseload is about 200 Gwe and 9am to 9 pm daily peak is 700 Gwe
(250 x 24 + 500 x 12)x365/1000 = 4380 Twh/yr
The pumped hydro-nuke scheme with 483 Gwe of nukes(250 base +233 hydro/pumped hydro);
(250 x 24 + 4900)x 365/1000 = 3979 Twh/yr
About the same Twh but the daytime supply is 82% lower.
Wind-hydro storage makes even less sense as wind is more intermittent so far more storage would be required.
Of course, hydrodams are important as water sources for humans and the idea of running rivers back and forth for energy storage is obviously silly. At least wind wouldn't affect fresh water use.
Megawatt sized batteries would make more sense.
But LWR nukes are too expensive and uranium will peak in about 30 years at present consumption rates.
A couple of points (it's late and I would like to dissect but ...)
Bath County pumped storage is 81% efficient, Raccoon Mountain is 80% efficient and bigger tunnels would increase those #s (less tunnel friction). Tunneling by TBM is getting 3% cheaper (sans inflation) every year (kind of like Moore's Law) so higher efficiency pumped storage can be economic.
British Columbia just added a 0.5 GW turbine to an existing dam (I posted link on a Drumbeat), Manitoba has 4.9 GW of undeveloped hydro, Quebec 25 GW and Labrador ~4 GW and BC ?
Chu says the USA has 70 GW of additional hydro (pumped storage, run-of-river and expanded power plants at existing dams). A rebuild at Hoover just added 7% more MWh.
Wind is about as good as nukes for pairing with pumped storage. They go up and down during the day, so, in the real world, they work nicely on modern grids.
Pumped storage makes much better sense than batteries.
US baseload is about 200 Gwe and 9am to 9 pm daily peak is 700 Gwe
Your source for those stats ? Widely at variance from what I remember.
Alan
Basically the hourly demand curve is sinusoidal but I approximate it as square waveform with the maximum demand between 9 am and 9 pm
or 10 am and 10 pm with only baseload running at night.
I actually used 250 Gwe in the calculation as average values for baseload with 500 Gwe for daily maximum.
http://www.ercot.com/news/presentations/2007/2007_ERCOT_Planning_Long_Te...
Nuke and some coal plants are baseload which is obvious by the high number of hours they run per year(7000 and 6000 hours per year).
Coal can be easily modulated but nuclear is all on.
In the US, there are 336 Gwe of coal(some baseload some not) and 106 Gwe nukes per EIA.
Yes way.
The US does not have 175 GW, because the US is not North America.
Canada and Mexico are still independent countries. Here you go:
But that doesn't mean that the US shouldn't be interconnected with Canada and Mexico.
You don't need larger reservoirs you just need larger turbines and pumps.
If Switzerland can increase the power rating of a hydro pond from 4.4 MW to 1000 MW with a single pump/turbine, why shouldn't the US be able to do the same with much larger reservoirs. Keep in mind this 1000 MW Swiss pump/turbine works with a reservoir volume that has 0.07% of the capacity of the hoover dam.
The hoover dam has an area of 640 km2.
If you drop its water level by 10 m, that corresponds to a 6.45 TWh of a potential energy difference.
But I agree that it is cheaper just to benefit largely from the flexible 450 GW natural gas capacity already installed, than to build additional pumps and turbines.
And replacing fossil fuel heaters with heat pumps will also increase the availability of flexible loads without building additional pumps and turbines.
Our Sectry. of Energy Chu recently said that we could add 70 GW without new reservoirs.
Alan
Why does the US need more NG peaker plants when the US has already 450 GW of NG peaker plants installed?
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat2p2.html
Fossil fuel heaters and fossil fuel water heaters eventually will need to be replaced by heat pumps.
Heat pumps can operate much more flexibly than other electric devices, so a surplus of wind power can always be sold and stored in heat energy (heating and hot water).
The US only needs more NG plants if the plan is to replace coal with wind without changing anything else. This is not a good plan but that's the plan you want to look at if you want to compare apples with apples when looking at costs.
There are lots of ways much more wind could be accommodated with no need for extra NG plants but there are extra costs involved.
There are lots of ways much more wind could be accommodated with no need for extra NG plants but there are extra costs involved.
Besides the fact that the US already has 450 GW of NG capacity and North America has 175 GW of hydro capacity, these extra costs are very low:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power
Transmission is not the main issue.
Yes it is because interconnected wind farms provide baseload and the US already has 622 GW of flexible capacity installed and only 336 GW of coal.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat2p2.html
There's no reason not to benefit from the 622 GW of US flexible capacity already installed and there's no reason not to benefit from the hydro capacity already installed in Canada.
And there's no reason not to operate heat pumps replacing fossil heaters flexibly.
So what?
You're pretending building HVDC is all there is to it cost-wise but it's not, irrelevant assertions notwithstanding.
Storage has costs even though there's no reason not to pay them. Even the cost of actual long-distance transmission would outweigh the cost of the transmission capacity (which you did not account for fairly by the way).
You come off much like a nuke advocate.
Storage has costs even though there's no reason not to pay them.
You don't need storage when you already have 622 GW of flexible capacity installed and when interconnected wind farms provide baseload.
Even the cost of actual long-distance transmission would outweigh the cost of the transmission capacity (which you did not account for fairly by the way).
Not true:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power
You come off much like a fact hater. But keep in mind: By attacking me, these facts won't disappear.
More irrelevant assertions...
Actually transmission factor is hugely negative for wind.
If a 1 MW wind turbine runs 3000 hours per year at full rating
and a 1 MW coal plant runs 6000 hours at full rating you need 2 1 MW turbines to match a single 1 MW coal plant to produce 6000 MWh of energy.
Well 2 1 MW wind turbines will require 2MW of transmission (without on site battery storage), while the coal plant gets by on a single 1 MW transmission line.
A 500 kv HVDC transmission line costs over $2 million dollars per mile.
If the cost of building lines is "hugely negative", how would you characterize the cost of actually transmitting huge amounts of energy over said lines? Recall the context of the discussion: such a massive wind buildup that much of the "baseload" energy would be transmitted on a continental scale.
The use of pumped hydro in Canada has even been suggested as a good match for US wind. On-continent storage! Imagine all that ingenuity and efficiency powering always-on glorified web terminals equipped with power supplies rated at 400W...
No need for additional pump storage as the US already has 622 GW of flexible power capacity installed.
Besides the US and Canada have already been connected with an HVDC line for over 20 years.
Exactly.
Sending two 1 MW lines from remote wind farms to some remote hydrodam 'battery' in Canada and a 1 MW (downstream of the 'battery') onto customers far away.
A lot of power lines!
At least nukes could be built next to the hydrodams(assuming the plant huge water supply needs could be met without affecting the
water level of the reserviors).
Also of course you lose the hydropower of the dam itself as it now would serve as a mere battery.
It could be that the stranded wind would be located close to the hydrodam 'battery' but that would occur in relatively few places.
Actually, besides the fact that the US already has enough flexible capacity installed and wind power provides baseload, one inexpensive power line can carry 6400 MW and not 1 MW.
One HVDC transmission line can transmit more than double the entire wind-turbine arsenal of Denmark at full power.
HVDC costs €60/kW for the converter stations and €70/kW per 1000 km (3% loss per 1000 km that is).
On the other hand: AECL's $26 billion bid was based on the construction of two 1,200-megawatt Advanced Candu Reactors, working out to $10,800 per kilowatt of power capacity.
In case it's not obvious to everyone, "anyone" is misrepresenting the content of her links (which are not necessarily the actual source).
Some people cherry-pick the web like is was the Bible. At least the Bible has few numbers so the quotation is rarely distorted.
In case it's not obvious to everyone, "HFat" is a liar.
All the numbers can of course be verified in the links I provided.
Besides that "HFat" is a liar, she's not been capable to deliver any facts at all.
Actually, HVDC costs €60/kW for the converter stations and €70/kW per 1000 km (3% loss per 1000 km that is):
http://www.iset.uni-kassel.de/abt/w3-w/projekte/LowCostEuropElSup_revise...
(Admittably, subsea HVDC cables are more expensive but last time I checked most of the US was not submerged).
At €130 per kW per 1000 km it is irrelevant whether the capacity factor of this transmission line is 50% or 100%, when you compare this to the costs of $7375 per kW for a power plant with a capacity factor of 90% (and this is besides the fact that a transmission line has no moving parts and doesn't require any fuel):
http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/665644
Besides you will never reach 100% capacity factor on a transmission line anyway because the consumption can easily vary by a factor of 3 and no-one has ever forced consumers to consume electricity at a constant rate just to get a higher capacity factor on a transmission line. France even has to take hugely expensive nuclear power plants off the grid, because it can't get their consumers to consume the same amount of electricity all year round and you are concerned about the capacity factor of an inexpensive transmission line?
http://www.nationalwind.org/pdf/Nickellstoragestory-Public.pdf
It isn't just replacing baseload coal (and a bit of baseload NG probably) with wind, it's replacing baseload coal with interconnected wind, that mimics baseload output quite well. It isn't perfect, but the NG baseload replaced could be used to supplement current peaker capacity, just like solar would allow for a reduction in peaker plants used and an increase in available capacity during the day.
It isn't about placing NG peaker plants on some pedestal as the most valuable generation source, it's about having a grid, whether or not it includes peaker capacity via NG or something else like biomass/waste incineration (probably not much yet due to costs), that can deliver low Carbon/low pollution output that consumers currently demand. If we can reduce peaker use while maintaining output, good for us, they're relatively expensive, and if we can't, we can still replace most of our coal/NG baseload with wind. Everything I've read points to a mix mentioned by Brown as the most cost effective mix because it has a small fraction of the emissions at roughly the same cost of current output.
Interconnected wind is more expensive than plain wind, and not only because of the cost of building HVDC lines as asserted elsewhere.
And it is indeed not perfect, which translates into more expenses such as NG plants and fuel (when looking at the cost of coal generation, you're not discounting the cost of coal plants on the grounds that they already exist).
Fossil fuel-fired generation is cheaper, in part because it doesn't need to be supplemented by wind and solar. It's also more convenient, more reliable and already in place at the scale necessary to meet demand.
Unfortunately, the pollution and the limited nature of the resource means that fossil-fuel generation will have to be phased out... and the sooner, the better. But let's not kid ourselves about the cost or about the emissions involved in building a huge renewable infrastructure. Conservation is cheaper and has less emissions.
Indeed. In the longer term we will go to sun, wind, and water for our primary energy, and we will not do it on our preferred terms or anything close to them unless we move aggressively now to do so.
Since we aren't it is a reasonable assumption that service will be degraded when the move is forced.
Do you have a source for that? From my last link, the capacity factor for just 19 farms in four states was 79%. Wind with a national HVDC grid that would undoubtedly be greater, and the capacity factor for coal is only 74% or so. Toss in the baseload NG replaced as peaker capacity, and I doubt there would be issues w/ availability.
Current NG generation, baseload and peaker, is likely sufficient, especially considering regional interconnected wind has a greater capacity factor than coal. The unfortunate consequence of existing coal as per my first link is that pollution costs about 2c/kWh and CCS seems to be an additional 2c/kWh, which is greater than the less than 3c/kWh for existing, depreciated, coal infrastructure. That said, it may make for cost effective biomass generation after retrofitting.
Regional interconnected wind has a greater capacity factor than coal, so if anything coal would need to be supplemented more than it's capital costs, assuming no depreciation, so with depreciation it's even lower. Now, if you would gladly pay tomorrow for a kWh today, then I ain't one to tell ya not to support coal, but it isn't my outlook. I'd rather minimize long run costs, including externalized costs.
I agree that conservation is cheaper than anything, but even that is subject to diminishing returns, and don't kid yourself about coal by looking at depreciating sunk costs. Externalized costs for coal are likley greater than those, so even with conservation and sunk costs, replacing coal with interconnected wind is probably cheaper and more reliable in the long run.
I said nothing about capacity factors.
You made preposterous claims that are clearly at variance with your source. And I'm being generous...
Even if your numbers were believable, your argument would still be disingenuous.
How are they preposterous and how are they at variance with my source?
How so?
While reading the summary and pulling up pages from the online edition, I found myself shaking my head. At the risk of being branded a naysayer, it can't be done - at least not in the timeframe and with the funding he proposes. A shift of the magnitude he envisions is simply too much for too little in too short a time. He may be unintentionally feeding the general illusion that we can easily solve problems we have been creating for over a century. That is naive in the extreme and encourages a false sense of security.
He definitely makes it sound relatively easy.
Rebuilding cities from scratch? That's just unrealistic but I'd like to see a justification that cities are the best way to go for a sustainable future.
Cities will exist as points where natural features support the energy flow of a region.
Points where rivers meet, deep water ports and even in rural areas to collect the products from the land.
Some cities make no sense from a resource POV and exist because of laws allowing them....Los Vagas and laws of gambling fer instance.
Yes, he's completely unrealistic. You simply can't do the projects he is proposing in the time frame necessary. As the old saying goes, "It's like trying to produce a baby in 1 month by getting 9 women pregnant at once."
And he's completely unrealistic on costs. As anyone who has been involved in a megaproject knows, once you start to do things on too big a scale, it becomes much more difficult to manage. You lose control of costs.
The U.S. has about 1000 MW of electric generating capacity. He's talking about cutting out coal generation, which reduces it by about 1/3, and then plugging in electric cars, which will nearly double the consumption.
At the end of it, you have to add about 1200 MW of capacity, all of it renewable. Good look trying to build that many wind turbines, especially when people realize their view of the countryside is going to consist of nothing but wind turbines. The NIMBY crowd will never let it happen.
There are people higher on the list to blame before you attack the NIMBYs.. and the NIMBYs would have far less incentive and clout if there was more public knowledge of the twin-crises that we face.
Whether reaching that goal is possible or not, are you proposing there's a path we should be setting out on instead?
The NIMBYs are perfectly capable of throwing a wrench into the gears of progress anytime anything important needs to be done. California, for instance, is full of them. The only solutions are 1) ban NIMBYs (hard to do without a constitutional amendment) or 2) build things where there are no NIMBYs. There are such places, and I have seen some enormous coal-burning power plants in those places (with transmission lines leading off in the direction of California), but I don't think there are enough NIMBY-free areas to build all the wind farms that Brown's plan requires. And beyond the NIMBYs there are the BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody) that show up in remote locations where there are no locals to object to anything.
Brown's plan is infeasible and unaffordable as written, so he needs to prioritize. As a start, he could forget about the electric power issue and concentrate on the liquid fuels crisis that seems to be coming down the pipe at us. If we wanted a solution to that, we should have started 20 years ago and done a fundamental rethink of the cost/benefit ratios.
The default solution is that people are just going to have to find some other way than driving to get to their jobs, assuming they have jobs to go to. How they are going to do it is up to them, because I don't think the government is going to be much help.
I totally agree we have to do much less of almost everything. Trouble is, our media, and social mores, keep screaming "more, more, more" and "cheaper, cheaper, cheaper".
I'm reminded of the lightly sarcastic, denigrative way TV news anchors dismiss anyone trying to do more with less..CNN comes to mind...
I was at a dinner the other night, where the topic of conversation (complaint) was increased parking rates in the city. The main reason for the city raising rates (other than just revenue, of course) was to discourage cars coming downtown and encourage use of transit, but people still insist on driving, and then complaining about the cost.
Dinner, by the way, was served on disposable plates with disposable utensils. While I don't wish to complain about being invited for dinner, does nobody wash dishes any more ?
The hosts were folks who I know take environmental issues very seriously at the higher level, and I know conserve personally - but, at the group level, where we interact with others in society, we apparently consistently revert to the group average.
I wore a sweater, since the weather was cool, and it's way too early to have the heat on - and I know they are energy conscious, yet the the room must have been heated to 75 degrees - I was cooking ! Is 75 degrees the societal norm for home heating in winter ? If so, Houston, we have a problem.
Until we stop looking down on people trying to do more with less of everything, and make it the societal norm, efforts will fail.
A guest post a few days ago included the following comment:
I am convinced that energy use is very closely tied to total expenditures. A person with a high income who spends a lot, will almost always use a lot of energy. Even a person with low income, who borrows to spend way beyond his income, will spend more than a person living within his means (living perhaps in too big a house, that needs to be heated and cooled). It is really difficult to change things, as long as people have money, and spend nearly all of it. Savings in one area is often offset by going on a trip, or other expenditure, that has similar impact, but in a different area (Jevons paradox).
Charlie Hall once told his classes a good way to lower your impact was to have a smaller salary each year.
It's pretty easy to show how this works. Let's take an upper middle class suburban house that is 3000 ft2 on two floors. Let's say it's 9 ft floor-to-floor and 30x50 ft in depth and width. The total surface area will be 1500 ft2 for the roof, 1800 ft2 for the two long walls, and 1080 ft2 for the two end walls, for a total of 4380 ft2 which can transmit heat in or out.
Next take a 2000 ft2 urban townhouse on two floors. Again say it's 9 ft floor-to-floor but 20x50 ft in depth and width. The total heat transmission area will be 1000 ft2 for the roof, 720 ft2 for the two end walls, and nothing for the two side walls which are shared with neighboring units. this gives a total of 1720 ft2 which can transmit heat. That's only 39% of the area of the suburban house.
Finally take a modest 1000 ft2 urban apartment on one floor with neighbors left, right, top, bottom and rear. Let's say it is 20x50 ft2 and has one front wall 9x20 ft. this gives a total of 180 ft2 which can transmit heat. That is only 4% of the suburban two-story or 10% of the townhouse.
That's an illustration of how going to higher densities and more efficient housing can drastically reduce heating/cooling costs.
After that point, you might note that people in the suburban house are basically forced to have two cars since there's no public transit, the people in the townhouse only have one car because they can take the convenient neighborhood bus or light rail to work, and the people in the urban apartment have no car at all because they can walk, bicycle, or take the subway anywhere they want to go.
This illustrates the basic difference between North American and European or Asian energy consumption patterns.
The temperature that a home/building is kept at is really not material. The important factors are the heat loss of the building. A large well insulated building kept at 75 F will use less energy than a small poorly insulated building kept at 68 F.
The amount of energy being consumed is the primary factor to keep in mind, not temperature or size.
What you say is true for individual cases yet not in the aggregate.
Thermostat settings are important since (barring drafts) that energy usage is proportional to the difference in temperature between inside and out.
So simply making the cultural shift to inside temperatures following the seasons instead of fighting them will save humungous amounts of energy.
If people heat to 75F and cool to 65F as a matter of cultural taste, they will do so whether their individual building is efficient or not.
I agree with the gist of that statement. Just for arguments sake do you have any ideas on how we might make doing more with less a desireable societal norm? Would something like this work?
I'm convinced :)
LOL! Your response proves my point in a way. We already use an immense body of knowledge to market and sell ideas and things. Maybe some of the people like Nate Hagens should take a break from The Oil Drum to use the knowledge they have accumulated and explore ideas on how to market new societal norms to the public at large. Maybe the next Campfire could address some ideas along these lines? Maybe we need to brainstorm what some of these new societal norms need to be.
This might be one:
How do you sell this idea to the guy who thinks a Hummer still makes him a chick magnet?
Uh, you have to convince the chicks first. Good luck with that.
Well Ok, I'll start with that. The same body of knowledge that we use to market to that segment of the population is still available. So what societal norm would you like her to consider more important than lusting after the guy with a Hummer and how would you sell (if sell is the right word) that concept to her.
In Los Angeles (OK eastside - still...) there has been a movement of mostly young people to ride bikes - the gender distribution has been mostly equal.
It'd be a fun campfire.
Maybe we could title it: "How to derail the Thermo/Gene Collision".
There's a guy with a Hummer in my neighborhood - too big to fit in the garage so he parks in the driveway. I think he needs all the extra room for his golf clubs.
License Plate reads "Biggest". I'm always considering pasting something after that word...
Personally, I drive a hybrid...
There might be some excuse for the 75deg:
In a social gathering in a well insulated private residence, the heat load of the gathering of people can raise the temperature well above the set-point on the thermostat.
Still, it is true that clueless people think clueless thoughts and do clueless things.
Absolutely right but utterly a non-American habit and life style. We Canadian and you Americans are the most wasteful societies on earth. I have seen many times people opening windows in winter because there was to much heat in the house rather resetting the thermostat. Of course light in our rooms are on whether we are in them or not. The environment is trampled upon without regards for fauna and flora. I believe the foremost task we have to do is creating societal norms. It might take some time but it is cheap and it will work. We did it with smoking! For example, to drive an SUV has to be perceived as an environmental crime, a personal shame. Same with not having solar panels on the roof or a geothermal pump. Etc, etc, etc.
Yup, we sure got all those folks to stop puffing away!
""Cigarette Smoking Statistics.........
In the United States, an estimated 26.2 million men (23.5 percent) and 20.9 million women (18.1 percent) are smokers. These people are at higher risk of heart attack and stroke. The latest estimates for persons age 18 and older show...*
Among whites, 23.5 percent of men and 18.8 percent of women smoke (2006).
Among blacks, 26.1 percent of men and 18.5 percent of women smoke.
Among Hispanics, 20.1 percent of men and 10.1 percent of women smoke.
Among non-HIspanic Asians, 16.8 percent of men and 4.6 percent of women smoke.
Among American Indians/Alaska Natives, 35.6 percent of men and 29.0 percent of women smoke.
* National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), 2006, National Center for Health Statistics""
We'd kind of need to see those smoking numbers compared to 10, 20, 30 years ago, though.
Considering the number of social policies that have strictly changed the role of smoking, it's hard to suggest nothing in the society has changed around this..
I know a couple smokers still, but it's much more unusual to see.. but I'm in peculiar company anyhow.
I wonder what percentage of those people who smoke have access to health care?
I second that! I have read all of Brown's stuff, and I like it. He does talk A LOT about costs. One cost he talks about is the whole planet, if we keep going where we are going.
And,
If a million is a thousand thousand,
and a billion is a thousand million
and a trillion is a thousand billion,
and, if each lazy fat american uses energy at the rate of ten kilowatts, steady every hour of the day,
and if there are 300 million such people (alas!)
and if it takes about 30 thousand dollars to make the solar/wind thing that generates ten kilowatts
THEN, it takes 300 million 30 thousand dollars to make americans sustainable in energy.
that's ten billion dollars. It says so right here on my little old HP 15 calculator, just to make sure my aged brain has not slipped a bearing. People can kick it around as much as they want, but the number will stay in that ball park
Is that a lot of money? So how do we pay for it?
We pay for it by NOT paying for all the really stupid stuff we pay for right now, like those big fat pickup trucks I see everywhere. What's the EROEI of a big fat pickup truck??:?
Or, we pay for it by not paying for it. And we sure as hell will pay for THAT..
Eh? If a billion is a thousand million then 300,000,000 (300 million) multiplied by 30,000 (30 thousand), is 9,000,000,000,000, or 9 trillion, not 10 (presumably rounded from 9) billion.
Damn! Slipped on the word, not the number. I had it solidly in my head T, not B. So, while my calculator was right, my fingers weren't. Ok, so nobody's perfect.
Anyhow, so be it. 10 trillion- doable---and unnecessary, since we are so wasteful.
I think he cannot have actually run the numbers. $110 trillion would be more realistic for what he proposes than $110 billion.
Everything is so much simpler if you don't look at the costs too hard.
It avoids the difficult question, "We don't have $110 trillion, so what CAN we do?" (As distinct from "What would we like to do if we had enough money?")
Always have a plan "C" in case plans "A" and "B" don't work out. (And a plan "F" for when everything goes to hell - A deep bunker, a two-year supply of canned goods, a shotgun, and a large supply of shells).
Is he British by any chance? It seems to me the English billion, and our trillion may mean the same thing.
He seems to be a US Citizen. His "Earth Policy Institute" is in Washington DC. His biography says he grew up in southern New Jersey, and graduated from Rutgers University in 1955. That would make him about 76 years old.
I'm British, live in the UK. No-one uses the English billion anymore. Thank God. Life is hard enough with you guys still using pounds weight and degrees Fahrenheit.
Here's the reddit and SU links for this post (we appreciate your helping us spread our work around, both in this post and any of our other work--if you want to submit something yourself to another site, etc., that isn't already here--feel free, just leave it as a reply to this comment, please so folks can find it.):
http://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/9rd4y/plan_b_40_mobilizing_to...
http://www.reddit.com/r/energy/comments/9rd4k/plan_b_40_mobilizing_to_sa...
http://www.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/9rd4n/plan_b_40_mobilizing_...
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/9rd4o/plan_b_40_mobilizing_to_...
http://www.reddit.com/r/Green/comments/9rd4u/plan_b_40_mobilizing_to_sav...
http://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/9rd4v/plan_b_40_mobilizing_to_...
http://www.stumbleupon.com/url/www.theoildrum.com/node/5842
Find us on twitter:
http://twitter.com/theoildrum
http://friendfeed.com/theoildrum
Find us on facebook and linkedin as well:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14778313964
http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=138274&trk=hb_side_g
Thanks again. Feel free to submit things yourself using the share this button on our articles as well to places like stumbleupon, metafilter, or other link farms yourself--we appreciate it!
This is a comment I made in Drumbeat yesterday:
I participated in Lester Brown's hour long call in which he touted his new book and his ideas.
He has lots of good intentions, but to me, his plans were way too optimistic to be in any way doable. He talks not only of a huge ramp up of wind turbines, but also a huge ramp up of electric cars. He talks about reducing global warming gasses by 80% by 2020.
As I see it, in order to integrate a huge amount of wind into the grid, we would have to both add a lot of electrical storage and a lot of electrical transmission. Perhaps this could be done if it were the country's only priority, but I can't see it happening.
Whether or not the investment would really be worthwhile depends on a person's view of how long wind turbines would last. In my view, wind turbines are "Fossil fuel extenders". If fossil fuels decline, as I see it, we will not be able to keep up the whole system that wind turbines are part of (including natural gas generation, paved roads, and repairs of wind turbines), and in a few years, wind turbines will become as worthless as any other infrastructure that is part of a system that cannot be maintained.
Lester Brown thinks differently. In his words, if we install wind turbines, we will be investing in something that "Lasts as long as the world itself. All we have to do is replace worn parts." But as I see it, replacing worn parts and keeping wind turbines in good repair requires specific materials and precision tolerances. Otherwise, vibration will shake the turbines apart, because of the high speed at which they operate. We can't just have someone make a part from, say, a recycled automobile trunk, and stick it in and have it work. Also, if we don't have transmission lines in good repair, or adequate natural gas backup, wind turbines become much less useful.
FWIW, if I were installing wind turbines, I would be configuring them to produce nitrogen fertilizer, so that if the grid were not available, the wind turbines would have a use apart from having to be hooked to a grid that may not last.
Gail,
Conceive of a western industrial democracy that can provide essential transportation, produce precision goods in quantity, maintain social order & healthcare, and make new investments in infrastructure. All with 0.25% (1/400th) of US oil consumption/capita.
And moving below that to very limited biofuels when liquid fuels are absolutely required is quite doable. For zero oil and even fossil fuels used.
Switzerland in 1945 had reached the 0.25% mark. With less stress (Nazi Germany on all sides), they could have reached zero if they had to.
The amount of liquid fuels required to maintain and replace wind turbines is minuscule, trivial. The oil stained brine from East Texas will provide enough, if used efficiently, to do the job.
Please revise your assumptions, because they lead to bad conclusions.
Best Hopes for Realistic Planning,
Alan
PS; Could Switzerland maintain & replace wind turbines if they lost all of their oil (assuming a period of decline before final zero oil imports#) ? I think the answer is yes. Feeding double the WW II population would be more difficult.
# just WHY must ZERO oil be assumed ?
Alan,
I tend to agree with you in terms of possibilities.
But I have dead serious misgivings as far as practical politics and day to day bau are concerned.
What do you think the odds are of a successful transition away from oil to renewables without a collapse?
"What do you think the odds are of a successful transition away from oil to renewables without a collapse?"
I consider myself to be a peak oil optimist.
My position is that there is 0% chance of a successful transition to renewables without a collapse.
The question is this: How far will the collapse go and what will be it's extent?
Pessimistically I believe there may be a fight over the remaining oil resources leading to the destruction of the Northern Hemisphere by Nuclear Weapons.
Optimistically I believe that a handful of the currently rich countries will soon be the way latin america is now and much of the (currently) "underdeveloped" world will sink to basketcase level.
On the bright side, a handful of the currently rich countries will become richer and successfully transition.
Longer term, with luck, a new marshall plan will lift the once-rich-countries back to rich status and the basketcase countries back to "underdeveloped".
But the future is wide open.
Pessimistically I believe there may be a fight over the remaining oil resources leading to the destruction of the Northern Hemisphere by Nuclear Weapons.
I don't really believe this. The remaining oil sources are not really worth fighting for given experiences in Iraq. The EROEI of war has never been so bad.
"I don't really believe this [destruction of northern hemisphere by nuclear weapons]. The remaining oil sources are not really worth fighting for given experiences in Iraq. The EROEI of war has never been so bad."
While I'm an optimist and consider the probability of this extreme scenario as being low, I don't discount it because of EROEI.
Why?
Nobody outside of the peak oil camp even considers EROEI before making an investment or taking action except in the sense of cost of inputs measured in monetary terms.
As a consequence, the military may go for wars of conquest even though it doesn't make sense from an EROEI perspective.
From an alternative viewpoint: the EOREI of a CONVENTIONAL war is low. What, say, of desperate conditions? Is the EOREI of a war fought primarily with neutron bombs to clear the area of any potential defenders of the resources too low?
I think it's necessary to consider that the mindset of those invoking any particular scenario may not be the same as yours.
Consider the following:
Before the cold war, the US was the only one with nuclear weapons. It had credible intelligence that the Soviets were developing them and credible intelligence that the Soviets planned to oppose them. Why did the US decide not to destroy them with the nuclear weapons they had before the Soviets developed their own?
Compare and contrast with the current situation where Israel has clear strategic superiority over Iran with hundreds of nuclear weapons and a powerful conventional military. Israel is pushing to attack Iran before they develop even a single weapon for fear that they might be attacked. This is spite of the fact that history has shown so far that MAD has worked.
From that perspective it's clear that you cannot second guess the motives of military men with any degree of accuracy if you try to model them using a scientist's or a business person's thought processes.
Actually fairly good. It is clear that we are NOT motivated yet, complacency and not panic rule teh day.
If, when we panic, proper steps are taken, we will avoid collapse. If we take a mix of proper & stupid steps, we will, probably avoid collapse.
Nothing but stupid = collapse.
Best Hopes for Laying the Groundwork now (a vital role for TOD),
Alan
I agree with you Alan about making the right decisions.
The problem as I see it in answering the broad question of "how do we avoid collapse" is that "we" is not a homogenous group.
We have a little less than 200 countries in the world.
Though the odds are fairly reasonable that some of them have *already* made the correct decisions, what are the odds that "we" as a global group will make the correct decisions?
I say slim to none.
For that reason I don't expect a total global collapse across the board, but I *do* expect a few more Icelands, Argentinas and Zimbabwes even among the (formerly but don't know it yet) rich countries.
Switzerland's interesting. Any books about the experience written by someone that lived thru it? There's information on the Web, but its scattered -- a piece here, a piece there.
I've heard people who lived through it talk about the food issue but not about the oil issue, presumably because most people didn't consume any oil to begin with. Any indirect impacts would presumably be subsumed into the impact of the war.
So I'm not sure that a book by someone who experienced that period would be very useful as opposed to some academic account.
I would love to find a source, but I pieced togather bits and pieces and talked to some Swiss.
Best Hopes for the Swiss,
Alan
ZERO oil must be assumed because that is what people will effectively have to live with, one day. Of course, if BAU can continue, oil may decline gracefully and be available for critical functions for a very long time. If societies start to crumble, the oil supply for some of those will possibly decline precipitously. Eventually, there will be very little oil for anything.
So planning for no oil seems to be the best policy, to me.
There will always be plant oils.
Just not in the volumes we are used to seeing from rock oil.
Gail;
I think you still overstate the absolute dependence of Windpower on precision engineering.. of course the standard utility-scaled turbines are built with the full-bore of the modern machining industry, metallurgy and other materials support.. but I don't believe that even a significant crash will keep us from having factories that can do castings and precision machining. This isn't cleanroom level Nanotech or the kind of intense precision and heat tolerances that is going to show how dependent Nuclear is on very precious materials and energy-intense processes.
'Precision' is of course part of a broad continuum, and all sorts of windpower systems can also be created and supported with the precisions available to a local machine shop, while our ability to make 'shipscale' bearings and machine parts is also a level of industry I'm very doubtful will just disappear. We are too aware of the energetic benefits of such assets, and will prioritize to keep them available.
Even though we are accustomed to seeing these behemoths now, if material/mfr constraints are hampering those beasts, we can still be putting up more, smaller mills that can be done with more modest equipment. Townships or remote communities could support some fairly involved equipment, and not need a national grid, just one to feed the locals.
If the wind industry follows the current exponential growth trajectory there will be a massive maintenance and repair infrastructure in place.
Fears of not being able to maintain renewable energy systems due to some kind of collapse are overblown. People are more resourceful than given credit for; the unfortunate example is how Germany was able to fight WWII to the end with outside supplies cut off and Allied bombing of railroads, bridges, factories, including the firestorms that incinerated entire industrial towns, at a time when their most able bodied men were not present in the economy. This is not to say that the aftermath of the war was good, because it resulted in mass starvation.
The collapse we face is an economic one. Our standard of living will go down, but perhaps our quality of life will go up. A good thing happened during the 1930’s Great Depression, namely, the work week fell to around 40 hours where it had been 60 in 1900. (The workweek is now 33 hours because of the part timers.) People won't be able to afford to drive cars much. They will make the ones they have last longer by driving to the streetcar line and taking that to work or shopping.
Fears of not being able to maintain renewable energy systems due to some kind of collapse are overblown.
1) Man made bio-plague (as normal plagues only hit 20%. 20% would hurt ALOT however)
2) Man's use of Nuclear Weapons in upper atmosphere EMP burst mode.
#2 is rather do-able.
The workweek is now 33 hours because of the part timers
That under 35 work week is to avoid labor laws.
FWIW, the fact is human urine is typically sterile and contains 80+% nitrogen and ~50% phosphorus & potassium. We could save a lot of fresh potable water for other uses and have our NPK fertilizer provided for too simply by not flushing it away into septic system/water treatment boondoggles!
With or without wind turbines were the grid not available, neither will the water/septic systems be running, but at least we'd still be able to recycle what our body provides.
Have you hugged your butt today?
80% N, 50% P, 50% K, & 95% water. 275% urine!
My assertion that people are by & large innumerate is validated.
Maybe this is why people have a tough time grasping the concept of 'constraint'.
DD I think what he meant to say was that 80% of the portion that is not water is Nitrogen bound up in Urea and that 50% of the remaining component is Phosphorus and the other 50% of that is made up of Potassium. So you get 95% water plus 5% made up of NPK with the approximate break down as mentioned.
Right? BTW I didn't Google the exact composition so I'm not sure if that really is the breakdown. However its hard to imagine anyone who doesn't know that water is what urine is mostly composed of.
The urea content of urine ranges from about .2% to 2.5% by weight, depending on hydration status, amount of protein in the diet, renal function, etc. Urea isn't the only N containing compound in urine but it's by far the predominant source of urine N. Urea is <50% N (CN2OH4), so urine is maybe 1% N by weight, at most. That said, about 70% of the N in domestic sewage comes from urine. The trouble with urine as a fertilizer is the salts and other phytotoxins it contains. There's so many drug metabolites in most peoples' urine these days that urine isn't allowable in the EU as a fertilizer for a certified organic garden or farm.
I just purchased some off the shelf cow manure to mix in with my soil on which I plan to grow a small vegetable garden. Now I wonder what is in it that isn't mentioned on the packaging...
Certainly it is true that there are salts and other "phytoxins" as well as pharmaceuticals in human urine. All of which can be and should neutralized by simple composting before using as a fertilizer. This is not rocket science, but decent ecological common sense that has been proven effective.
It still remains that should the grid go down as Gail supposed, so will the drug manufacturing and pill popping regime so prevalent today, and much else. Where then we might think to find NPK fertilizer in those circumstances does not require windmills was all I was trying to make note of.
I always pee (is "pee" a banned word on TOD?) on the compost. I have a milk crate next to the compost bin for standing on for doing so.
While it wasn't obvious to someone intent with a bone to pick, this is what I meant to convey.
Urnie analysis in grams per liter or parts per thousand:
N-2.5
P-0.2 (as P2O5 as standard on fertilizer labels)
K-1.2 (as K2O as standard on fertilizer labels)
Grams per day per person as expressed on fertilizer label:
N-15
P-.82
K- 2.38
Urine as fertilizer is fine for somone on a low sodium diet. Otherwise sodium will build up in soil and retard plant growth. More of a problem in low rainfall areas.
Recommended dilution of urine with water is 10:1 before watering plants.
A lot of phosphate is lost through bones being thrown in the trash. Ideally bones should be ground up and used for fertilizer, but in areas with acid soil they can simply be buried.
And it also has Sodium.
How do you remove that?
Have you hugged your butt today?
Not yet. Still need to find Kestel 817 flux so I can solder copper tube to Stainless to make a temp-controllable Poo-mixing vessel
Basically, it sounds like Lester has drunk the Amory Lovins koolaid.
I've seen rotating industrial machinery last nearly 100 years. Uusally it is shut down becsuse it is no longer efficient, not because it is worn out. Wind turbines should be no different, especially the foundations, towers and electrical lines and swithgear. Generators can be rewound if necessary. Bearings can be replaced.
Wind turbines should be no different, especially the foundations, towers and electrical lines and swithgear
Ahhh, but the old 100+ gear was 'we don't really know the strength of metals so lets make it thick' VS todays 'the thinner we can make the cheaper we can make it so lets then guess a lifespan' engineering style.
Wind turbines DO have replacement schedules on bearings/blades/et la. But even the towers have a rated life and the plans are TO replace them in 20-50 years even with paint jobs on a 5 or so year plan. (based on gnatt charts I've seen)
Rebuilding a tower is no harder than rebuilding another metal structure, and any good civil engineer and materials guy could work out the details. Steel should last a lot longer than 50 years, if well cared for, but we know steel bridges still need maintenance and eventual replacement. If made of aluminum, they will eventually crack -- it's the inherent nature of aluminum.
But, and this is a big but, it takes no more metal to make the new tower than was in the old one, plus enough to replace losses due to oxidation or mechanical wear. It is completely within reason to include that in an energy ROI analysis, and it's not going to be a very big factor compared to the "mine, smelt, and construct" initial build-out. Once you're past the hump created by declining fossil fuels the replacement rate of a couple of percent should be quite feasible.
While the decline of fossil fuels may create a temporary receding horizon issue (the same energy that is in decline is also in increased demand to replace the energy that is declining), if we start early enough it will hurt less, and at some point the exponential bootstrap growth of wind (assuming a sufficiently positive EROEI to sustain continued growth) will cross the exponentially declining fossil fuel curve, and you'll be back to sustainable net growth. If, and this is a big if, civilization doesn't collapse in the trough. All the more reason to start early and build hard!
A lot of "nays" are related to expense, quality of power, and time. Most of the "yeas" are related to relative cost, availability of power, and resourcefulness. BAU has inertia, but with a light at the end of the tunnel people can motivate themselves to do amazing things and to sacrifice hugely. For a nation with enough food and raw resources, some modicum of civilization seems quite attainable. A nation based on imports, especially food, with no ability to boot-strap its own energy production may be in a serious place indeed.
On factor not noted - the roads and bridges from the water/rail lines to the wind farm.
If "we" are entering a time when roads won't get repaired - then the repair of the turbines may make them stranded assets.
A nation based on imports, especially food, with no ability to boot-strap its own energy production may be in a serious place indeed.
As you mentioned steel - a nation that lacks steel mills or steel will also be a hurt'n unit. Yet - if one goes to the darker places on the Internet you can hear the mewing of "free Trade" asking the US to go out of the steel business.
New wind turbines can be installed next to rail tracks, and serviced by rail mounted cranes, etc.
Other sites can be serviced by new cranes designed for gravel/off road service (basically fatter tires with lower tire pressures). Since cranes can be a critical component in energy production, have very long services lives, and can be easily recycled, I could see the titanium from scrapped air craft being reused in lighter cranes. Lighter cranes are easier to use off road.
Best Hopes for Common Sense,
Alan
Off-road vehicles. The Russians are particularly adept at their design and implementation (through necessity). If there are a large number of turbines in service, with a known maintainence schedule, then the sudden loss of a handful (due to freak weather or whatever) isn't a big concern. Even with these potential losses, speed or repair does not necessarily have to be the critical issue it seems to be now, and slower vehicles can be used. if you've moving slower, you need less energy, making 'alternative' fuels more viable. The off-road repair and maintainence vehicles could be fueled by Ammonia Fuel Cells, Ammonia ICEs, Battery-electric, external combustion (you could use the fauna removed from near transmission lines to fuel the vehicles cutting them down, etc).
Critical uses for Diesel are a minor amount of the total liquid fuel used in Western society. Use by companies or agencies involved in keeping the power on would be a minor amount of even that.
He talks not only of a huge ramp up of wind turbines, but also a huge ramp up of electric cars.
Part of the 'social reason' for cars to exist is the money 'we' agree to spend on the roads.
If the only cars that exist will be 3-5X the cost of present new ones - why would the 'poor' who drive the 15+ year cars politically support the spending on roads when they have no shot of using them?
ere installing wind turbines, I would be configuring them to produce nitrogen fertilizer,
The only inexpensive nitrogen-not-as-N2 I've seen made with electrical energy is spark gaps with water vapor. So far any 'obtain nitogen from the air with purity' solutions need at least $100+K of Stirling cycle engines and that hunk of EQ wanted over 20kW to work.
I'd suggest that Brown has got things "half right". Clearly his proposals on renewable energy are nothing short of fantasy. What percentage of US grid supplied by wind again? 70% net energy was it? All present modelling of any grid I know of shows serious instability beyond 20% connected nameplate, which is perhaps 7% to 10% net energy. Denmark is the only jurisdiction I know of beyond 20% nameplate, and its grid only survives thanks to Swedish hydro, French nuclear, German coal and lots of off-peak sink customers in neighboring countries. Solar thermal and concentrating PV is, for now, where resources should be sent. They generate on-peak, in small enough units to be useful on rooftops and backyards and can provide their waste heat as effecitve heat for domestic water and space heat.
OTOH, his proposals to address world population increases, though apparently somewhat underestimated for price, are probably the only hope we have of salvaging some civilization of any sort from this situation. We need to all get together and help the world's poorest to a better life FAST, or all succumb.
We have to give Brown some credit. A lot of issues he talks about are important issues, and most of his suggestions would be good ones, if they were feasible.
My mother always says a cookbook is a good one, if she can get one or two or three good recipes from it. Even if some of Brown's ideas are overly-ambitious, the book can have significant value if it leads to additional action in an area such as population control.
The problem is if the book lulls people into the belief that a techno-fix is around the corner, and we will soon all have electric cars, so business can almost go on as in the past.
I installed Solar Heat and Hot Water 3 years ago. While I get pretty much all my hot water generated in the summer time, in winter it reduces my natural gas usage by about 35% - using solar to heat the air isn't very efficient.
While I do save on natural gas, I still need it for the other 70% of the load, as well as electricity to run the heat exchanger, the water pump and the furnace.
One could increase the efficiency by adding a lot of insulation - it is pretty expensive, and sometimes tightening the envelope too much creates all kinds of other issues - poor air circulation, mold, moisture condensation on the windows, etc etc.
While I would say to anyone that solar is worthwhile to do, it is by no means the solution to all our problems. 35% is , however, (to borrow a phrase from someone else here) better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.
We have to conserve.
Actually, I get great benefit from putting those plastic weatherization sheets over the windows, since air leakage around the window frames is a big problem in my 105-year-old house.
I'm stocking up on those....
There's a Swiss company which sells a "seasonal heat storage system" which stores hot water as well as heating water in one tank over several months. A house in Switzerland can almost entirely be heated by the sun through the entire winter with this heat storage system.
http://www.jenni.ch/pdf/Energie_fuers_Leben.pdf
Considering the fact, that the heat storage system lasts as long as a new house (several decades) it is actually less expensive than providing a new house with a fossil fuel heating system.
Also, since wages and raw materials are lower in the US than in Switzerland, an American producer should be able to manufacture such systems for lower costs.
Looks interesting - my German's a bit rusty. What kind of backup system does one need, if at all? I assume electricity is also needed.
I find if I have a couple of cloudy days in a row, my solar water tank loses heat pretty quickly.
It doesn't necessarily need a back up system, but usually this is done with a small wood-stove (some people consider watching a wood-fire romantic):
http://www.jenni.ch/pdf/Powall%20Kobra%20W.pdf
Electricity is only needed for the circulation pumps, valves and control system. Their power consumption is very small.
Here's a picture of a house which was built 20 years ago and is entirely heated by the sun and in combination with the PV system produces 4 times more energy than what the house consumes. The solar heating system produces excess heat to even heat a swimming pool in February (obviously this is not something one can do on a regular basis, but who needs to sit in a pool in February).
You assume BAU electricity use. Current electricity use patterns are generally premised on plentiful and cheap energy. If energy was scarce and valuable, storage would become more widespread and use would follow production.
Electricity storage is currently a problem. As with maintaining the grid, no one organization has responsibility, so it tends not to get done. If investment dollars are scarce in the future, I am not sure the situation will get any better, no matter how high the price.
Money is not a resource.
New Zealand has said that they can accommodate up to 45% wind without modification with the only caveat being that it had to be geographically dispersed. 50% hydro, 5% geothermal.
Alan
From Saul Griffiths calculations of what it will take to achieve this;
2TW new PV = 100 Sq. meters of solar cells every second for the next 25 years.
2TW new Solar thermal = 50 Sq. meters of solar thermal mirrors every second for the next 25 years.
2TW new Wind = 12 x 3MW turbines in optimal locations every hour for the next 25 years.
3TW new Nuclear = 1 x 3GW nuclear plant every week for the next 25 years.
2TW Geothermal = 3 x 100MW steam turbines every day for the next 25 years.
.5TW carbon (net zero) biofuels = 1250 sq. meters of algae every second for the next 25 years.
TOTAL 11.5TW
Full slide show available here;
http://blog.wattzon.com/2009/01/19/talk-at-long-now-foundation-jan-16-2009/
Anyone believe we could accomplish even a quarter of this?
Cheers!
jef
1) Your link requires Flash player, not commonly available in corporate environs.
2) Are those figures "Pick one to provide for entire world" or "Requires all these to provide for one country"? Big difference.
Certainly 100 Sq M of the new Nano-solar print-to-aluminum-foil per second would be no effort to accomplish. That sounds like the output of about 50 of their existing production lines. Ditto 50 sq m / second solar thermal mirror.
Lengould - The world uses somewhere around 16 to 18TW depending on where you read.
This is for just 11.5TW if you combine all the above.
Brown's plans are for 2020, as I understand it. Presumably, all of the transmission lines would need to be in place, as well as energy storage to keep a system with this much wind/ solar from crashing. It is hard to see how it could be done.
Presumably, all of the transmission lines would need to be in place, as well as energy storage to keep a system with this much wind/ solar from crashing. It is hard to see how it could be done.
1. The US consumes twice as much electricity as Germany even though the living standard is not higher.
http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/eedrb/data/US-elcc.html
http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/eedrb/data/DE-elcc.html
2. So obviously the current US grid can handle already double the electric load compared to export nation Germany.
3. PV on existing roofs will primarily reduce the load on the grid.
4. So does hot water capacity on existing roofs:
Btw, hot water capacity added world wide: China (2007): 80.5% USA (2007): 0.5%www.ren21.net/pdf/RE_GSR_2009_Update.pdf
5. North America already has 175 GW of flexible hydro capacity:
http://www.erg.com.np/hydropower_global.php
6. HVDC transmission lines are relatively inexpensive and installed quickly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power
Brazil builds a HVDC line across their jungle in a short time for a small fraction of a single percent of the American bankers bailout:
http://www.abb.ch/cawp/seitp202/fc2fe651f88fc7d9c12576020024f164.aspx
Gail, please study the Northwest Power Planning Council's 6th Plan, now out for public comment.
http://www.nwcouncil.org/energy/powerplan/6/Default.htm
This is the most expert regional electricity modeling done anywhere in the United States. NWPPC is projecting no need for any new coal plants, at least through 2030. Maybe a tad natural gas for firming, but the entire growth will be met through the alternatives. I would be willing to wager that another major fossil fuel generating baseload plant will never be built in the Northwest US.
There is no reason why this cannot be demonstrated across the U.S.
No new coal plants is simply not sufficient if existing ones are allowed to continue operating (as they would under such a mandate, see effects of grandfathering coal plants being kept alive to avoid SO emissions rules). Propose to me how to shut down 50% to 80% of the coal generation in midwest plains states, then how to survive declining N Gas supplies, then we can talk about perhaps having a system.
I've proposed IMEUC, (no gains for me in it anywhere), articles here:
Independent Market for Every Utility Customer - Preliminary Business Case
Independent Market for Every Utility Customer - Part 2 - Market Operation
Independent Market for Every Utility Customer - Part 3 - Alternative Market Operation
Energy Central Blogs - IMEUC - Independent Market for Every Utility Customer
which recommends a smart-meter based real-time price market for every utility customer, and a market where consumers purchase options to consume a day in advance then if they don't want the energy in the consumption interval the prepaid option amount is relinquished to the market manager who uses the funds to subsidize desired activities on the grid, eg. accurate consumption planning, consumption of designated renewables (up to a minimum) or responding to a shortage broadcast / emergency situation by reducing consumption below options.
It's free market, competitive, fair, economical and it works.
'The free market..'
It got us here, after all!
It's free market, competitive, fair, economical and it works.
And when you can find us all one of these 'Free Markets' alive and in the wild - let us all know.
Does Saul take energy efficiency gains into consideration or simply mimic the wasteful consumption levels now?
100 m2 @ 15% efficiency = 15000 Watt
25 years = 25 * 8760 * 3600 = 0.788 * 10^9 seconds
So this is 11.8 TW and not 2 TW!
So you only need 17 m2 per second. Which means each American has to mount 1.78 m2 of PV per year in order to reach 17 m2 per second.
1.78 m2 of PV per year is easy.
The AIG bailout costs $180 billion dollar.
With $180 billion dollar one can purchase Photovoltaic module factories which produce 96 GW per year or 2.4 TW in 25 years:
http://tiny.cc/EaEKf
If the US has enough money to save the bonuses of a few bankers, it probably can easily spend the same amount on efficient PV module factories with sustainable American jobs.
(Of course, this also assumes that all Americans continue to ignore efficiency measures at any level and keep on powering old and inefficient devices with PV in 25 years from now.)
You're calculating peak. You need to multiply by capacity factor to get average.
Ok, let's assume the US installs 11.8 TW of PV.
With 1500 sunhours, that is 17700 TWh of electricity per year.
The total (and currently wasteful) US electricity consumption is only 3816 TWh per year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_consumption
So 11.8 TW PV alone will produce 463% more electricity than what the inefficient US economy currently consumes.
This is completely absurd.
anyone said:
How is it absurd? A number of reasons it's not:
1) You don't just want to replace FF electricity generation, but also other FF uses.
2) Those PV panels weren't effortlessly pumped out of the ground, nor grown on trees. Ores were mined at some energy cost, then purified at a large energy cost, then... you get my point, it cost a lot of energy to make them.
3) The energy to make those PV panels must come from somewhere. That could well be from other PV panels, but if so they must be built first! That takes time, energy, manufacturing capacity, minerals. There is presently some surplus capacity that could (should) be allocated to this, but that's due to the economy having a slight hiccup that slows down all energy investments.
4) The amount of renewables built must be sufficient to provide the energy needed to build further renewables.
5) The faster you want the process to be, the less of the energy produced can be used for consumption.
This all means that an installed capacity far in excess of current usage is necessary.
It also means that the exact energy payback is the key to assessing the practicality/possible speed of transition.
From Renewable Transition 1: Targets & Troubles by Jeff Vail:
To the best of my knowledge (which comes mostly from reading TOD) we don't have good enough EROEI measures, nor good enough understanding of the "mechanics of scalability", to really make a good call...
So far, this discussion seems to be not so much a discussion as just the naysayers saying nay and the yeasayers saying yea.
Not to mention that "anyone" missed the fact that the 11.5 TW figure was for the whole world. Yes, there is a whole world outside of what she calls "America".
The world?
Even better:
100m2 of PV per second you say?
That's 0.46 m2 of PV-module per person per year.
0.46 m2 of PV per year is easy.
Even a T-shirt covers more area.
.. and with all the debating over yea and nay, as if the answer will clearly land in one court or the other, we end up paralyzed, and not doing much of anything.
With the assumption that we have to meet some precise production target (ie 'Today's Use'), and then when proclaiming that we can't, we scuttle the opportunity to 'do the best we can'
Is there really a good reason not to devote serious effort into heavily expanding a few of the cleanest technologies that we know will work? Yes, it's more 'industry' and all the problems and complications that comes in that setup.. but since EVERY one of you is reading this on a computer, I have to assume that your objection to industry falls along a grayscale, and is not purely black or white.
jokuhl said:
No, I don't think so. By all means let's do what we can with what we have. But while this "let's do what we can and see where that gets us" plan is good as far as it goes, that's not the topic under discussion: that is the seemingly rather optimistic "Plan B 4.0".
It would be very, very nice to have a realistic idea of what we can achieve and in what timeframe. Too much improvisation and un-planned free-market antics is a large part of why we are where we are... but realistic planning requires realistic assessment. As a local triathlon hero loves to repeat on the topic of training programs & race schedules: HOPE IS NOT A METHOD!!!
I'm not likely to trust "realistic planning" until I know the qualifications and motivations of the "realistic planners". Not being obstinate, just makes sense. Propose WHO, then we will discuss.
Why, the planners span the whole range from individuals via businesses to your friendly government and beyond, to the United Nations et al.
Seriously, if a war-mobilization kind of effort is to be undertaken, as Brown seems to want, governments must be heavily involved.
Equally seriously, unrealistic personal plans are bad, for obviuos reasons.
(Quite malapropos, I must admit that upon first reading your comment I wondered why you wanted me to send a proposal to the World Health Organisation).
.. and so we keep waiting, as if we have all the time in the world.
But KODE, your caveat completely undermined the point of the question. Where are you getting 'Unplanned, Free Market Antics?'
I wrote "Devote serious effort with/ Technologies we Know will work" That means realistic planning and assessment, to my mind. It could include private business and public programs, pick your mix.. I'm mainly trying to say that we get all these somber warnings telling us 'it might be unreasonable to build out too much Solar or Wind'.. with the implication that we still don't know if they work or not, if we're being led down a Hippie Path or something.
We KNOW solar heating works, and recoups its expense within a decade, sometimes better. We need to get people to work, we need to get alts to Oil, to reduce emissions. There is a completely irrational piece within the constant objections to Solar. I don't even think its malicious.. when I'm building solar collectors for my own house with recycled materials, and I know beyond a shadow of doubt that the effort is sensible and completely productive, I still have to fight my own voices that cast it as a 'waste of time'.. my wife and mom (til recently, sadly) have been far more skeptical, even after seeing the units working faultlessly. No matches or kindling, no splitting, no tank to fill or annual maintenance.. but people are still REALLY reluctant to take that step.
Curiouser and Curiouser..
1) You don't just want to replace FF electricity generation, but also other FF uses.
So you replace a fossil heater with an efficient heat pump?
Or you replace a gasoline car with an efficient EV?
Or you replace big rigs with efficient electric trains?
2) Those PV panels weren't effortlessly pumped out of the ground, nor grown on trees. Ores were mined at some energy cost, then purified at a large energy cost, then... you get my point, it cost a lot of energy to make them.
Silicon is the second most common element in the earth crust.
3) The energy to make those PV panels must come from somewhere.
Thinfilm PV is already at 1 year energy pay back time and keeps dropping.
So after one year it generates surplus power and delivers power for over 25 years.
But let's say you want to build your 2 TW of PV in 25 years. That's 80 GW per year.
Thinfilm PV requires 20 MJ per W. Therefore 80 GW require 1600 * 10^9 MJ = 1600 PJ = 1.6 EJ
The world consumes 500 EJ per year. So in order to produce 80 GW of thinfilm PV you need 0.3% of the world's energy consumption in the first production year.
4) The amount of renewables built must be sufficient to provide the energy needed to build further renewables.
Since PV modules have an energy pay back time of one year, this is the case after one year.
Wind turbines have an even shorter pay back time and so does solar hot water (5 times more efficient than PV).
So far, this discussion seems to be not so much a discussion as just the naysayers saying nay and the yeasayers saying yea
So far it seems, some ignore the facts and others do not.
We'd have a better chance of adding insulation, double pane windows and insulating shades, using more efficient lighting, high efficiency refrigerators and HVAC.
No.
Residential is only ~30% of non-transportation GHG emissions and 20% of all GHG emissions.
2/3rds of all GHG for residential comes from central station electricity.
If you reduced all residential energy use by 50% you'd reduce emissions by only 10%.
As far as insulation goes, increasing it to Passivehaus standards
(R-60 walls, R-100 roofs with triple pane R-7 windows, etc. for typical US continental climate) would reduce energy by 50%(the only way you get it lower is by passive solar and solar hotwater heating).
The retrofit Passivehaus standard for space heating is 66% higher and it would be very difficult to meet in existing buildings--it would be cheaper to build new.
The best way to reduce GHG emissions is by capturing and sequestering CO2 from coal power plants(a 75% reduction in electricity caused GHG).
Increasing transportation efficiency by ~50% AND moving from oil to E85 bio-ethanol for gasoline and dual fuel LNG for diesel for an additional 40% reducing in GHG would reduce transportation caused emissions by 2/3rds.
The overall reduction would be slightly less than 50% of current GHG emissions.
Beyond 50% you need some very serious reduction is lifestyle.
If it were possible to convert all power plants to non fossil(and it is not) you could save about 33% of all US GHG emissions.
"The best way to reduce GHG emissions is by capturing and sequestering CO2 from coal power plants(a 75% reduction in electricity caused GHG)."
Maj, do you realize how much such statements make you sound like a shill for the coal industry?
Madly un-sequestering safely sequestered carbon to then not-very-safely RE-sequester the same carbon does not strike me as "the best way" to do anything.
That's about par for the course at TOD.
This is not a fact-based forum. I provide facts and cite sources but
9 out of 10 times the response is 'you are a shill' or E-P's head explodes.
You people REALLY don't understand energy
but won't make the effort to dig up the facts.
(Don't feel too bad. I was also called a 'shill' by R^2 on ethanol.)
Yet people have been sequestering CO2 in the US for decades to raise the oil production in oil fields.
Coal is a very emotional subject for environmentalists, especially
mountain-top mining, but instead of banning MTM in favor of underground mining they childishly say ban all coal.
I remember seeing Lee Raymond of Exxon do an interview where somebody suggested that they put solar cells over gas stations;
Raymond responded that in a year such an array wouldn't even cover the energy in one barrel of oil.
A lot of people think we can get off fossil fuels with lifestyle changes. What does that mean?
If we stopped using coal US electricity would be cut 50% and steel, cement and some chemical production would end. That would be a tremendous lifestyle change. In Britain in the 1973 a coal strike helped to shutdown the country for 2 months with widespread rationing--and the Heath government was voted out.
Jimmy Carter told people they needed to conserve and he was beaten by Reagan in a landslide.
The Chinese have opted for coal despite its dirt because they want energy for a higher lifestyle.
Back in the 18th century, 50% of the people lived below subsistance
and there were a lot fewer of them. Imagine if 90% of the people lived at the subsistance level like in Haiti.
(This is where the world is headed.)
The idea that people will turn up their noses at coal for a 50% reduction in electricity(areas dependent on coal now have little access to nuclear or hydro) is stupid.
People at TOD may believe that they can live with 50% of the electricity they have now but the public at large will reject their eco-brownout/blackouts.
What the public will accept is a higher electric bill and burying CO2 2000 feet underground in approved geological formations as is proposed by legislation.
You may not be an industry shill but you sure are biased. When commenting on Brown, you used the phrase "basically dishonest".
Some of what you say is so mind-boggling that few bother to respond I guess. But I think you also make good points. Plus you sound like you can do numbers.
So I thought this question could be productive: regarding "clean coal", how do you know it would be cheaper than alternatives? I have little patience for cornucopian arguments according to which renewables are cheaper than anything else. But CO2 separation and sequestration has a cost, not only in additional facilities and equipment but also in energy (and therefore in fuel with all that it implies). For all I know, the total cost might be a good bit higher than even something as wasteful as wind + long-distance transmission + pumped hydro for instance.
Not sure about who Brown is(I do consider proposing renewables without discussing costs and problems basically dishonest though) but to answer your question...
The problem with renewables is that they don't represent energy (kwh) but power(kw) and highly intermittent power at that--wind produces ~2500 hours per year per Murphy's Law(inconveniently). Solar produces ~1800 hours per year but somewhat more reliably but we need power 24/7 or at least when we want it.
Therefore storage cost must be added in for any renewable source. Then also
you must size your transmission system for the maximum deliverable load even though it rarely produces that load or you lose resource.
With FF electricity you can control you electric power output at your convenience.
A quick estimate for wind is $1 million per megawatt but since in a year you need power 8760 hours per year, not 2500 hours you are talking about 3 kw of wind to replace 1 kw of baseload. Therefore I would say
cost of wind in turbines is $3 million per megawatt.
Long distance transmission lines run about $1600 per megawatt mile so a 1000 mile line would cost $1.6 million dollars per megawatt.
But since 3 units of wind would be required, 3 units of transmission lines would also be required or $4.8 million dollars
Pumped hydro is going to be very expensive but look at it in terms of just losing the power of the dam as an independent source of power(it becomes a battery).
A hydro dam costs $1500000 per mw.
Total---$9.3 million dollars per megawatt as a stand alone system.
Sure, wind is cheap as a tiny auxillary to fossil fuels( where fossil fuels provide storage) but as a standalone replacement hardly.
CO2 is cheaper as IGCC-CCS than as a retrofit to conventional coal but looking at just retrofiting;
A post-combustion coal plant(2000 technology) without CCS[base] costs $1150000 per megawatt, with CCS costs $2090000 per megawatt. So this is 2-3 times cheaper in capital than standalone wind-hydro.
The CCS plant would be 75% as efficient as the non CCS [base] plant.
IGCC plants are much more efficient than PC plants figured here.
Such a plant would produce 12,900 tons of CO2 per year. A 4 million ton per year 16" CO2 pipeline costs about $1 million per mile(obviously bigger pipelines are cheaper) so a 1000 mile pipeline for 13000 tons per year CO2
would cost about $3.3 million dollars. I would point out that existing natural gas pipelines could serve as CO2 pipelines.
Together this is $5.4 million dollars per MW infrastructure.
If the cost of coal is $30 per ton then the fuel cost of running
a 1 MW CCS plant 8760 hours per year would be about $176000 worth of fuel per year; 8760 mwh/(.75 x 2mwh/t) x $30 = $175200/yr, a loss of 25% for separating/compressing the CO2.
http://sequestration.mit.edu/pdf/David_and_Herzog.pdf
A quick breakeven analysis shows that it CCS would be cheaper than standalone wind-hydro for ~22 years.
$9.3-5.4 million/$175,200 per year = 22.2
Now the government may be willing to cough up the money for even a 30 year payback but consider the size of the problem. There are 600 coal plants in the US, a total of 340 GW. The cost for the PC plants would be ~$714 billion plus CO2 gas pipelines versus millions of wind turbines(+1 TW)
and inadequate hydrostorage to boot(1 TW of wind with 1 TW of storage-77 GW in US hydro 147 GW with Canada).
Absolutely no contest.
Get used to it. It's all about the flow rates and power is the measure of flow rates of energy.
Even coal and oil are about power. Megatons/year of coal or barrels/day of oil, we are measuring power.
Yeah, with wind and solar we aren't in the drivers seat, we have to take the power when nature gives it up to us instead of being manly and ripping it from her grasp.
Tough cookies.
The societies that will last on the downside of peak oil are the ones that learn again to move with the natural power flows.
Nicely put. Why shouldn't most of society take a nice siesta whenever nature abstains from providing power (when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow)?
The idea that we should be able to keep going gangbusters 24/7 52 weeks every year every decade without interruption is simply hubristic insanity.
Why shouldn't most of society take a nice siesta whenever nature abstains from providing power (when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow)?
Why should the US not be able to do the same with an efficient use of fossil fuels and renewables?
1. The US consumes twice as much electricity as Germany even though the living standard is not higher.
2. So obviously the current US grid can handle already double the electric load compared to export nation Germany.
3. PV on existing roofs will primarily reduce the load on the grid.
4. So does solar hot water capacity on existing roofs:
Btw, solar hot water capacity added world wide: China (2007): 80.5% USA (2007): 0.5%5. So does insulation.
6. So does efficient lighting including daylighting.
7. North America already has 175 GW of flexible hydro capacity.
8. HVDC transmission lines are relatively inexpensive, installed quickly and do exist already.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power
Therefore storage cost must be added in for any renewable source.
No, since the US already has 622 GW of flexible capacity installed.
Long distance transmission lines run about $1600 per megawatt mile so a 1000 mile line would cost $1.6 million dollars per megawatt.
No way. Even according to the manufacturer of such lines they are about $0.23 Million per MW per 1000 miles:
Besides your numbers would mean that a single 1000 mile long 6.4 GW transmission line without moving parts would cost a whopping $10.24 billion; enough to pay for 7.3 GW of wind-turbines.
So 4,870 of these 1.5 MW complex wind turbines (more than double the entire wind power capacity in Denmark):
would cost the same as one HVDC transmission line according to your number:
But since 3 units of wind would be required, 3 units of transmission lines
No way. A cluster of wind farms with 4,870 wind turbines would never deliver the maximum power rating of all turbines combined. In fact, all the wind farms in Spain combined never generated over 65% of their combined maximum power rating.
Sorry, I can't understand your ABB link.
The 800 MW 346 kv Arrowhead Weston line(in Wisconsin, USA) runs 220 miles and costs
$398 million dollars so $398000000/800MW*220mi = $2261 per MW-mile.
http://tdworld.com/overhead_transmission/wisconsin-minnesota-powerline-e...
A cluster of 4870 MW wind of turbines? Over 1000 square miles?
I was talking about individual windturbines. A real windfarm over a reasonable area would on a windy day deliver the sum of the nameplate generation.
All the wind farms in Spain?
Fine. If the US needs 4000 Twh
you need ~2 TW of wind, 1.33? TW of tranmission lines, etc.
$20-30 trillion dollars at least.
The world's largest wind farm the 627 turbine Roscoe Wind Complex
in Texas (735 MW) covers 156 square miles and produces 2.75 Twh.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/02/tech/livinggreen/main5358287.s...
So why is Denmark looking at wind at 50% of generation capacity
<20% of electricity(kwh) and not 100%?
Enjoy your technofantasy!
Sorry, I can't understand your ABB link.
I'm not surprised.
The 800 MW 346 kv Arrowhead Weston line(in Wisconsin, USA) runs 220 miles and costs
This is obviously not a 1000 mile long boarder-crossing high power HVDC line. This is an AC power line needed for any coal power plant and your coal power plant still requires CO2-pipelines and still requires mines/railways/trains/ports/ships to transport its fuel and still requires water for cooling purposes.
A real windfarm over a reasonable area would on a windy day deliver the sum of the nameplate generation.
A single HVDC line can transmit 6400 MW. There's not a single windfarm in the world with 6400 MW.
Fine. If the US needs 4000 Twh
you need ~2 TW of wind, 1.33? TW of tranmission lines, etc.
Nobody needs 100% wind. The US already has 622 GW of flexible capacity installed and the US already does have a grid which can handle double the load per capita compared to export nation Germany. There's absolutely no reason not to benefit from what is already installed and not to use that electricity/fuel more efficiently.
There's also no reason not to use solar hot water capacity on existing US roofs and use the saved fuel for electricity generation:
Btw, solar hot water capacity added world wide: China (2007): 80.5% USA (2007): 0.5%$20-30 trillion dollars at least.
Wind-turbines cost $1.4 billion per GW. With $25,000 billion one can purchase 17,857 GW of wind turbines. That is 17.9 TW and not 2 TW. And 1.33 TW of transmission line won't cost thousands of billions either even if it was necessary and the current grid was completely useless. Why are you dishonest?
The world's largest wind farm the 627 turbine Roscoe Wind Complex in Texas (735 MW) covers 156 square miles and produces 2.75 Twh.
99% of that area is still usuable for farming and the cattle actually appreciates the shadow of a wind-turbine-pole.
So why is the US having coal at 31% of generation capacity and not 100%?
Enjoy your coalfantasy!
I am slightly disappointed by the lack of relevant discussion of majorian's numbers.
I have a number of issues with majorian's numbers and assumptions but I can't say the result is unfair because majorian also burdened clean coal with ludicrous pipelines.
If I took majorian's numbers at face value, I would still disagree that there is "absolutely no contest". While it wouldn't be rational by the standards of orthodox economics to go for a 30 years payback I believe that, in this particular case, it would be a good public policy.
An even better policy would be to avoid both of these ludicrous schemes. Yet I find majorian's argument above compelling: that BAU, though irrational, will probably prove politically irresistible and that attempts to preserve it will be made at great expense. But the same logic pretty much buries "clean coal" just like it buries nukes. Even if these solutions were marginally cheaper than wasteful renewables deployments, big-renewable advocates will probably be able to lie their way out of uncompetitiveness and to make use of their political advantage. In addition to the feel-good aspect, you've got to admit that, as argued elsewhere on this page, big-renewable is great pork.
I don't see a point in arguing with every aspect of majorian numbers but there's one thing that sticks out: the cost of electric lines. I am surprised by this number which is so large as to make discussion of other issues almost irrelevant. Now I understand better majorian's previous comment on the cost of transmission. Other numbers I've seen, including majorian's number of HVDC, are out of line with this one. If this number isn't widely inflated then electricity will have to remain a regional affair in order to remain cheap. It therefore has implications that go beyond the "clean coal" issue.
Does anyone have publically-available hard numbers on the going costs for building long-distance transmission? Pushers of irrelevant ABB marketing need not apply.
P.S.: Brown is the Plan B fellow obviously.
What about a paper with a reference that confirms the ABB numbers for HVDC overhead transmission lines?
http://www.iset.uni-kassel.de/abt/w3-w/projekte/LowCostEuropElSup_revise...
And what about a Siemens HVDC Project with comparable numbers:
http://tdworld.com/overhead_transmission/power_new_dimension_hvdc/
If this number isn't widely inflated then electricity will have to remain a regional affair in order to remain cheap.
Electricity hasn't remained regional affair because the costs of HVDC lines (without moving parts) are obviously much lower than the costs of several power plants. HVDC lines have been built decades ago even between Canada and the US:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_-_New_England_Transmission
Thanks, maj, for reinforcing my basic point in spades.
My basic question, still unanswered, stands--do you realize how much you sound like a shill for the coal industry (not only here, but in nearly everything you post)? You have nearly the reputation of x on ethanol.
It's a simple question. If you aren't aware, I'm just trying to let you know. If you are aware and don't care, well, I guess that's your business.
I tend to think the best of everyone on the forum, but try to remember that anyone could be a paid hack for any well-funded industry.
I try not to accuse, but when simple questions are responded to with bluster rather than simple answers, my suspicion inevitably grows.
You have not convinced me, or apparently many others, that the numbers make carbon sequestration an economically or environmentally viable option for coal.
Face it dude (or dudette?), we need to stop dragging this incredibly dirty ff out of the ground to burn for our Christmas lights and flat screen TV's. Call me stupid all you want. Roasting the planet to feed the greed of the coal industry is...well, you choose the adjective.
Not very subtle. Dohboi warns me that my reputation is at the very bottom.
"I see my reputation is at stake; My fame is shrewdly gored."-Shakespeare
C'est la vie.
Most people here already have their minds made up and are content to pat each other on the back on unconventional oil, coal, ethanol, renewables, nukes, etc.
Paul,
You are on the money-all the talk in the world about solutions is worthless unless the solutions can be sold to the public and thereby implemented.
We can implement the sort of things you advocate -double glazed windows, high efficiency appliances,more insulation, etc,relatively soon if tptb come to thier senses and we make some of Alan of Big Easy's "good " moves.
This is imo a "doable " program politically.
Every house thus updated or built new is going to use anywhere from 25 to 50 percent less energy than an equivalent older house.If such a program were to be implemented and pushed hard for four or five years by that time it is likely that solar pv will have fallen in price substantailly and an affordable modestly sized system could really take a bite out of the household energy budget.
The real trick as I see it should be to always press forward with whatever sort of program gets the biggest bang for the buck and also sets the stage for the next inning.
Are you willing to predict about how many years it is likely to be before a non subsidized combined solar hot water/space heat and photovoltiac system can be financed out of utility savings if included in a mortgage package and installed as a new house is built?
My guess is that residential electricity prices will at least double on the average within ten years.If installed pv prices come down by half during the same time period it looks as if in some places with lots of sun and already high kwh rates solar can pay it's own way within a decade.
Do these admittedly wag estimates seem reasonable to you?
If -when-the cost of homeowner generated power falls below the price of purchased power the indusrty will grow as fast as the computer industry did in it's heyday.
I would like Mr. Brown to come live in the Midwest for 2 full years and try walking/bicycling to work in the heat/rain and humidity of summers and the snow/ice/wind and -20 F temps in the winter.
Public transportation is only (semi-)useful in high density population areas and is heavily subsidized in both construction and operation. Road maintainence outside of the cities will be required whether or not you build public transportation in the cities. (And this is the majority of the "Road Miles".)
Far to many of these "Grand Designs" are "pie-in-the-sky" completely divorced from current reality.
The only thing that will get us to a long term sustainability situation is a dramatic short term population reduction on a global scale. I doubt that any current politicians have the capability the see and carryout the necessary policies to make this happen, so Mother Nature will do the culling for use in a most unpleasant way. The more I look around in the world and read books such as this, the more of a "Doomer" I become.
I know someone in Iowa City, Iowa who bicycles all year around. One tough lady. She's not young, either.
Anyone who lives more than a couple miles from a grocery store and other basic services is shortly going to become very unhappy about this.
I know a professor at the University of Iceland that bikes to work year round ! Says German studded bike tires grip ice wonderfully !
Best Hopes,
Alan
Studded bike tires will allow one to ride across a snowless frozen lake in winter without any trouble - I however, did not have studs on my tires, and found that given perfect balance, I would not crash, but at around 15 km/h, the thrust needed to overcome air resistance and the energy-sapping low pressures in my tires was too great, and the rear wheel would spin out.
I don't think I could of had that much fun on a motorized vehicle, now that I think back to it.
Alternatively, this "job" concept might be divorced from reality. In northern latitudes, there used to be a time when country folk spent a whole lot of time at home in the winter.
I don't think you are seriously suggesting genocide on a groundbreaking scale merely in order to preserve the precise form of wage labor you've grown accustomed to.
Lester Brown has a book to sell. Let's give his technocopian "can do" agenda some free publicity.
Gail writes that "Brown believes that technology can save us". How so?
I have not read the book or even its previous incarnations in toto but I'm not seeing high-tech described in Gail's post.
Surely she's not referring to bicycles, trains, politics, windmills or trees. Is she referring to electric cars? It's an existing technology. I don't get it. I think that it's the number of electric cars the plan calls for that needs to be scrutinized with resource constraints in mind, not the technology.
Anyone read this 600 page tome "The Ascent of Humanity":
The WEALTH GAP AND THE COLLAPSE OF THE U.S.
You're more or less right. All these cities, factories, machines, technology etc have their origin in the human mind. Man must begin to turn away from the outside world and start examining himself. We do have a moral and spiritual crisis. We need better purposes and more depth. We do not need to keep building new technologies to continue servicing our hopelessly primitive desires.
Here is the most humane crash program which I can conceive of for now:
1. Immediately sterilize a large section of humanity. Let us make parentage a privilege and not a god given right. Let us allow only those of good health, character and intelligence to procreate until the population is reduced to about 2 Billion. However politically incorrect and immoral it may be, let us stop some types of people from reproducing and continuing their legacy.
2. Voluntarily reduce per-capita consumption of goods and services by over 80%. We do not need McMansions and a new iPod every 2 weeks. The whole world should do away with the consumer culture which America has inspired.
3. Organize local community gatherings, events, activities to foster a greater sense of connectedness and brotherhood. Let us fill our voids with something more real than food and stuff. Let us voluntarily take to some type of socialism until the crisis is resolved.
4. I agree with the author that mass portions of the dryland surface of the earth will have to be reforested, or else we will most certainly be extinct in 100 years. Let us find a way to make the deserts green. And yes, endangered species must be revived to healthy numbers, and new habitats built for all species.
5. Revive the lessons of religion, theology, philosophy and morality in general - lessons which have been lost for several decades. It was strong characters and sound purposes who conceived of and built utopia. It was gross corruption of goodness which ruined it.
6. Ban pornography, hip-hop, the gun culture; clean up television programs and the internet to nurture good habits and sound morals.
7. All nations must DISARM their military and retain only what is needed to maintain order. Let us abandon war altogether. The only enemy that now exists is human nature itself. The differences between one of us and the next are so insignificant as to be useless to fight over.
8. Let us remember that without LOVE, all other things are meaningless. Let us remember the most important of the 10 commandments: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self.
How do you intend to "stop some types of people from reproducing" and to prop up a theocracy without waging war?
Well I guess you're right. The use of force might be necessary in the short term. But an ordinary police force should be able to reinforce law and order, especially if the populations of the world are disarmed. We must remember that we have left the problem of overpopulation for so long that the only options left to us verge more and more towards the inhumane and disagreeable. It's unfortunate, but we must do what has to be done in order to make the transition as painless as possible. We cannot leave anything to indiscriminate nature to resolve for us.
I am not suggesting propping up a theocracy at all. I would want people to understand the basic moral lessons of religion, philosophy and theology - such things as courage, moderation, love, hope, understanding, perserverance etc.
Sorry for my late edit above. I recalled that even Nazi Germany needed a huge war before its government could implement its most inhumane and disagreeable policies.
Those we have most to fear are those who would oppress us for our own good.
The simplest question your proposal raises, "Who decides who gets to have kids?", would be likely to result in a nightmare for humanity only hinted at by the worst atrocities of the 20th Century.
Better to allow Fate her hand than to try forcing it into conformance with a necessarily limited human-formed ideal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEEDa9Mej8
This is an implicit statement that we have absolutely no control over our own affairs. It says that all our intelligence, and what little wisdom we have, shall have no say. It implicitly says that we entrust nature with the task of reordering our lives and choosing for us. But since when does nature care about our morals, our culture, our rich human heritage? Nature only cares about the species, as natural scientists would put it.
We do have some powers of discrimination. At the very least, let us stop the extremely poor, the uneducated and irremediably diseased from producing the bulk of the children of the world. In large parts the third world, children are still seen as an asset, useful on the farms and for dowry. In the developed world, the morals and standards of the state are grossly corrupted by the overabundance of people coming from depraved and uncultured origins. Everywhere, the mediocrity of all the race is inheriting the earth.
We should indeed plan, but the only way to do what you propose is by force.
We have a word for that. Ponder the necessary actions and you will know what that word is.
murder? genocide? I advocate neither of these or anything close to them.
If you ponder the outcome of inaction, you might realize that murder and genocide could come about by themselves. Given the choice between survival and morality, almost all people will opt for the former.
I would rather have humankind be strict with its procreation right now instead of losing control completely further down the road.
I'm afraid I must agree with shox.
Inaction will most certainly lead to a HARD landing from the overshoot we are experiencing right now. Let's take care of the people we have now and abandon this perpetual growth economic model.
10-5-2009:
Paul Ehrlich: we must change human behavior
Options? Murder, genocide, starvation, disease, war, authoritarian control, and massive education of women come quickly to mind.
Here, the latter is already the case, except for recent immigrants.
BAU, with no further action, will result in starvation, disease, and war, and probably increased murder and genocide.
The others will take a huge effort. How will you accomplish that during a world decline?
Alien intervention perhaps. =)!
Dmitry Orlov speculates about a post-peak intervention...
June 2009
The slope of dysfunction
by Dmitry Orlov
We enslave The Mediocre, The Depraved, The Uncultured and control their reproduction, and have them build vast gated communities for The Chosen.
Sorry, but I'm having a difficult time taking his suggestions seriously. Make the desert green?
What's the quote? "Those who say it can't be done, should not get in the way of those doing it"?
Greening the Desert (5 1/2 min): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sohI6vnWZmk
Nice. Now quote the text where I said "it can't be done".
As I said above:
Genocide, eugenics, you name it.
That's one of the easy questions raised by your wishlist above, yet one for which there are no morally unambiguous answers.
That still leaves a lot of ground, basically requiring a strictly regimented totalitarian theocracy. Yes, theocracy, because you'll need a religion to make masses of people to agree to such extreme measures.
You might consider a review of dystopian fiction to get a more thorough and articulate view of that particular future landscape than my meager skills can provide.
I believe "The Handmaiden's Tale" would be a reasonable start.
"At the very least, let us stop the extremely poor, the uneducated and irremediably diseased from producing the bulk of the children of the world. In large parts the third world, children are still seen as an asset, useful on the farms and for dowry. In the developed world, the morals and standards of the state are grossly corrupted by the overabundance of people coming from depraved and uncultured origins. Everywhere, the mediocrity of all the race is inheriting the earth."
Wow. I guess you're not being very shy about your position here.
Starting with the first bit, please note that has almost entirely been the relatively rich, the educated, and the healthy who are responsible for the annihilation of the living systems of the planet. And you tell us the morals and standards are being grossly corrupted by people from depraved and uncultured origins? Do you care to be more specific? Or would that make your racism and ignorance too obvious to all?
Shox,
Just who do you propose will disarm the last country with an army, or stop the biggest and meanest guy in your nieghborhood kidnapping your kids for ransom?
If a giant meteorite were hurtling towards the earth, and our survival as a species depended on the pooling together of all of our efforts to save ourselves, who would care about waging war with another? Who would care about kidnapping children for ransom when everyone may have only a few days left to live?
To answer your question, the best way to disarm all countries is to convince all governments that what we are facing may as well be a meteorite which will wipe us all out. The idea behind disarming nations is to divert resources from expensive militaries into other channels to solve the crisis. To maintain law and order in tumultuous times, a regular police force would do. Again, let us state the crisis: A population of over 2 billion probably cannot be sustained without fossil fuels and other resources, and a temperature rise of 4-5 degrees C caused by global warming would effectively wipe out most of the human race. A population die-off is inevitable within the next 30-40 years. Our collective task right now is to repair the immense damage to the natural world, to keep the levels of pain and misery to a minimum during the transition to a smaller population, and to eventually let the best of all the human race inherit the earth.
Good luck. Keep us posted.
Good idea. Ultimately a Superior race in the end, free of infirmities.
Several replies later, I no longer see any point in making a case for the obvious. I shall leave this thread of discussion with these concluding remarks:
1. "Democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot survive it. Convenience and decency cannot survive it. As you put more and more people into the world, the value of life not only diminishes, it disappears completely. It doesn't matter is somebody dies; The more people there are, the less one individual matters." - Isaac Asimov, famous science author.
2. The more impoverished the world becomes, the less morals, ethics and other cultural refinements matter. Poverty will abrade away all higher culture and complex institutions. All of the riches in the natural world will be torn down and turned into fuel, food, goods and waste, leaving the earth as barren as a Pharaoh's tomb which has been looted, leaving little for future generations to be fascinated by.
3. The laws of nature are not subject to our democratic debates. Nature and reality issue their harsh decrees regardless of our opinions. As Voltaire said, "Men argue; Nature acts." Those who apprehend nature and reality more closely will survive, and all those who remain entangled in the transient artificial world fashioned by humans will more likely perish.
OK but what about pornography and hip-hop?
Hip-hop could lead to dancing.
You know...I remember when I actually enjoyed reading the Oil Drum because there was some sense to it...NOW it seems like L. Ron Hubbard has taken over all the writing.....
A couple of things could be added to your list to make it an even canonical 10.
9. Incarcerate religious nutters
10. Ban fundamentalism
The more likely situation if push comes to shove is for the stronger militaries to do what they do best. Like in the Outlaw Josey Wales where they came up with a decent treatment for the surrendered soldiers:
Wonder where those plans for neutron bombs ended up?
Please define 'sound morals' and explain why things like pornography are inherently 'bad'.
I have read parts of it and consider it brilliantly written and right on the mark.
I also posted a link to one of this guys essays about a month ago.
If this guy is correct it will be much worse than that.
http://revminds.seedmagazine.com/revminds/member/lambros_malafouris/
I think I agree with this concept and as an example my instant access to the internet via a computer to look up just about any piece of information known to man is a part of my mind. It would be a horrendous loss to be suddenly cut off from it forever. I think this alone is reason enough to put all our effort into maintaining this part of our civilization. I would much more gladly give up the car culture than give up my access to information.
What a cool pic!! I have set it as my desktop background just to remind me where I don't want to be.
I didn't say high tech. Its more "lots of" technology. Lester Brown thinks that the world can be made to feed 8 billion people (up from 6.7 billion today) by finding technological breakthroughs that will all more food and better use of water. We will swap our appliances for more efficient ones, and switch to a truly huge amount of wind-generated electricity. There will be new transportation systems set up (trains, etc.). His view is more that we can build our way our of our current problems, with current technology--the biggest component of which is probably wind turbines. He is proposing 44% of electricity come from wind turbines by 2020. Usually, the highest number you see is 20% (and that takes a lot of work.)
Thank you for elaborating. So he only expects technological breakthroughs in agriculture? That's still unwarranted.
44% of electricity from wind is easy, and so would be feeding 8 billion. All that it would require is less consumption of electricity and meat. But you're apparently saying he wants to get there with "more" and not with "less". OK, I see a problem with that.
A combination of smart grids to move time-insensitive electrical consumption around to match renewable outputs and a lowered standard of living could make 44% a reality - but I agree with Gail, 20% is a lofty goal if there is no conservation.
I certainly have no grip about using alternative energy - the PV system is powering my laptop and the solar hot water system is going fine. My complaint is that Brown is putting the cart before the horse. The first issue is societal not technical fixes.
If we believe that bau is dying, what kind of society follows it? After all, it's not just consumption but also financial, governance, living arrangements, etc. To me, a book like Ecotopia offers a better "plan" than Brown's. In other words: Ok, here's the society we want, NOW how do we get there? It might included some or all of Brown's suggestions - but I doubt it.
Given the massive investments of time, money and resources, there will only be one shot at success. This will be true of any plan put into action. I simply do not believe action can be taken until we have decided upon where we are actually going.
Todd
There is no "we" that's able to decide where "we" are going. To say that action can not be taken until "we" decide on this or that implies that the process of building such a "we" can be divorced from action. Is that what you believe?
Action is happening right now. Some of us know where we want to go even though we might not believe we're going to get there. But you don't dance to get some place.
Based on Gail's quotes, it seems Brown is advocating political involvement. You seem to be advocating the same thing.
Give me a break. We/society have considered and decided many things or society wouldn't be "society."
Actually, I'm not advocating political action per se. What I think will happen is that a consensus will be reached that certain changes are necessary. And, following from that, those in positions of governance will formalize these changes. This is pretty typical of what happens already. Take smoking is restaurants; non-smokers didn't like the smoke. Eventually enough people felt this way so politicians passed laws banning smoking. But, I don't consider this to be "political action." Perhaps you do.
I know I'm older than you so I've had more opportunities to see the results of "we have to do something now." In the vast majority of cases the end result not only did not actually solve the problem but in some cases made it worse. Given the reality that we have limited money, limited time and only one shot at doing it right it makes no sense to just do stuff. I'm big on survival and the first thing people are taught is to "stop" (literally sit down), think the problem trough, get organized and, only after that proceed. We know with a certainty that bau is dying and it's unlikely that bau lite will have any better chance. If that is the case, what actions are really required to maintain a functioning society? The answer obviously depends upon what we believe society will be like at that time.
I layed out my answer a couple of years ago http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2598#comment-198259
Todd
Look, society never asked my opinion. So if "we" decided on anything, that means I'm not part of your society.
I'm all for thinking and planning but who's going to do that? At the social level, not me. Like most readers I assume, I only have influence at more modest levels.
You're using the grid and the internet. The roads. Those are WE decisions. You're part of the society.
Expecting that there's a clear 'choice' on each of the things around us to be part of 'we' is a bit excessive.
'We' seem to be willing to talk about being 'green', as vague and misused as the term is, that is the kind of tonal shifts we as a society are undergoing...
What I use are my decisions. But road-building decisions and suchlike are not mine. I'm not talking about being "green" either.
Sure, I'm part of society. But I'm not part of the decision-making. It follows that, as I said above, there's no "we" that can make such decisions and that direct action is my only option.
"the first thing people are taught is to "stop" (literally sit down), think the problem trough, get organized and, only after that proceed."
I like that, Todd.
A while back (sorry, no link) I suggested that the planet was essentially on fire. In such a case the wisest thing to do is not to run around wildly flinging your hands around, however much that might seem like "doing something about it."
No, instead we all know from first grade that we have to stop, drop and roll.
In our case, that means stop to think about the enormity of our situation, drop our consumption of just about everything (as well as our breeding), and roll into a new cultural paradigm not based on accumulation...
But flailing is what we will most likely do, with predictable results for ourselves and the planet.
Drastically increasing the percentage of energy made via wind requires ZERO governmental expenditures - either as direct grants or as tax deductions/credits - if we use the same arrangement which has proven to be the most successful renewable energy system in the world - Feed-in Tariffs. 44% of present electricity consumption (now 420 GW) would be 185 GW on a delivered basis (present is about 10 GW on a delivered basis, 30 GW on a capacity basis). using an average of 33% net output for the turbines, that means 175 GW (delivered) of new turbines, or 525 GW on a capacity basis. At $2 billion per GW, that's a private industry investment of $1050 Billion, or about $95 billion per year over an 11 year period. Granted, it won't all happen at once, and that means more in the later years. For example, if you double output of wind turbines each year (from say, 8 GW this year to 128 GW/yr, and then a steady 128 GW/yr for the next 7 years) gets you there with some to spare (1144 plus the 30 GW we already have).
What is missing is the will to do it. Period. As an engineer, I understand it when management (= politician, the wealthy class, too) hems and haws and says we can't change so fast/can't do it, etc. It's really saying the entrenched moneymaking cash cows owned by friends and acquaintances are more important than the future of the world or the millions of unemployed who would get employed in such a massive Keynesian private industry stimulus, paid for by customers of the electricity over, say, a 20 year period (per turbine). Or translated, they are full of bull. The attitude expressed by our present political and corporate ruling class would have lost WW2 to some really nasty dictators. Those attitudes suck, too.
Nb41
Increasing taxes (what feed-in tariffs amount to) isn't a Keynesian stimulus... at least not until you've disclosed the stimulus part of the scheme: tax cuts and/or subsidies.
Inefficient alternatives to carbon taxes suck, too. Talk about entrenched moneymaking cash cows...
The stimulus happens when present day moneys being spent on consumption (= paying the owners of fully depreciated power producing facilities = oil, coal, Ngas, nukes) gets diverted into large scale wind turbine manufacturing. The coal/oil/Ngas part also represents consumption - produce goods which are just burned, and then there's the external costs, too. You also create millions of manufacturing jobs taking a larger and larger portion of consumption (= energy from paid off assets which require huge expenditures on fuels, etc) and divert it to investment/manufacturing. Plus, a lot more jobs get created when people make wind turbines and install them (plus the 8000 parts that go into them, and the jobs those support) than are maintained when fossil fuels get consumed in old, paid off facilities (the present situation).
Besides, don't we want to quit subsidizing pollution and fossil fuel usage? Coal use gets subsidized to the tune of $210/ton if CO2 pollution is priced at $85/ton (Stern Report estimate on the cost of CO2 pollution), and Ngas goes up by $5.20/MBtu with the some pollution fee/external pollution costs internalized. Don't we want people to pay the real cost for electricity. If it is artificailly suppressed, people will just waste more electricity, won't bother getting efficient, etc.
Feed-In laws are designed to make lots of manufacturing jobs; the renewable energy and the substitution of fossil fuels (many imported, like oil and Ngas) is frosting on the cake. Besides, aren't the various governments in the U.S. broke enough already without subsidizing electricity prices?
Nb41
In the US, the Federal government is indeed in a better position than the states to engage in a stimulus. A Keynesian stimulus works by increasing the liabilities of the government and the Feds can't get broke.
I agree that a feed-in tariff would likely be marginally successful as a non-Keynesian stimulus by diverting money away from interest payments but so would canceling many other kinds of debt.
Expenditures on manufacturing are no better than expenditures on fuel. The reason fuel is not free is that people are getting paid extracting the fuel or owning fuel-producing assets. Absent an actual stimulus, your proposal would hurt other sectors as people cut other expenditures to meet electricity payments.
How on earth would a carbon tax subsidize coal?
Expenditures for domestic manufacturing/investments in domestic manufacturing are vastly preferable to imports of fossil fuels. Furthermore, money paid to power producers who use fully paid off facilities to make electricity is like pouring money down a rat hole - it just goes into this black hole of wealthy class consumption, or a significant fraction is sent overseas to pay the often times foreign owners of these "milking it" corporations. These monies are not creating manufacturing jobs in this country.
As to the government directly owning wind turbines - I have no problem with that. They should be buying and installing tens of billions of dollars worth every year. But they are not buying any. Pretty much the same goes for states. Government monies invested in wind turbines could actually be paid back via sales of electricity - no taxes would be needed. Even better, as the consumers of the electricity actually pay for the turbines (government or privately owned) via long term loans/bonds/financing arrangement.
As to the price paid to fossil fuel producers - this is often unrelated to the cost of getting them - it's all about the maximum price that can be obtained. In theory, a competitive market would produce some relationship between the cost of fossil fuel production and the price obtained. But things are way past that point/far more complicated, especially since fuel prices on a $/MBtu aspect are (9-5-09) ratio of 1 : 2.67 : 7.26 level for coal, Ngas and oil, respectively (in the U.S.). As to the cost of electricity via deferred nukes - almost impossible to get at, since nuke owners don't pay real catastrophic (Chernobyl style) insurance, and garbage disposal is forever deferred/subsidized. Besides, nukes were also about providing cover for/support to the nuclear bomb industry, and they were really good/successful at that.
As to carbon taxes subsidizing coal...it wouldn't, but unless rates are raised significantly (so that coal prices are effectively raised about $100/ton - about $37/ton of CO2 pollutant emitted), it won't do any good at getting more renewables installed. Wimpy increases (like the current RGGI price of $3.30/ton of CO2 pollutant emitted) really don't mean squat.
Nb41
I'm not interested in chauvinist arguments which is what your love of manufacturing seems to boil down to.
$/MBtu is an irrelevant measure when looking at extraction costs and market price.
You seem to have some irrational issues with profits from fossil fuel sales. It works no differently than other sectors... why would it?
But I agree about wimpy carbon taxes because I don't believe that renewables are cost-competitive with coal and NG.
And if you favor more government-financed renewable generation, then we basically agree notwithstanding my misgivings about feed-in tariffs.
I've followed Lester Brown from Small is Beautiful through to 4.0. In each case, he's entirely correct: we could solve poverty and hunger and global warming and many other things...but there are some powerful people ensuring the status quo remains just that. The paid climate change deniers come to mind, and until we start stringing them up for betraying the rest of us, it will continue to be a tremendous uphill battle to save anything: http://www.celsias.com/article/case-crimes-against-humanity-or-end-rex-t...
Just a small point; Small Is Beautiful was written by E.F. Schumacher (1973).
Todd
Lester has been at this for some time now. Plan B, Plan B 2.0, etc.
But I suspect we are going to need a series of plans including a Plan Z, what to do when all else fails. Plans A through Z, should consider scenarios that range from BAU as we know it to potential extinction of the human species. Nothing should be overlooked simply because it offends the tastes or beliefs. Maybe you don't want to believe that a total collapse of civilization and global population is possible, but based on all of the complex interactions of all the components of our human system (esp. human nature) such an outcome is looking more probable every passing day.
So what if we don't accomplish half of what Plan B calls for (and personally I can't see any feasible way to accomplish even 1/10th of it) by 2020 (11 years from now)? Plan Z might start looking like the only option feasible.
Question Everything
of course, you might not like some of the answers!
George
The whole 400 page Brown Plan B is not a plan but an aspirational wishlist of every imaginable politically correct thought he could come up with. He admits his Plan B is not politically feasible(yeah damn those bloody politicians!) but claims it is scientically a reality.
My 'scientific' plan is that we contact highly advanced space aliens and force them to either kill of 2/3rd of humanity or to give us advanced supertechnology to cure all our problems!(SETI scientists assure us that there are billions of worlds with intelligent life them; many must be eager to travel over here to help us!)
The section on population and eradicating poverty could be filled with blank pieces of paper concluding with the aspirational 'only 8 billion people'.
He mentions that the world agriculture could support 10 billion people at the food level of an Indian peasant or 2.5 billion at the level of US consumers.
The world will have 7 billion people in 2012 and is increasing at 79 million per year, so we will reach Brown's magic 8 billion number in 2025, not 2040 which his stated goal.
Amusingly he cites China as an example of reducing poverty from 60% to 16%.
He promotes massive third world health programs to stop childhood diseases in countries filled with children!
As usual he attacks bio-fuels as a waste of acreage for growing food and a major cause of global warming from fertilizer--citing Crutzen(greatly worried about NOx from nitrogen fertilizer).
Brown says cellulosic ethanol is 'unclear'.
Conventional oil has peaked and unconventional oil is too expensive
to be produced. Unconventional oil will produce 3 times the CO2 as conventional oil according to Brown--a distortion as burning a barrel of unconventional oil will produce 25% more CO2 than burning a barrel of conventional oil. Not a good thing but of limited consequence.
Coal is bad in part because it will be uncompetitive with renewable??! Natural gas is similarly uncompetitive. There is no
mention of clean coal or nuclear(why bother, they must be uncompetitive!)
What will triumph is wind electricity and battery powered cars citing the plug-in gasoline/ electric hybrid Volt(minus the gasoline I imagine). That and compact fluorescent light bulbs.
Wind will rise from 105 GW to 6450 GW(by 2020).
He shows great interest solar thermal with the world producing
1.95 thermal TW (not Twh?) by 2020 which is a puny .1 Tcf of natural gas. Talking about W rather WH is basically dishonest IMO.
This book should be completely deconstructed chapter by chapter to be fair.
It's only purpose is to provide comfort for his New Age fans who he is careful not to offend.
"There is no mention of clean coal"
That's because there is no such thing.
Just looking at the title, with the 4.0 suffix on it, turns my stomach. Here we are passing signpost after signpost of missed opportunities, and every step of the way, the scale of change required to avoid (or even minimize) a malthusian catastrophe goes up and up to Tower of Babel proportions.
If nobody was willing to apply Plan B 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0, then what does Lester Brown think will become of version 4.0? At what point does Lester call it a day and head to the bunker?
I used to be a big fan of his, 3-5 years ago, but I've largely written off techno-fix. Whatever we could have done, well, the train has left the station some time ago. That much is becoming clearer with every new dire piece on the climate alone, let alone peak oil and the rest.
We will employ green tech as big government, market forces, and various constraints allow, but it will be too little too late to avoid a serious crash.
It seems like time is a huge constraint. Any very big change takes more than 20 years--often 30 or 40 or even 50 years. When you put that together with the amount of investment funds we are likely to have going forward, I think it will be hard to do very much.
In just 20 years, a developing nation with 3% to 4% of the GDP of the USA, a population <100 million at the start and >100 million at the end, AND with limited access to advanced technology:
1) Built subways in all of it's largest cities
2) Expanded and started to electrify it's railroads
3) Built vast networks of electric interurban railroads in it's richest farming areas
4) Built light rail/trams/streetcars in 500 cities, towns and villages.
And paid down the national debt.
That nation ?
The USA 1897-1916
Best Hopes for Realizing what is possible,
Alan
And all of that was before the Dodge Bros. VS Ford decision that opened up stock corps to lawsuit if they did not maximize shareholder value.
The long term is trashed for the short term profit.
In an even shorter time we created the largest military-industrial-complex in the world.
For me the question is not so much whether we could commit to a crash program, but what the goals of such a program would be.
If they are anything like "maintain close to current levels of consumption" I'm can't get too excited about it.
Gail, I can hardly believe you said that! Surely you know how fast the US auto industry went from cars to tanks and aircraft after Pearl Harbor? Pretty near overnight! We could do the same with wind/solar replacing SUV's. How would we get around? Use what we have right now, right on the ground, just like we did then.
Sure, I know- politically impossible. So; then it's politically impossible to survive. TS.
BTW, what usually wears out first in a windmill is the transmission. But the very best raw material for a new transmission is a used transmission. All you need is energy, and a windmill generates FAR more energy than needed to remake the worn out transmission during the time it takes to wear out the transmission.
wimby -- I'm not sure your anlogy works very well. Consider that the huge investment the gov't made in the war effort was paid for with tax dollars and folks converting savings to war bonds. How much "profit" did the gov't make from this effort? None obviously but that wasn't the goal. Winning the war was. Granted the industrial complex made some good profits in the process. Wars tend to work that way. Now to carry your analogy foreward: the gov't funds the entire expansion of alts with tax payer monies. The alt builders make a good living. Since the gov't goal is winning the battle(replacing FF) and not making a profit it's an easy path to follow. So now the tax payers are entirely funding an expansion which is not proftable but will allow us to get the oil monkey off our backs. And the $64,000 questions are 1)can the economy survive redistributing money from the rest of the economy to this effort and 2)more importantly, will the tax payers go along with the plan or throw out all the politicians pushing such plans? For me the answer is very easy and unequivacable: NO. The American people will not accept such a burden. They'll shed blood (someone elses) before they give up hope for BAU IMO. To make my position clear: Can we make the conversion? Yes. Is it critical that we make the conversion? Yes. Will the American people make the necessary sacrifices to achieve this goal? No. Just my silly opion of corse.
1) Public deficits need not be paid back by taxpayers. The economy can not die.
2) Taxpayers and voters are not the same group and none sets the political agenda anyway.
I suppose that's one person's view Hfat. As far as the tax payers not paying back the deficits at last report the U.S. tax payers were writting a check for $500 million EVERY DAY to cover the interest payment for financing those deficits. Wonder what esle those tax payers could do with $500 million every day? Maybe keep it in the savings accounts. Just a thought.
You do make a good point: the tax payers have a dispproporionately small infuence on the process. Politicians do set the agenda. But only those who get re-elected. At last peak the voters make that decision every 2 or 4 years.
The government writes a "check", not the taxpayers. Do tell if you've written such a check today...
The government is able to write checks with borrowed money instead of tax proceeds. One of the places it can borrow from is the central bank. The governments' credit line at the central bank is unlimited and the central bank does not require interest payments.
Voters generally decide between pre-selected politicians, none of which are beholden to the electorate of course.
Hfat -- you might want to chech the details of the Fed budget. That chunk of change used to pay interst comes from the tax revenue. And that does make it our money. The gov't has very little of it's own money. It's our money and a big piece of what we pay in taxes every year goes out in those interest payment checks.
And don't go on about the central bank just prining money to cover our debts. If it were that easy there would be no need for the gov't to collect taxes, would there? Just let the Fed run those electronic printing presses at high speed.
The deficit is way bigger than the interest payments. You're mistaken as to the direction of the net flow. But if you want to argue your taxes somehow have been earmarked to make interest payments, go ahead. It's harmless enough.
Strictly speaking, taxes are indeed not necessary. Taxes are a policy... one that I would not recommend getting rid of. Take that up with the "taxes bad" crowd.
This talk of "printing presses" is ridiculous. How is government spending any different than bank loans in that respect?
Government can write a check for money, and create it out of thin air. It cannot create steel, or copper, or concrete, or induction-hardening or shot-peening that way. It can obtain these things, but at the expense of everything else. If you think government can pass a law and create goods ex nihilo, you are insane.
Thank you for the strawman. I'm not a member of the money cargo cult.
As I've said on this page and elsewhere, money is not a resource. When looking at issues of sustainability, what's possible or not and such, money is irrelevant.
I've been arguing against those who, for lack of a better argument, predict doom for lack of money.
What is your "at the expense of everything else" supposed to mean by the way? A statement about everything is usually a statement about nothing.
Rockman. I'm with ya all the way. Right down to the final NO (in more ways than one). And all for the same reasons.
Now what?
My answer is from history- when faced with an overwhelming threat, people- with right leadership -have done wonders- fast.
Many, many examples.
So, first, make people recognize the threat, second, demand a sacrifice for a specified target , third, make it.
What I - and Brown-are suggesting is truth no sacrifice at all. Quit doing the frivolous nonsense we are doing called BAU, take all that resource and use it to do what is needed, do it, and then feel good about it.
Will we do it? Nah. So-----. Ah well, I never thought much of H Sapiens anyhow. Next?
PS-My high school buddies got killed in the battle of the bulge, or dropping on Corregidor, and those who were left got to feel good about it--until now.
Thank you, Wimbi.
I am getting weary of the arguments challenging Alternative Energy that say..
'It's too hard.' 'It's too expensive.' 'It'll take too long.'
There are all sorts of things I can't do because of lack of funds right now, but I also know where these solutions are that I need to be applying my efforts towards to make my own household resilient and self-supporting as possible. (Insulation, Solar Heat/Electric, Gardening) These all can show direct 'income', and also can provide a level of insurance that no Energy Pricing Agreements would ever be able to offer me. If I can't pay as much up front, I can make it up in increased effort, or having these systems grow over a longer time-period.. but there is no question that they are going to benefit me. As a society, I propose that WE can accomplish this sort of thing as well.. but it won't be cheap, and it won't be easy. Too bad.. ("You can have it fast, good and cheap. Pick any two.")
And apologies, Gail, for the implication in that quote. I know you're smart and you're working hard to bring these issues to the fore, but the constant refrain of this kind of objection strikes me as immaterial.
Wind and Electric Rail are some of the simplest physical answers to this energy problem. They are not silver bullets, and both have achilles' heels that have to be kept in check.. but the expectations of the financial system can throw all the can-openers it wants into the works, it doesn't change the fact that these are tools that we know will contribute solidly to the problem, and have clear advantages from a pollution/C02 standpoint.
I can't imagine that anything that will provide a quality, durable (partial) answer to this massive problem is going to look financially appealing.. it's simply the wrong question to be asking now. It seems likely that we've already started going down at the head of the ship.. I'm not going to go bargain hunting when I look for lifeboats.
Sincerely,
Bob Fiske
In the last year we've spent somewhere north of 17 trillion dollars mostly to make life easier for those most responsible for destroying the nation's and the world's economy through their wrecklessness and greed. And that's not even counting the huge sums spent on useless wars, the enormously bloated military/industry, the various costs associated with providing us with the Sunday afternoon entertainment of watching drug-addled millionaires owned by billionaires play meaningless games...
There is still a lot of money doing stupid, meaningless stuff.
Given political will (which will never arise) we COULD apply much of that money and energy toward some kind of alternatives.
But of course we don't have the political or whatever other kind of will there might be to redirect our moneys, energies, and values.
And further, if we did manage to replace all our current ff-based energy with clean alternatives of whatever stripe, what then would we use it for? Continuing our idiotic conquest of the natural world? Increasing our consumption? Entertaining ourselves to death?
Some thoughts:
Energy
The only real thing you can grow an economy with is surplus energy.
Whenever you build something, it increases your baseload energy requirements.
(it needs to be maintained, heated, moved, cleaned, modified, etc)
So if energy supply isn't growing you get stagnation. (you only have enough for your baseload)
This means if you want to grow. Something else has to shrink.
So it may appear that you are growing, in reality it stays the same.
If energy supply is declining... The economy must shrink.
First reaction is to make a lot of smal cuts across the board. (efficiëncy ganes)
Later on you must make tougher decisions...and again...and again...
Money
A system based on mutual agreements and trust.
"Invented" to equal all forms of energy.
This made trading (surplus energy) a lot easier at the expanse of transparancy.
Debt
A system based on mutual agreements and trust.
And should always be based on surplus energy and be paid back as soon as possible.
Useful to help your neighbour if something bad happens and he hasn't enough surplus energy.(money)
When used wise, it's a very robust system to equal things.
Monetary systems
Created to manage bigger regions and growt itself.
The enormous amount of fossil surplus energy changed our world radically.
It mainly distorted the way we look at surplus energy.
people really didn't understand how extraordinary this was.
It looked like money was created out of thin air.
And more importantly it was scaleable.
A new path for never ending growth was found.
Until it isn't.
Limited time is all I have...(the rest is a mirage)
Taxes
Collected monies with the intent of misallocating to pork projects. Enables bureaucratic bloat. Growth of non-productive sector, government.
Don't forget to wave hello to your Fireman and Policewoman today, as you roll along over paved streets with signage and stoplights for your safety! Enjoy a drink of subsidized and regulated tap water if all that makes you thirsty!
Exactly. Well said. Only children would expect good government without having to pay for it. (Side note. BusinessWeek published its list of worlds 40 best cities last week. Only two US cities, top ranked one was 35th on list. Socialist Canada got 5 cities onto list all above 25th, Vancouver ranked 4th.
You get what you pay for.
You misunderstood the intent of my comment apparently . Brown is advocating taxes in his 4.0 revision. The fear I have is taxes will not necessarily be allocated to solving the problems that were enumerated. Are you arguing the governing agencies will wisely and efficiently administer it?
Firemen: at one time you had to subscribe to a fire dept in order to have service. That is the origin of those emblems attached to chimneys here is the U.S. That would make a direct link to fees for services and you could opt out (and build with fireproof materials).
Police: there were no police departments until the 1800's in the U.S. They too are bloated and seem to do more in writing traffic tickets. My township is charged over 1 million dollars to have the neighboring township maintain one police officer in the township 24 hours a day. The monthly police report includes the number of tickets written, domestic disputes investigated, and checkpoints that they setup. Have you read this one: Police officer shoots fire chief -- in court?
Paved streets - my area was once serviced by electric trolleys over at the main road. And 100 feet from my house is the closed train station; the tracks now are only used by a tourist train and an occasional train hauling gravel.
Tap water - nope, I have a well. Both electric and hand pump, in addition to rain barrels.
Its a shame that for some reason US citizens dislike their democratic institutions. Agreed often some problems, largely attributable to effects of "representative democracy". Perhaps its time for some "true democracy" along the lines of ancient Greek democracy, where every citizen votes on every item of legislation with no intervening (and mostly untrustworthy) representatives. Modern communications technology could easily implement.
It would require a considerable amount of time and a well-informed public. The Greeks were more sophisticated, as were other republics of old. They randomly selected members of the elite for public service. Since we have abandoned overt slavery along with these elitist notions, we would randomly select among eligible voters instead I guess (as with jury selection).
They also had an underclass of slaves to provide for their needs. Guess which class we're in?
Were slaves able to serve on juries?
In any case, I think I would still prefer random selections among the ruling class to elections, except perhaps at the local level.
A good compromise might be voting on all major issues (like debt increases, overall spending, etc.) and have an elected group of people determining the details, but with the names on the ballot selected randomly. That way you could cull out the obviously insane, stupid, lazy, and unable, and still avoid a totally self-selected candidate process.
You're an optimist. Look at some of the people who've been elected in the past. And look at the economic literacy of the average voter...
Still, I like your idea. Randomness is fun. Perhaps we should declare independence or something.
Beyond being fun, randomness in candidate selection would prevent "self selected" candidates.
Which would, of course, drive all the power hungry into the bureaucracy. D'oh!
I suspect that "democracy", whether representative or otherwise is something that was enabled by the Industrial Revolution and the ensuing era of "growth."
Is it just a coincidence that the political revolutions and all the other ideologies and "isms" came into being only after the Industrial Revolution? Look back over the past 6,000 years of history; with the exception of the Roman Republic, and some Greek and medieval Italian city-states, hereditary systems were the norm. And none of the "republics" that were the exception were in the least bit democratic, at least by modern definitions. It seems probable to me that at some point down the backside of Hubbert's Curve, virtually all these experimental forms of government and economy will end up in the dust-bin of history.
Antoinetta III
Which -ism is that?
In Sid Meier's computer game, I think industrialization was required to adopt it. But actual history is a bit more complex.
Be wary of doomers bearing crystal balls.
To stick with your point.. it WILL take tax dollars to deal with many parts of this, whether it resembles Brown's plan or not, and some of that money will go astray. It is messy and far from perfect, but the fact is that 'more than three people can hardly decide where to have dinner', much less spend money responsibly together.. but these problems are going to take combined efforts, and failing to see that Shining Libertarian City from where I stand, it will go through the hideous Washington Sausage Factory.
Maybe we can improve it.. but in the timeframe we're talking about, which is worse, a flawed program or bickering and waiting around for the unflawed program to show up?
government money != tax dollars
It bears repeating.
These two categories generally overlap enough that they can perhaps be conflated as a shorthand... but not if we're talking about some kind of wartime-like mobilization.
OK, I'm slow, but where does gov't money come from if it isn't tax dollars? The only other sources are debt (which becomes a tax) and inflation by printing (which is also a tax on value).
Inflation is a process separate from what you inappropriately call "printing" or else the dollar would be down a lot more than it is YOY.
Inflation isn't a tax, expect in as much as low interest rates are a tax. That's propaganda, plain and simple.
It is also incorrect to say that debt necessarily becomes a tax. It depends on rate of growth as well as on the real interest rate as I'm sure you well know. It is also worth remembering that the lack of debt can become a tax as well if the tax base shrinks as a consequence.
By your logic, we should have no taxes at all!
The gov't in such a tax-free world simply prints and spends whatever it wants, and it's up to the rest of the economy to pedal fast enough to maintain the relative value of the dollar.
Inflation is growth of the money supply, and printing is one way to try to accomplish that. Any inflation devalues existing money in circulation, and in my view is no different than a perfect tax on every dollar out there. Similarly, deflation increases the value of every dollar. But that goes for credit as well as physical money or electronic funds.
I'm assuming flat to negative growth, a shrinking tax base, and a Fed that expects to make money for their owners.
No. By my logic, the aggregate tax level is simply a policy like any other. You're the one who would like taxes to be at this or that level irrespective of the consequences.
You're using several special-purpose definitions of "inflation" which are not compatible.
It's obvious to anyone with an eye on the numbers that the value of the dollar is not a function of the money supply.
I notice you've ignored my analogy with interest rates. Let me ask you more directly then: how is inflation a tax while low interest rates isn't one?
Clearly there are winners as well as losers when inflation increases or diminishes, as with changes in interest rates.
Furthermore, if debt and inflation are both taxes as you argued above, then inflation would reduce and increase taxes at the same time as inflation reduces debt.
What are you on to with "their owners"?
I said nothing about tax rates not having consequences; I'm just asking why bother taxing if the Gov't has other avenues to raise money?
The definition of monetary inflation is "growth of the money supply", which is the inflation I'm talking about. Some use the term for price increases or other meanings, including pneumatics, but those are not the same thing as monetary inflation.
I'm no economist (thankfully), but......changes in the value of the dollar is not the same as inflation, and monetary inflation does affect the value. The value of the money supply is absolutely a function of the size of the money supply.
Low interest rates stimulate borrowing, which can increase the money supply if borrowing actually occurs. The rate alone does nothing, but actions it may or may not provoke can. Today rates are low but the money supply is decreasing, as the risk of previously incurred debt depresses further lending and the stress of further debt payments discourages further borrowing. You can have negative interest rates and deflation, too.
Inflation makes winners of those in debt; deflation makes winners of those with cash or who own debt. Inflation promotes moral hazard in the individual, and exemplifies moral hazard on the part of the nation. Deflation tends to punish debtors and debt holders alike, via default. In my simplistic view, deflation is morally superior and socially more painful than inflation.
Public debt results in an actual tax on the taxpaper to permit repayment (absent a forever-growth and inflation model, which is nonsensical); individual debt similarly incurs debt payments by the individual. Inflation reduces the value of all debt at the expense of all dollar equity - it is slow motion default on the debt, and effectively a "tax" on the value.
The Fed is privately owned. The taxpayer pays the Fed the going bond interest on all Treasuries purchased by the Fed, and some rate like 6%, IIRC (not sure on the arrangement), on all monies owed. The income goes to the owners of the Fed.
Again, I'm no economist but I'm pretty sure my statements above are accurate and properly termed. Someone more knowledgeable than I can certain chime in.
You have evidently bought into what some have called conspiracy theories regarding the Federal Reserve. These notions are spread by reactionary chauvinists, neo-stalinists and the like. Look it up.
Unless the US government lies about its own institutional setup and not only about foreign WMDs, the Fed does what it's told and only keeps enough money to pay (generous though not scandalous I assume) wages to its staff and similar expenses.
It follows that public debt need not be paid back, ever. The "forever-growth and inflation model" is the model that actual economic policies are premised upon by the way.
You keep playing games with definitions of "inflation". Either it's value-related or it's monetary and it doesn't affect the value of debts. But you want to have it both ways and you end up with inscrutable statements such as "the value of the money supply is absolutely a function of the size of the money supply".
You still have not explained how a change which benefits some parties at the expense of others and which does not result in any government income is in any way a tax.
I find it curious that you believe that interest rates do nothing because they influence the value of debts (including bank accounts and such) as much as inflation does. Yet you only call inflation a "tax". It's especially weird because government has more control on interest rates than on inflation.
Regarding the point of taxes:
The aggregate tax level is used to influence overall economic activity. Reduce taxes too much and you get too much growth (and vice-versa).
Individual taxes have specific uses such as encouraging investment in renewable electricity generation.
Subordinate public institutions such as municipalities also use taxes to finance their expenses.
Uh, no. The Fed is NOT a public institution, nor is it non profit, and your assumptions are incorrect.
Look up the definition of "monetary inflation". I've been consistent in every use.
In the term "tax" I've been lax. When "quoted" I meant "tax" as a drag upon the value, in the view of the holder of the money, not necessarily the gov't. When you reduce the value of money by inflation, though, the value does flow to the gov't, so that does seem to be a real tax, though.
What the Fed says they are:
A more thorough description:
Edit: Note that all this still doesn't say who the primary owners of the banks that own the Fed are -- which is a big area for conspiracy theorists. Nor does it say how much money each bank makes from the Fed. Nominally, the interest on bonds, notes, and loans isn't a huge amount. What they've made off derivative lending from the holdings, though, is less obvious. Nor is the impact of 6% income over almost 100 years necessarily small...or necessarily huge.
For reference, Paleocon's "more thorough description" is a jumble of omissions and distortions that he presumably got from a conspiranoid website.
Discussing with someone who deliberately uses such sources and takes them at face value is pointless.
Perhaps you can provide a more thorough treatment?
All of the basics are available from the Fed itself -- including the collection of dividends, interest rates paid, the return of additional profits to the Treasury, and the ownership structure, which is all private.
Every bank that is part of the reserve system has 3% (at least) of its equity in $100 fixed-price shares of a Fed bank, which collectively own the Fed.
Who owns those shares is the interesting part, and where the conspiracy theorists come in. The rest is simply obfuscated fact. Just do a Google -- it's not an unusual question and there are dozens of sites that present the facts as well as the musings and theories.
Like one of the Fed people joked, "we only act like we're public servants when on Capitol Hill."
Ron Paul has a book out about the unconstitutionality of the Fed, and how much trouble it has helped cause. He's not a conspiracy theorist either, just a Libertarian.
You have evidently bought into what some have called conspiracy theories regarding the Federal Reserve. These notions are spread by reactionary chauvinists, neo-stalinists and the like.
Really? Some mighty loaded words you've used there.
Look it up.
How about instead of using loaded words like:
conspiracy theories
reactionary chauvinists
neo-stalinists
You instead point out what is 'wrong' with the statements?
If you are reacting to
I'll issue you a put up or shut up and show how the Fed is 'not privately owned'.
Odds are you'll just slink away VS backing up your claim.
I'm not about to get into silly aggression/dominance type of arguments. As it turns out, Paleocon proved me right. He posted disingenuous theories about shadowy financial elites or some such and referred to Ron Paul who is not only a kook but also plainly a reactionary chauvinist.
Google this stuff and you'll find 9/11 theories, NWO fantasies, weather modification and so on.
What's wrong with these statements is that they're misleading... at best. Excuse me for being direct but you'd have noticed if you had a clue.
For instance: Paleocon's sources has the classic "borrowing short and lending long" banking maneuver as a risk-less privilege while it's obviously neither. What the source says also happens to be incorrect but you can understand what it's getting at. Evidently, it's confusing the funds rate with the discount rate. Either it's being dishonest or it also missed the fact that banks normally don't use the discount window even though it's supposed to be such a privilege. See all the hoopla about the its use last year in relation to bank failures. Eligibility for the access to this facility is also misrepresented by Paleocon's source.
The Fed's ownership is notional. It's nothing like a regular bank though its formally mimics one. It's an organization created and controlled by the government. It's run by people appointed by the President and the Senate, much like the NLRB. As you surely know, there's a revolving door between government (the Cabinet, the Fed and so on) and high finance anyway.
Other countries have similar central banks and there's little that's peculiar or mysterious about the US version unless you believe "the truth is out there".
Populists whined about the gold standard back in the day and now that they've got what they wanted they whine about the Fed...
I'm not about to get into silly aggression/dominance type of arguments.
So you can't prove your postion. As much as I suspected would happen.
Paleocon proved me right
In what world, beyond the one in you head?
It's an organization created and controlled by the government.
Then there has to be Office of Management and Budget numbers on their documents. Per the paperwork reduction act.
So show them. Show how they are 100% compliant.
Thanks, Eric. You've got more patience than I. I haven't read every work of the MANY references on the web about the operation of the web and what the member banks really do versus what they're supposed to do versus what they could readily do but don't. And the control is not necessarily the same as ownership (and to me the inbreeding of the financial control circles in our nation are scary indeed!), but ownership was the key point.
The fact that they do not respond to freedom of information act requests nor to Congressional inquiries tells exactly how independent they believe themselves to be, and precisely why Congress should pin their ears back. And the little Lehman trick where the Fed got paid back just before they were shut down (leaving supposedly senior holders in the lurch while the Fed as a subordinate holder stayed whole) is a good story too.
As for Ron Paul, he may have a high wing-nut factor but like Perot he can pull together stats and information, and support his arguments with facts. Which is why he loses to those who sell lies with charisma and emotion.
Forget the techno fix ..
Start Farming/food growing without fossil fuels and see how far you get.
At least try Human/solar farming .. solar water pumping etc. where/if needed.
When you get excesses then decide what to do with them.
The talk of the enormous cost of the proposed changes ignores, as is usual in these discussions, the enormous amount we already spend on infrastructure.
We're not talking about building wind turbines and railway lines and so on as well as coal-fired stations and roads and so on, but instead of them. So the cost is of substitution rather than addition. Thus we have to consider how much more wind turbines etc cost than their fossil fuel and deforestation conventional alternatives.
And the answer turns out to be "not much more or even less."
"What about replacing all the light bulbs?"
"If you have an incandescent light bulb, you're already replacing it every year or so."
"What about railways?"
"If we spend more on railways, we can spend less on roads. We already spend billions maintaining them."
"What about wind turbines?"
"If we build wind turbines, then when it comes time to shut down that ageing coal-fired plant, we don't have to spend money on another one, or on digging coal to fuel it."
(etc)
Some people like to imagine that the enormous fossil fuel dependant infrastructure we have today was built for free. It wasn't. Fossil fuel infrastructure cost us a fortune. So when people say that a renewable infrastructure would cost us a fortune, I don't tremble.
The question is not "how will we find the money?" We already spend vast sums on lots of stuff. The only question is whether we'll spend the money on a desperate attempt to keep on truckin', or on a better world.
Very good points.
It's like asking people how fast that Flatscreen or Motorboat, or even the new Asphalt Roof is going to get 'Payback' .. they only seem to remember the idea of payback when renewables are mentioned. (As they are some of the only things that actually do, I suppose..)
Unfortunately we have a problem with the solutions the whole popular sustainability culture has signed onto. Virtually everyone, activists, government, scientists & educators, plus business and finance, all agree on the same solution, radical efficiencies and productivity increases... That solution actually radically stimulates growth, and multiplies the real physical problem rather than reducing it.
Clearly the only reason our CO2 matters a whit, for example, is that in the last 200 years we multiplied the scale of our economies by a factor of about 1000 and plan to do that every 200 years in the future... That kookie concept of the physical world and its potentials, is what got us into this fix, and is made much worse by people using growth stimulus to solve growth impacts.
Throughout economic history improving efficiencies and productivity, "doing more with less", has stimulated growth and the whole system "doing more". Each part needed less to do it with, yes, but that lets the whole system do more. The tragedy is that the prior generations focused on the "doing more" part, and the current generation focuses on the "with less" part. We're using same old popular solution for stimulating growth, hoping it will now have the opposite effect.
Look at the curves of global economic productivity of energy use compared to total energy use. Efficiency is growing much faster and evidently not causing energy use to level off or decline, as all our sustainability strategies rely on for all the impacts we propose to eliminate by... stimulating the econoy. I have more notes on the problem at:
http://www.synapse9.com/issues/EfficiencyMistake.htm
http://www.synapse9.com/drafts/NaturalEcons.pdf
http://www.synapse9.com/pub/ProfitingInScarcity.pdf
A commendable effort. I resonated and agree with the call to pronounce World emergency status as was done in WW2.
However, like similar reports and books, they fail to acknowledge corruption, it's hindrance to effective reform and change, and how to deal with it. The world is riddled with corruption that distorts economic, social and environmental realities. Corruption is usually the worst in nation states that need reform the most-especially failed nation states.
I have mentioned before that I live in Thailand. It has been a great learning experience living in a 'developing country'. Fifteen years ago, Thailand was the number 1 'Asian Tiger'. Since Thaksin Shinawatra became Prime Minister early this decade, the country has fallen into economic, social and environmental chaos. Why? Because by buying people Thaksin and his cronies have been able to divide and conquer and systematically plunder their own country. As a result, the former Asian Tiger is now a pussycat and the only South Eastern Asian country that is worse off is Myanmar!!!
Talking about alternative energy here with most of the locals is like asking a six month old baby to drive you to the store. You will get the same dumbfounded look. Thais (and most Asian people) have a very simplistic idea of the world, and are easily threatened by thinking 'outside the box'. They are provincial people. When you ask them what country they are from they will say a province in Thailand, not Thailand. For example, Global Warming translates in idea and understanding to 'warm world' and that is it, no more discussion, just a unknowing smile. No questioning. No wonder I can't get my neighbor to stop burning her waste! I keep trying to justify the blissful ignorance to Buddhism. But that is not the case. Buddhism here has been corrupted by the current economic paradigm. It is only used now to allay superstitious fears-and the education system here sucks.
So, fellow oildrum blogosphers, until someone can come up with a way of convincing the majority of the world's have nots-especially those with their own private Idaho petty kingdoms (business people, bureaucrats and politicians), then there is no way of pulling up the runaway greed train that dismembers everything in it's way. The only way to convince people is to totally restructure the world economic system. By the way that people are still mesmerized by ethereal numbers running up and down digital boards, and economic progress indicators remain the same, I can't see that happening. Guess that puts me in the doomer camp today.
You might get cheered up a touch by watching Michael Moore's new movie, "Capitalism: A Love Story." (As you might guess, the title is ironic.)
Basically he is saying the same thing for much the same reason.
Thanks for your special perspective.