 | BP's Deepwater Oil Spill - Hitting the Well Annulus - and Open Thread | The Oil Drum | Drumbeat: July 9, 2010 |  |
Revisiting the 'Fake Fire Brigade' - Part 1 - General Issues
Posted by nate hagens on July 8, 2010 - 10:55am
This is a follow up post to 'The Fake Fire Brigade - How We Cheat Ourselves about Our Energy Future', which gave an overview on how difficult it will be to maintain our current energy systems with renewable energy. The main authors are Hannes Kunz, President of Institute for Integrated Economic Research (IIER) and Stephen Balogh, a PhD student at SUNY-ESF and Senior Research Associate at IIER. IIER is a non-profit organization that integrates research from three different areas: the financial/economic system, energy and natural resources, and human behavior. Their objective is to aid policymakers in developing strategies that result in more benign trajectories after global growth ends. The authors wrote over a 10,000 word follow-up to the questions raised in the original posting and we've broken into 4 pieces for readability - the first installment is below the fold.
(The original post and other related content can be found on the IIER website).
Revisiting the Fake Fire Brigade - Part 1
Introduction
This post follows up on the "Fake Fire Brigades", which sparked a large amount of scrutiny, but also received much positive feedback. We're grateful for both. One of the allegations made to our overview was that our claims were "unsubstantiated": we are afraid they are not, but in retrospect the post may have been misleading. When we wrote it we had a choice between two imperfect options:
- make our general case concerning the fact that we cannot expect energy systems to deliver what we're used to in the future with the technology we have available, irrespective of effort;
- analyze one of the “firemen” we consider "fake", and support our conclusions with all the necessary data, then continue with the next one, and so on.
We opted for #1 because the problem we face is a general one, with wide boundaries of analysis. When trying to understand an integrated system, we can’t just look at the parts but instead have to analyze it in its entirety. This is because we might easily find a solution for each individual problem, but may still fail on an aggregate level. This is why we decided to make this general statement about “fake fire brigades”. However, given the abundance of aspects and ideas involved in today’s energy debate, and the limited size of an individual TOD essay, we could only do this and provide a few examples, which made some of our statements rather generic.
This dilemma has gotten us into a position of being called out as propagandists, wanting to prove things that are irrelevant, or simply not doing our math properly. We can safely claim that the only propaganda we are trying to make is for one thing: that human societies should undergo extensive integrated analysis on alternative energy before we lull ourselves with the expectation that our energy future will somehow be at the same or higher level of today’s.
We offered a follow-up post with more detail, and here it is. It contains four elements:
- a few key aspects we consider relevant when understanding energy and its contribution to society
- an analysis of the potential of biomass as a future energy supply
- a close review of electricity delivery systems
- a Q&A section trying to address the concerns voiced after our original post.
What is the claim we actually make?
Some people walked away from our post thinking that we are against renewables, against nuclear, or against any energy solution. That is not the case. After considerable analysis and effort, we are now simply against the predominant idea that we can more or less continue our fossil-fuel driven lifestyle by slowly replacing oil, coal and gas with other sources and technologies, just by managing them well – maybe coupled with some efficiency gains.
We instead claim that our current expectations for energy delivery systems cannot be maintained, as soon as we HAVE TO use flow-based renewable sources (i.e. almost everything nature provides besides dammed hydropower, biomass and maybe some geothermal power) at a rate of more than 20 or 30% of total consumption. The proposed future of energy delivery has three weak points: technical feasibility, cost, and the ability of us humans to act.
A brief sidestep: What about population growth?
Our post also provided some reason for commenters to caution readers about overpopulation. We agree that we likely face a threat from more and more humans on this planet, particularly for our ecosystems. However, our topic is not really related to population, but rather to standard of living. The problems we describe in our post are confined to advanced economies, the countries with the highest population growth today don’t even have access to the stable and reliable energy services we are used to. And in most OECD countries, policy-makers today are more concerned about shrinking and aging populations. Ultimately, even if advanced economies – for whatever reasons – have to make do with 30 or 50% of today’s energy, this will still be enough to feed everybody, provide shelter, heat and other basic services.
About double-counting
One of the key challenges we see when looking at a systemic view, is that when thinking about future solutions, we engage in double-counting in two ways. First, most tend to ignore the problem that many renewable technologies are still heavily dependent on the application of relatively cheap fossil fuels when it comes to raw material extraction, manufacturing, transportation, installation and maintenance. Those inputs mostly come at relatively low cost. So if these alternative energy technologies (even nuclear plants) will have to be built with renewable sources of power in the future, or with higher priced fossil fuels, this would make these relatively expensive technologies even more expensive. Not taking this into account and banking on past experience about new things always becoming cheaper and cheaper might be a serious mistake.
Second, on societal level, we have a tendency to double-count the few available flexible solutions as problem-solvers for every input that does not deliver its outputs according to our energy demand. In almost every projection of future electricity systems, biomass and hydropower come up as general “fixes”, mostly ignoring the fact that someone else has already claimed the exact same resources for other purposes. That way, each individual system looks theoretically feasible, but when looking at the aggregate, things begin to fall apart, simply because those cure-alls are already spoken for elsewhere in the system, and therefore don’t scale as we would wish them to.
Before going back to that subject, we would like to talk a little bit about the cost of energy.
The cost of energy
We want to introduce the aspect of energy pricing, which wasn’t done in our original post. People who commute by car understand that the cost of gasoline has a significant impact on their discretionary income. Someone with a take-home pay of $2’000 per month and a round trip commute of 50 miles each day will have to spend $100 or 5% of his or her income for gasoline bought at a price of $2 per gallon and used in a car that gets 20mpg. If gas prices go up to 4 dollars, suddenly 10% of that person’s budget has to be spent on transportation fuels, and at $6 (the norm in Europe) it becomes $300 (or 15%). What this does is reduce discretionary income that could be spent on other things. The cost of commuting reduces discretional spending and is the equivalent of up to three days’ worth of work (Table 1).
Table 1: discretionary income reductions from changing gas prices
Unfortunately, the methods to mitigate this growing cost incur costs of their own, for example by giving up the job (decreased income), buying a more fuel-efficient car (increased car payments), finding a house or a job involving a shorter commute (cost of moving/changing jobs), or taking public transportation/biking to work (increased time of commute).
What is relevant for individuals is also true for societies in aggregate. The higher the share of our effort that goes into retrieving the energy that keeps our world going, the smaller the share that is available for investment and consumption. Ultimately, this leads to a reduced standard of living (Hall, et al. 2008). To explain that a little better, we might have to go back in history.
When man began, what he used were his bare hands, plus soon some tools, to recover what he needed from his surroundings. With more humans being around, better ways of exploring nature were required, which led to agriculture as a first development. Introducing draft animals further extended the capabilities of humans, as they were able to convert previously unused energy (for example cellulosic biomass from grasses) into the useful energy from a strong ox. Over time, man added energy provided from water and wind, both for mechanical work and for transportation. These transitions basically followed a single concept: it always made sense to implement a new method once it safely returned more useful energy units than what humans had to invest in the technology. For example, building a windmill would make sense if the effort to haul the materials, to erect the structure, to maintain it and to operate it was significantly less than the effort to accomplish the objective of milling manually or with a simple treadmill or one driven by an ox.
The above is nothing but an early example of describing EROI (Energy Return on Energy Investment). The more of our effort goes towards retrieving the energy we (want to) use, the smaller our benefits from that energy.
The theoretical concept works as follows, as most readers of The Oil Drum know: If a person works one hour and – from a draft animal, a wind mill, or a power plant – gets work worth 10 hours back, a net gain of 9 hours can be directed at other things. The bigger that ratio is, the more available time, and the higher the standard of living becomes. In the example above, a farmer working one hour with an ox plowing the fields can do the equivalent of 5-7 hours of a human working alone. Therefore, the farmer can increase his productivity, or have that much more free time. Early grain farms, based primarily on human labor, required about 373 man hours per 100 bushels of wheat and 344 man-hours per 100 bushels of corn. By 1900, with draft animals and steel plows now an integral part of farming, the man-hours were reduced by more than half for corn, and nearly 70% for wheat, even though during that period yields remained steady. After WWII when mechanical tractors and synthetic fertilizers became prevalent, agriculture efficiency rose dramatically, with man-hours per 100 bushels reduced to 18 in 1955 for wheat, and to 22 for corn (Rasmussen 1962). In the same way a farmer employs an ox, modern humans employ cheap energetic sources of labor.
Let’s now spend some time understanding what this means today. A strong healthy human can deliver about 1 kWh of energy per day (on average it probably is closer to 600 W). Given a median household income of $52’029 in the US in 2008 (http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/acsbr08-2.pdf), the average price for one kWh of human labor is $260. Compared to that, the same amount of energy in oil at $20/barrel (the long-term inflation-corrected average) cost us 1.2 cents (today, at $75, it is 4.4 cents/kWh), and an equal amount energy from coal comes at 0.7 cents. The table below shows how different the price of energy is for many sources.
Table 2: cost per kWh, cost related the U.S. if not otherwise stated
The challenge is that we have built our Western lifestyles based on the lowest-cost items in the table, and even until very recently have continued to do so by moving almost all mass-production of key industrial goods to low-cost countries (for either lower energy or labor cost, or both).
Aluminum is one good example. Electricity is the single biggest cost parameter in its production. I.e. it matters greatly whether a smelter has to pay 3 cents, 5 cents or 10 cents per kWh, as it may decide between making a profit and incurring a loss (Figure 1).
Fig 1: relevance of electricity for aluminum production (Source: Energy Trader 02/09)
So, as energy inputs into all our activities have become more and more expensive, we simply have either reduced their use, or have moved their manufacturing to places where people care less about the side effects of cheap energy from coal (like China), or where they are lucky to have abundant low-cost hydropower (like Norway). Both countries have – for exactly that reason – become key places for aluminum production – even though they are quite far away from where most of the bauxite gets mined.
The biggest challenge is that when building our modern systems we never traded like for like. Transition to lower-cost energy usually came at the price of higher overall energy consumption for the same task, for it involves machinery, and buildings, and other infrastructure. And when we began to outsource to far-away countries, there were extra transaction and transportation costs involved, which further increased the energy used. But since it was cheaper, it did not seem to matter.
Fig 2: energy use for driving (1 passenger) and walking (Source: IIER)
For example, when we use a car driving one person around, total energy expended is 400-500 times higher when compared to walking, and that doesn’t even include the infrastructure required beyond the car itself, such as roads. If this system, which until recently operated at a ratio of 4730:1 ($2 gasoline), gets pushed towards 1586:1 ($6 gasoline), it becomes clear that benefits of driving a car are greatly reduced.
So when we designed the world we live in, we did it with energy cost of below 5 cents per kWh in mind. If that price goes to 10 or 15 cents, that might look like a small change, but in fact it cuts our benefits from the applied energy to half or a third of what they were in the beginning. This is like our landlord doubling or tripling the rent over a short period of time, or the interest rates of our mortgage doubling or tripling. In that case, we would have to move to a smaller place.
Fig 3: commercial application tolerance levels for energy prices (IIER calculations)
Figure 3 shows at what price levels certain energy sources become problematic for the key delivery systems they support. The green “comfort zone” is the range where our system runs without much trouble, where we can build and maintain our infrastructure, and keep our current lifestyle. The orange “risk zone” is where first applications start to get into trouble and get squeezed out, typically leading to recessions and significant shifts. The red “danger zone” is when it truly becomes problematic, as almost everything becomes unaffordable very quickly, particularly if all energy sources go up in price at the same time (like it happened in 2007 and 2008, in contrary to the 1973 energy crisis, where the price spike was limited to oil).
Important: The price ranges in Figure 3 don’t refer to private household use, but to the applications that produce whatever we need to live our lives, such as food (e.g. requiring natural gas for fertilizers), industrial goods (using coal and electricity from multiple sources), and transportation (mostly based on oil). The relatively significant differences shown in “acceptable” price levels are mostly related to the usability of individual sources, their energy quality and the ability to store and transport it. We will get to that in the next paragraph.
Other than by reducing our standards to a different, lower level, our current system cannot deal with energy prices in the order of 2, 3 or 5 times their long term averages when we built our societies. And energy efficiency brings, as many studies show, typically 20-30% total energy savings across the entire life cycle of a product. And for many industrial applications, this potential is already partly exhausted, particularly in areas with very high consumption. For example, nitrogen-based fertilizer production (from natural gas or hydrogen) using the Haber-Bosch process has a theoretical minimum energy input of 32 GJ to produce one ton of nitrogen, and most operations run at around 40 GJ per ton. Similar efficiencies are also common for steel, copper and aluminum production in Western societies.
The relevance of energy quality
Many people discuss energy economics referring to energy content and cost of primary inputs. In that view, a barrel of oil that costs $75 and has an energy content of 6.1 GJ, which translates to energy cost of $12.30 per GJ (or 4.4 cents per kWh in energy content).Coal , if we use a market price of $2.50 per MBTU, costs approximately $2.36 per GJ (or less than 0.9 cents per kWh). Natural gas that sells at a spot market price of $4 per tcbf (which on average contains about 1MMBTU), comes at a price per GJ of $3.79 (or 1.4 cents per kWh). Please note that the kWh is used for the raw energy, before being converted to anything else.
Unfortunately, this is only half of the truth, because what counts for us humans is not the pure energy content, but instead, the portion of the energy that can be converted to its intended use. A simple example* might illustrate that. Let’s consider our options for cooking food. Using charcoal or coal is a low-tech, but feasible solution. Coal and charcoal is easily transported and stored, but in an open fire only a small portion of the heat reaches the meat. The rest escapes as heat. Thus, maybe 2% or 5% of the BTUs we have paid for support the purpose of cooking our food. It is possible to improve that conversion efficiency by building a coal stove, but even the most efficient one will convert perhaps 10 or 15% of the heat from the burning coal; the rest simply heats up the stove and its surroundings, which is welcome in winter, but maybe not so much in summer. On top of that, the stove itself contains energy used during the extraction of raw materials, its manufacturing and its maintenance. If we assume an overall efficiency of 10% for this application, a kWh of “useful energy” now costs 8 cents.
If we instead choose to use a gas stove, heat can be much better regulated and directed to the surface of our pan or pot, which significantly increases the overall efficiency to maybe around 25%. Higher overall efficiency rates are unlikely due to the fact that we need quite some infrastructure to get the gas to its place of application, either in the form of pipes or an appropriate container. But still, the cost per applied kWh is 8 cents, so the finally usable energy unit has the same price as from coal. An oil stove might even give us a 30% overall conversion efficiency, as the heat can also be applied directly, but because oil is so much easier to store and transport than gas. However, given its high initial price, one applied kWh would cost us 14.7 cents (nearly twice that of natural gas).
*Please note that this is a theoretical example not aimed at being precise, but at illustrating the concept of delivering useful energy.
So in this context, it greatly matters what kind of energy we produce and when. If our output is 1 energy unit (measured in Joules, kWh, BTUs, etc.) worth of highly versatile crude oil, it has a very different value than 1 BTU in a pile of coal which can only be used for certain things in order to become valuable. And even within one system, things are not the same. 1 kWh of electricity from natural gas at a price of 8 cents that can be produced at our leisure is something very different from the same amount, equally produced for 8 cents, by a wind turbine, which gets delivered to us erratically, just when the wind blows. We will get back to this problem in part 2 and 3.
Summary - part 1
What we've tried to describe above are a few general concepts that tend to get overlooked while analyzing individual technologies. Typically the standard approach used to evaluate and compare energy technologies is EROI, life cycle analysis, or energy payback periods. However, usability and cost – important post-farm gate or post-mine mouth factors – play a decisive role.
Second, equally important, an industrial society is simply not able to provide the same benefits as today once energy inputs into key supplies pass a certain price threshold. Modern societies have been able to steer clear of that reality over the past decades by outsourcing to places where energy is still cheaper, but that potential is now nearly exhausted.
Third of the big mistakes we make when looking at energy cost is that we always talk about small numbers, like "a few cents" without realizing the implications of scale. If the key contributors to our societies suddenly cost 5-10 cents instead of 1-2 cents per kWh, which is (in the best case) where we are headed, this means that our benefits from applying energy to our lives get reduced to one-fifth of what we are used to. That will be a very different lifestyle and one that warrants considerable study.
Our next follow-up post will deal with the potential of biomass as a source for future energy systems.
Revisting the Fake Fire Brigade Part 2: Biomass - A Panacea
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.
Thank you for this!
Two thoughts:
a) Please, can somebody calculate the huge energy waste of war? For just one example, I recently heard that a state of the art US military tank gets 2 gals to the mile! (No, that's not 2 miles to the gal, but the reverse!) I would love to see an analysis of the type in this post that shows how wasteful war is! It runs on fossil fuels - and is stealing our resources, in my view.
b) Just to reinforce your explanation of how things like aluminum are manufactured: A few years back on a trip up the far north side of the St. Lawrence River, we reached a town where there is an off-shore island, upon which sits an aluminum plant. The raw material is literally shipped by sea from Brazil to this tiny Quebec town. Why? Abundant hydro-electric power. But consider the cost of that trip from Brazil! If the cost of fuel goes up or the maintenance of these ships, well... no matter how cheap that hydro-electric power is... (And I must say, the smell of that place was almost unbearable - in spite of the island being offshore. It's electric glow at night was an eerie, hellish sight!)
If a war is necessary or expedient, then the energy used is not a waste. You don't win wars with excessive economy. Note that in World War II the Axis Powers (Germany, Japan, Italy) were energy limited, whereas the U.S. and Russia had plenty of oil. The abundance of oil, and the huge expenditure of it by the Allies were major factors in winning the war.
Germany scrimped so much on gasoline consumption that they did not give their fighter pilots enough hours of instruction. Then they put them into itty bitty little planes such as the ME-109. By way of contrast, Allied pilots were (by and large) adequately trained, and they tended to fly planes with huge thirsty engines such as the P-47, the P-51, or the F4U Corsair. The Japanese were masters of economizing on fuel; the famous Zero may have been the best and most maneuverable fighter at the beginning of World War Two, but it had a miniscule engine that enabled six hours of cruising flight. What the Japanese sacrificed was armor to protect pilots, because for them the supply of pilots and planes was relatively abundant compared to the relative scarcity of oil.
In my opinion, the question of whether a war is wasteful depends on the purposes and outcome of the war. Thus the Second World War and the Korean War and the first Gulf War were not wasteful. American participation in the war in Vietnam was a pointless disaster, and hence all the energy in that war was worse than wasted, because it inflicted massive casualties with no positive result except to show the limitations of American military power.
The outcomes of the wars the U.S. are now participating in are unknown and unknowable at this time, and thus I think it is wrong to declare that energy used in these wars is a waste. We simply do not have that knowledge yet. How wasteful would it have been to leave Saddam Hussein in place? Who knows? Or how wasteful would it have been to leave Afghanistan as a training ground for Al Quaida? I suspect that the costs of that choice would have been quite large in terms of energizing militant Islam.
I would argue we are a trillion dollars in the hole between the two wars and with precious little to show for them. A lot of evidence suggests we are making militant Islam into an even worse problem by fostering resentment. My feeling is that it is difficult to see these wars as anything but pure waste for the simple reason that we are unable to even clearly define objectives that would constitute victory. Perhaps if the U.S. had gone aggressively after OBL in the first place, back when he was hiding out in Tora Bora, a stronger case could be made that there is some actual "return on investment." Certainly the cost in lives between the two wars is incalculable and should be seen as an externality of oil consumption, at least in the case of Iraq. In any case, here is, at the very least, a trillion dollars that could have been spent making meaningful investments in the future, with far less ambiguity in terms of what would constitute "success" versus simply waste in accomplishing their objectives.
I would argue we don't even have any objectives (it's been a very long time since I've heard anyone clearly articulate a reason we are even there at all, especially anymore), but then maybe this is the wrong discussion board for that debate!
I agree with WastedEnergy, and furthermore, let me add that the Iraq invasion could be construed as the USA securing a future supply of oil.
please lets keep comments in this thread on topic of the keypost..
Your request sort of doesn't make sense the context of your article. If we are to avoid cheating ourselves about energy in the future, we must look at how energy is used by the military in fighting wars. The US Military is the largest energy consumer on the planet! Not looking at this is just yet one more form of denial.
Bless you, Casey. You get it! (It's spending oil to chase oil, destroying in the process all the results of prior energy use!) For me, this IS an energy issue.
TheraP,
Your original comment was highly relevant. If the question is whether or not renewables can fill the gap left by the decline of fossil fuels, then the question of how much energy is nonessential use is as relevant as can be.
I do not understand the reasoning behind Nate's remarks--especially those in which he seems to be trying to quash Alan from Big Easy--whose comments are highly relevant to the general topic under discussion.
It makes perfectly good sense to spend oil to chase oil. Hitler damn near won World War II until he was stopped at Stalingrad and El Alemein from getting to the rich oil fields of the Middle East. He gambled, and he lost, but it was a damn close issue; the gamble was rational from his point of view, and had the Germans been able to supply Rommel with enough diesel oil and enough ammunition and some tank parts, Rommel probably would have captured Suez and romped through to Iraq, Iran, Saudi, Baku and other rich sources of oil. (The story of why he lost is fascinating but off topic.)
Selectively deleting well reasoned comments based on up to date science will not change physical realities;and it will not help the readership to form realistic expectations of what the future holds.
If we are blind to our own natures, and censor comments accurately describing them , we are no better intellectually than the religious folks many here are so quick to condemn,and as blind as the folks who can see only one side of any question-such as the one being debated today.
Furthermore it is hypocritical and smells of leftish/liberal dogma to leave pious how "wasteful war comments" in place under such circumstances.
The oil drum just dropped in my estimation about one whole order of magnitude in its stature as a place where the reader can expect to find the issues discussed in terms or reality rather than rosy thinking.
That said, I realize that the people who run the site are hardworking capable individuals and that it is thier baby to do with as they please.
But if the typical reader wants to know why there is such an intellectual chasm between the red and the blue in this country, he can take this comment to bed with him or her tonight and think it over.
Moderation here on TOD has been rather obvious of late. More of that 'personal' touch?
My reply to OldGeezer didn't make the grade.
I think it is time for me to leave TOD for a lonnnnnggggg time.
To hell with it and kiss my gherkins.
Yeah, I took note of your character, when you insisted that I get lost because I dont' agree with you, and that disagreeing with you is a definitely a matter of being an inferior human being. No surprise your comments got deleted.
Come on, Mac.
This is a Keypost with a specific theme. This discussion would be fine in a Drumbeat, but it's gotten far out of hand for the issues in the Posted Topic.
We have to allow some discipline or every discussion will spiral into cacophany. Both self-discipline and moderation by the hosts of the site.
Ok, so argue it. Convince me that Saddam should have been left in place. That the taliban ruling afghanistan is a good thing. That the Mullahs running Iran should be left in place and should continue their immensely dangerous and violent course.
I happen to have a much different view of life and liberty. The problem is, historically, we've failed to commit anywhere near ENOUGH to the cause of liberty world-wide and now this is the price we must pay to restore some sanity to our world.
At risk of drawing attention from the main topic here, I will say I think these wars had a lot less to do with the cause of advancing freedom and a lot more to do with...I dunno, this?
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
Patriotism and "freedom" in the abstract are poor excuses for losing sight of reality when the grounds for going to war suddenly shift (anyone remember Yellowcake uranium? when was the last time we heard a politician talk about Osama at all? etc.) and when greedy businessmen and politicians appeal to patriotic feelings merely to advance their own personal and political agendas. And so far, it has not worked out well, so let's hope we don't continue the strategy in Iran. I hate to say it but the inflammatory rhetoric you use here, even going as far as to demand other commenters stay away from you and your kids and that their ideas are "dangerous." Where have I have heard this kind of talk before?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9_bP219ehQ&feature=pyv&ad=5593809645&kw=...
Indeed, having the audacity to question authority is in fact quite dangerous, just not in the way you seem to think.
http://www.warprayer.org/
Oh, look, a boogeyman! A website of some irrelevant think tank! I'm underwhelmed. I have no knowledge of them or about them, but then, why would it matter? I'm sure there's plenty of people and think tanks that agree with some things I think and plenty that don't. Note, I don't post links to think tanks and claim they're the cause of all the evil in the world. Such boogeyman building is juvenile.
Please quote the "stay away from my children", oh, wait, I didn't say that. You can't. You just made it up, in order to get slightly more effective rhetoric. And, while you'er at it, stop listening to liar politicians. Just too bad you choose to disbelieve facts and to believe things that aren't. Do a little more research on Saddam's "yellowcake" issue. You'll eventually find that most intelligence agencies still believe that story is true. Just denied by various political types for political reasons. You mean they lied? Yeah. But it wasn't who YOU think lied. It's the people you believe who did, and continue to.
Just one tiny example of how you're way, way, WAY distant from being knowledgeable.
The Project for the New American Century is very well known, was essentially a collection of powerful men who were given high level positions in the GWB adminstration (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz etc.), and was hardly irrelevant. That you should be ignorant of them while accusing others of not being knowledgeable speaks volumes.
Yes, they are irrelevant. While they may or may not have carried much influence in the Bush administration, they carry none now.
It seems to me that they should definitely be allowed to advance whatever philosophy they espouse. But, in the overall scheme of things, they are... irrelevant. I don't get my cues from them, nor does anyone I know, read, or otherwise find interesting. So, they're irrelevant to me, as well.
Maybe sometime I'll take the time to read up and see what they're about. Till then, it's just another website among hundreds espousing an array of viewpoints and ideas. If their ideas are worthy and convincing, they will influence others to adopt them. If not, they'll be like lots of lib websites... Full of sound and fury, but no thought.
At any rate, you've missed the point of WastedEnergy's post, which is not the current relevance of the PNAC, but rather what motivated the invasion of Iraq. If you think that the people who happened to call themselves the PNAC were irrelevant to that decision you really haven't been paying attention.
Care to name off all those "many" peaceful democracies?
Surely, if it's 'many' there's got to be what, 20, 40, 60?
If we ignore our history, we a doomed to repeat the same dumbass mistakes again, and again, and again.
There is an implicit conceit here: that "we" have some right to judge who rules and can't in other countries, and have the right to wage war and murder other people en mass based on our conclusions. Saddam is a terrible dictator = "we" have the right to bomb the sh!t out of that country. Taliban horrible... we have the right to war, too bad for any "collateral damage". Now Iran...
How does one nation have the right to wage war against another preemptively?
The problem with this POV is this: if you believe that America must bear the weighty burden of stopping terrible dictators and other abuses of power in the world in the name of Life, Liberty and Freedom, why are these principles applied so selectively? What about the genocide in Darfur and many other human-rights disasters in Africa... we seem very unconcerned and Life, Liberty and Freedom there. I could go on and on. My point is the selective application of the principle of bringing Liberty and Freedom and saving countries' citizens by bombing them belies a different agenda. It raises my suspicion that American blood and treasure isn't being spilled for such noble goals. I'm a little more cynical, and believe such wars are waged to preserve power and influence of moneyed interests. All that Liberty and Freedom is the stuff of pure propaganda to help grease the wheels of the what Eisenhower called the Military-Industrial-Complex. Propaganda to make it acceptable for children and countless millions of American families suffer for lack of public health care, for example, so the U.S. Government can spend $664 BILLION on the DoD this year. People cannot improve their own personal circumstances when driven into poverty or bankruptcy by medical expenses. A poor person is not free and has only the Liberty to choose which gutter is preferred to sleep in.
If you want to further the cause of Liberty and Freedom, I suggest taking a few hundred billion off the DoD budget and spending it on health care, education, infrastructure, etc., to help create better equality of opportunities for the people of America instead of funneling endless riches into the hands of the corrupt and the well-connected in Washington and on Wall St.
Thank you for your cogent comments. I totally agree with you. The U.S. wars are pretty much criminal in my eyes.
One reason I left the US was in fact to remove myself from the locus of everlasting wars and the fake rationale behind them. It was psychologically exhausting to hear/read etc. about this stuff when I lived there. The anti-war protests (which I agreed with) were ignored by the powerful (of course!). It was clear that those rich people in expensive suburbs just needed to continue to get their expensive lifestyles funded on a continuing basis....what better way than a war or two? Nevermind the lives and limbs lost as far as they are concerned....
I was interested to read Kondratieff`s theory (someone here on TOD pointed it out! That`s how useful TOD is!) connecting wars and economic decline. Just google Nicholai Kondratieff.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but YES I DO HAVE THE MORAL AUTHORITY TO JUDGE THE REGIMES OF OTHER COUNTRIES.
Sheesh. "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain INALIENABLE rights, that among those rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Universal truth. No matter who, where, color of skin, line of ancestry, etc. Truth, forever truth, and without exception.
If a regime fails to respect that, it is illegitemate, and there is no right to rule. NOBODY has any right to rule, period. That's why our society was founded on the premise that our government DID NOT RULE. It merely exercises extremely limited authorities, a few small enumerated ones in the Constitution, and then our states and localities are allowed those delegated to it by the people. But in this country THE PEOPLE RULE. Elites can go stuff themselves, there is no place for them. They are irrelevant, as the individual is to rule his life, and nobody else.
And yes, modern liberals do not believe any of this, but, they are clearly wrong, and we're now suffering the results of thier misguided adventures in tyranny of the powerful. Time to set it right, and undo every last vestige of their agenda for the last 8 decades. Only then can success return to the nation.
deleted.
Success like... uh, wait... 2010-80... 1930!
Got it.
I am an Australian (and a Brit) and I am am ashamed that both Australia and the UK have been involved in these nasty US enterprises in the Iraq and Afghanistan. Both invasions; and the military occupations that are ongoing, were perpetrated by the neo-con regime headed by seemingly shadowy US power brokers and implemented by Dick Cheney. Lets just ask a few simple, but tough questions:
1. How many countries has the US invaded in the last 40 years?
2. How many wars has the US been involved in in the last 40 years?
3. Which countries engage in the illegal practice of extraordinary rendition?
4. Which country has actually detonated nuclear weapons on another countries citizens?
5. How many countries have Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq invaded - ever?
6. Which country is surrounded by countries that are suffering military occupations by foreign powers dedicated to the removal of its government?
7. Which country has already had its government removed at least once at the behest of the US and UK?
There are many more questions one could ask, but the pattern is already clear. It is the US and its allies that have wrought untold harm and damage in the Middle East since oil was first discovered in Mesapotamia in the late 19th century. Irrespective of the current situation on the ground in all these countries it is clear that our involvement is malevolent, counter productive and motivated solely by the so called Carter doctrine. It follows that we should immediately, unilaterally and unconditionally remove our troops from the entire area. Maybe after a period the region can normalize according to its own culture and law.
Theoldgeezer - it is absolutely so typical that you should think that the US constitution should apply in other countries. I have no quarrel with the words, they are fine words and I believe in them too. But this is the core issue. The US constitution applies in the US and nowhere else. The US should respect other countries and the fact they are different from the US. You have no right to go around imposing democracy anywhere. That doesn't mean I think Saddam, the Taliban and Iran are better. I don't. They are/were odious regimes, but we have/had no right to impose our own ideas and anyway the invasions and occupations have been and continue to be immeasurably worse. What is more, the actual objective of securing ME and Caspian oil has not been achieved. In fact I am hard pressed to understand what objectives have been achieved other than the removal of Saddam, which in itself is pointless. As soon as the US is gone some other despot will rise up. As so often happens the initial objectives have been overtaken by events on the ground.
YOu said: Theoldgeezer - it is absolutely so typical that you should think that the US constitution should apply in other countries. I have no quarrel with the words, they are fine words and I believe in them too. But this is the core issue. The US constitution applies in the US and nowhere else. The US should respect other countries and the fact they are different from the US.
Sigh. Sometimes I lose hope that anyone is paying any attention to anything. They just ramble on blissfully unware of anything.
What I quoted was NOT our constitution, it was in the Declaration of Independence. Now freaking read it again, and understand how it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with American politics, and addresses instead, the universal truth of mankind.
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among those rights, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
This has nothing to do with any nation, race, ethnicity, nor any other distinction between people. The men who wrote these words were telling the most powerful nation on the earth at that time, that they were NOT A LEGITEMATE POWER. That man, by nature of existing, possesses certain rights, and no legimate power on earth will ever take them away. If you have even the faintest clue what it means to say "truths to be self evident", then you'd understand it has nothing to do with Washington DC, military force, or Republicans or Democrats nor any other institution or group of people. It is the definitive, ultimate truth about mankind.
EVERY PERSON, by virtue of being born, legitemately holds these and other rights, and if we do not defend them, then we're complicit with tyranny.
Fair enough. As I said, I am an Australian and do not know the details of your constitution. Your declaration of independence, fine document that it is, also is relevant only to the US. It's principles may apply elsewhere, but that is up to the people concerned and you have no right to "defend" it elsewhere. That is the distinction, not whether or not such rights are universal. Read the rest of my post.
Fine as your declaration of independence is, it has not exactly been observed by the US in its dealings with the rest of the world. Estimates of death in Iraq, directly attributable to the US led invasion and occupation are around 1m with a further 4m displaced. How has the US defended the fine principles from its declaration of independence for those people? Afghanistan is a dangerous and unhappy place and the reality is that like everybody else before and after Ghengis Khan the US will fail there too. So what exactly has been achieved in Iraq and Afghanistan?
I am still at loss to comprehend your comments, as it is simply unresponsive to anything I've said. My statement is one of unversality of human rights, and that successful foreign policy is one of advocacy of these things, perhaps of above all.
I am at a loss to comprehend how you can state that "universal human rights" means only..."Americans"?
The Declaration of Independence is not law of our land. It does define our rights, it holds no legal standing or position in our politics or law. It was, rather, a justification of the rebellion of the colonists against the rule of the King. It remains the ultimate statement about humanity - not American humanity, but humanity, period, and how and why rebellion against established power is justified morally. "We hold these truths to be self evident..." was not a statement of Jefferson and Washington and Adams proclaiming themselves to be an authority. In fact, it disclaims them being ANY authority whatsoever, and instead, establishes the universal rights of humanity AS the universal authority to seek, rebel against power, and to depose the rule of tyrants.
It is not hubris, nor personal opinion, nor the authority of my own logic, nor that of Jefferson, nor any other signer of the DOC, but simply a statement that says that there is a universal truth, one that stands, needing neither defense nor explanation, nor authoritative citation, that man posesses these rights, no matter where he is, what he looks like, whatever the circumstances of his birth.
How you could construe that to be irrelevant to anyone but Americans, I have no idea, other than some kind of arrogant disbelief in human rights.
So, the Iraqi People could use the Declaration of Independence to throw the US out of their country. Only a different list of crimes.
Gee, you could try. I mean, sheesh, we took away the laws they wrote for themselves and forced them to live under our religion and our laws and forbid them to govern themselves, nor find for themselves any kind of workable self governance.
Oh, wait, the opposite is true. Huh. I guess you're just full of bovine exhaust.
Iraq workable? The minute we leave the edifice we installed will fall on its face. It's a Potemkin village. An illusion of democracy by people we have backed in order to give access to that country by corporate interests. But we won't really leave will we? Not after building the largest and most fortified embassy in the world. What was the justification for going there, oh yeah, weapons of mass destruction. What happened to them? Ever hear of "curveball"? At least were getting a little more sophisticated in our methods rather than installing a Shah. Where was that?
So why don't we invade Saudi Arabia and install democracy there? It's one the most repressive countries on earth.
Tyrants of all colors have used a myriad of justifications for imposing their will - god's will, defense, and now, universal rights. Ever read Orwell? As any good conservative, I'm sure you did, it was must reading for all anti-communists. But its lessons are applicable to tyrants of all stripes.
You've demonstrated elsewhere your opinions about real life things isn't worthy of being responded to.
Seriously, you've just made this up, without regard to ANY consideration of reality.
There is a process in Iraq, devised by Iraqis, to give the people some choice in the outcome of their future.
Now, how many of you would choose to be ruled by Al Qaeda? Or the Taliban?
Why you think any signficant number of Iraqis would and could choose to restore such to power can only be chalked up to racism or some kind of fanatical cultural or ethnic prejudice.
Oldgeezer, I should point out that your assertions are in some way the product of the Enlightenment liberal philosophy. A more conservative and pessimistic outlook would recognize that rights can be widely interpreted, and that citizen's aspirations can be multiple and varied, and that sometimes "change for change's sake" can be mistaken. One has to counterbalance the rightful aspirations WE MIGHT have to bring a different type of government to Iraq, with the disruptions that this will cause. I agree that certain disruptions are unavoidable, and acceptable, but this is a continuum, and at some point the suffering, death and destructions we bring to a country may simply not justify our intervention in the name of our liberal ideals. Personally, I clearly believe this is the case with Iraq, and I am convinced the US invasion of Iraqu did more harm than good, overall.
You seem to label yourself as being towards the more conservative spectrum of US politics (maybe I'm wrong), and I therefore find it surprising that you would think that the ends justify the means; and that situations can be different and warrant analyses beyond the ideological and into the pragmatic areas (ie. beyond the ideological assertions that human rights are universal, un-alienable and that they are those rights that we, in the West, have defined). A more conservative idea of plotics, and especially of international politics would do well to espouse something of a Hippocratic principle: First do no harm.
This may come as a surprise, but I think of myself more as a left wing person - but I will leave you with a quote from one of my favorite politicalphilosophers, a conservative one:
"To affirm that humans thrive in many different ways is not to deny that there are universal human values. Nor is it to reject the claim that there should be universal human rights. It is to deny that universal values can only be fully realized in a universal regime. Human rights can be respected in a variety of regimes, liberal and otherwise. Universal human rights are not an ideal constitution for a single regime throughout the world, but a set of minimum standards for peaceful coexistence among regimes that will always remain different. ”
— John Gray, Two Faces of Liberalism
oldgeezer wrote:
Nobody asked the hundreds of thousands, may be millions of people who died as a result of the wars we initiated in Iraq and Afghanistan whether they personally were willing to sacrifice their own lives for a shot at exchanging their "tryanny" for our brand of "freedom." By assuming they were, you are revealing a pretty striking hubris, I would say.
That you claim incapable of determining what is and what is not tyranny, along with what is and what is not "liberty", I'd say that it is YOU who has the education problem, not me. It is not hubris nor anything else to understand what is and is not liberty. It wasn't arrogance, nor was it ego, nor was it fiction that the writes of the DOC used to write that statement about the universality of human rights. It was, instead, the most enlightened thinking mankind has ever assembled and agreed to by a committee.
I am never so ashamed of my fellow humans, when they start rambling that "others may have a different version of liberty". Cripes. Are you so utterly ignorant of life under a tyrant that you cannot summon the ever so slight willpower to declare it tyranny? Or is it that you so fail to grasp what liberty means, that you cannot envision any loss where it does not exist? Or is it that your ideal society so lacks liberty that the concept is thereby irrelevant, and not worthy of study or grasping?
Call it hubris, if that's what salves your concience... or excuses your own deficiencies, but I stand without the slightest reservation and without ANY doubt whatsoever, that I do know the difference, and that there is NO color, race, ethnicity, region, or other division among men that actually changes them so that they do not find their highest aspiration to be liberty.
They may not be the beneficiaries of having lived it, like we have, nor has it been defined as clearly as we have had it defined for us, but none the less, I absolutely gaurantee to you that EVERY man, save those who have tyrranical aspirations of thier own, loves and desires liberty. Even those who have never heard the word, and have never heard of a society, nor seen one, nor experienced one, nor even have attempted to envision one of freedom, will still grasp for it and hold it with a fervor and enthusiasm, similar to that of a drowning man finding hold on that which will save him from the water. It is in our DNA as human beings, and if you think that is not universal, or that it is racial or cultural, you are a racist of the worst, most despicable kind.
And, from the wonderful Einstein quote of which sunnata reminded us here:
But Saddam was, for most of his career, an American 'security asset.' He was an ally of the United States and fought a proxy war against Iran on behalf of the United States. Saddam's only real crime was that as 'our s.o.b.' in got above his station and began to believe that he could actual defy his masters with impunity. Saddam, and Iraq paid a heavy price for trusting the United States not to betray him too, like it regulary does with all it's hired thugs.
Afghanistan had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. The Afghan regime tried to negotiate with the Americans and hand over Bin Ladin, all they asked for was some concrete evidence that he was really behind the attacks on New York. This information has never, to this day, been provided by the the US government. If you don't believe me, go and find it yourself; concrete evidence that the Afghans or Bin Laden planned the attack and gave the order.
The truth is that Iraq, Afghanistan, and even Iran are, and were, a threat to no one... but they were a threat to our 'interests' and those are primarily based on our access to markets and resources.
Iraq was invaded to secure their oil for the United States. Afghanistan is also a strategic bridgehead allowing future access to the resources of central asia. Iran is also 'in the way' being the only independent nation in the region, outside the US sphere of influence. Once the regime has been changed in Iran, the entire region will be under US control, but an independent Iran is a 'threat' to this imperial project and therefore, one way or another, Iran, like Iraq, has to been wiped off the map.
This is whole lot of inventing motivations to fit events after the fact. Or, as my teachers used to call it back in grade school... Fiction.
"This is whole lot of inventing motivations to fit events after the fact. Or, as my teachers used to call it back in grade school... Fiction."
Not fiction, Geezer. Rewrite history if you choose to. I was there. I participated. Guilty! We created that Monster just as we created what became the Taliban, so in your world we have the responsibility to dismantle Frankenstein's horror.
WTF does any of this have to do with the topic as posted? 'The Fake Fire Brigade - How We Cheat Ourselves......'
The "real" reason for all these misadventures is to keep the corporate welfare flowing to the military industrial complex. Eisenhower is having an I told you so moment from his grave.
Oh, please. ObL never denied involvement, accepted the credit from his co-religionists from the start, and admitted his role in 2004.
Al Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban had the same offices and even the same personnel.
I swear, some people are as nutty as the chemtrails conspiracy and alien abductions theorists.
concrete evidence that the Afghans or Bin Laden planned the attack and gave the order.
Didn't Bin Laden take credit for the attack?
Nick, there are serious analysts that doubt that the real Bin Laden did take credit for the attack. They allege that the star of the famous "confession" video was a Bin Laden look-alike. See this article in the Daily Mail, if you wish to investigate this matter any further.
Cheers.
Probably the same taqiyya artists who claim that M. Atta and company were actually directed by Mossad. Seriously, if these people are not Muslim propagandists, they are chemtrails-level crazy. Also, Osama bin Laden has had years to deny any faked missives in his name. If he isn't due credit, he sure wants it anyway.
I agree completely.
A lot of modern military forces are going to find out the hard way that their infrastructure, on all levels, was designed for use with cheap energy. I doubt war in general is a waste though otherwise humans wouldnt have evolved using it.
I think there are even laws that protect US corporations who engage paramilitaries for union busting activities in Latin America.. but maybe that's only 'Common-law'.. or the law of 'If I didn't see it, it didn't really happen!'
Sorry, Geezer. I know you love your country.. but don't be blind to her mistakes. Part of patriotism is reverently fixing the flaws.
Hmmm... Yes, I love my country, and i'm well aware of it's flaws. However, most criticism world wide is both wrong, and factually incorrect.
Again, every time America has failed, it is because it failed to advance the cause of liberty. That pursuit is NEVER wrong.
This essay was an overview on viability and cost of various energy sources. Any further discussion of 'war' etc. will be deleted.
Then delete ALL of them. OldGeezers as well and quit being an ass about it.
You seem to pick and choose.
Play the game fair or not at all.
I did but then more appeared.
sorry
(and I didn't know I was being an ass -just trying to let people learn/debate the content of the post without 43 of the first 49 comments being about various wars and political factions.)
There comes a time when the bad drives out enough of the good that other formats, (or none at all), become necessary. Tragedy of the internet commons...
Nate,
Talking about war, and the motivations for war, is not a bad thing.
We actually need to talk about war, as it has become a very widespread phenomenon.
Of course, tempers will run high, and some will have, and want to keep, a very limited world view. But by some strange alchemy, a site such as the oil drum generates streams of thoughtful and fact-based comments to these inanities.
Let's talk about war, baby...
Nuclear war is is the cheapest.
Wanna play?
Am I reading the right discussion? Isn't this supposed to be a discussion about energy? It's not the time or place to discuss personal views on war(s). You've basically "high jacked" the thread. Take it someplace else boys.
Agreed. This topic is too important to be buried in off-topic noise.
Then let's talk, as the poster noted, about the impossibility of fossil fuel based war, or we can talk about the EROI of war as resource mining, since we really have been historically pretty quick to use force to gain the fossil fuel resources we felt we needed.
Which is the reason I dismiss this first part of the essay. They talk about standard of living without showing any understanding that standard of living MUST CHANGE its definition. We can't define standard of living by energy consumption, either in materials used or energy used (they're the same, of course.)
I wait in vain, essay after essay, for someone to present the psychosocial solution to the energy problem, which is to convince the population in general that want is not need, and the dis-ease of Americans has for a long time been their inability to control their consumption impulses, their sick instilling of anxiety through advertising campaigns, that can only be soothed (for a little while, of course) by shopping, buying, spending.
Then back to the rat race, like any addict. Spin that wheel. And I don't think the rich are any happier, long run, than their exploited slaves.
War is just a tool of an addicted society. We know no peace while we believe consumption is status. Thorsten Veblein laid it out at the turn of the last century. Human nature, and its emergent society, haven't changed.
Standard of living is not consumption, and if you write essays equating the two, you FAIL.
So true, unless we address mindset issues the rest while "mostly" necessary becomes irreverent. This would make for an excellent Campfire post, Gail...
I don't consider it to be noise at all -- in fact, it's the best part of the whole discussion. The single most unnecessary waste of energy right now (not to mention lives and treasure) is war. It's also the easiest thing to eliminate. How can mankind ever get serious about truly difficult problems like energy and global warming when it can't even use diplomacy to settle political issues?
TOD is truly a unique place. There are many discussion boards that cater to a single narrow perspective. Disagreement there is bland. Here we have radically different viewpoints clashing, but their proponents somehow manage to do it politely, for the most part. I think this is very valuable (and worthy of my support).
War does do one thing. It can knock troublesome others out of contention for limited supplies of whatever.
Well, I was born in the USSR and lived there until my family emigrated to the US in 1977. So I do know "what its like" and I would offer that my anti-communist credentials may be, in fact, more meaningfull than that of the "love it or leave it", loudmouth pseudo-patriots such as you and Glenn Beck.
However, I don't consider American policy in the ME to have been wise, fair or moral, nor in the long-term interest of this country.
And certainly our respone to 9/11 has been warped, counter-productive and highly dangerous to the future of our nation.
Chest-beating and bellowing aside from mislead and the confused, we have over a trillion dollars spent, hundreds of thousands dead (likely more) and literally nothing to show for it except segments on Fox news on the "nice" new Iraqi market, which becomes empty as soon as our troops leave that town.
If you care about Iraq and Afghanistan, feel free to devote your life to helping those countries change from their current ultra-religious tribal systems to something you may consider better. It is going to take centuries of hard work. Changing them in a decade at a point of a gun, has been a delusion by the American neocon right, which I am sure you don't know has its roots in Trotskyism and "permanent revolution". That's right, your neocon "heros in error" are simply non-reformed commies with a different "coat".
My life under communism has taught me the difficulty (more like impossibility) to effect rapid societal change using forced methods. Conservative Americans, themselves very comfortable with authoritarianism, apparently have not learned this lesson.
I'm sorry you still don't understand what freedom is. And you're welcome to speak your peace, just understand you're wholly wrong.
Yes, we've made mistakes in the ME. No question there. But they're not what you think they are. We failed to defend liberty there, and allowed tyranny to grow to a region wide horror. Despots will not leave without being beaten down, and so, war is inevitable. If you are, in any way, willing to do nothing, and to allow people to live under tyranny, when something could be done, then I can discount you, as having not one tiniest bit of humanity or morality.
The greatest achievement in the world is not a big economy, cars, buildings, technology, organizations, or social programs. Those are mere distractions. The only real accomplishment and the only real thing of value in this world is freedom, freedom from having your life dictated to you by tyrants or self appointed paragons of egotistical moralism, or anyone else, or any institution.
It just so happens that freedom begets accomplishment of all those other good things, and lack of freedom inevitably leads to bankruptcy of morality and all other blessings.
I think the real tragedy here is that America, which is really the last best hope for mankind, is filled by folks who simply don't know much about the outside world, its geography, culture and history.
Consider that a majority of Americans who espose their support for our "wars of liberation" in the ME will not be able to find the nations of Iraq and Afghanistan on a LABELED world map.
Consider that a majority of Americans who maintain that "freedom from tyranny" is their most cherished ideal CONSISTNETLY supported all manner of tyrants all over the world, as long as they did our bidding. The examples are really to numerous and embarassing to list.
Consider that a majority of Americans devoted to the "freedom agenda" relative to the rest of the world are convinced that the best way to "bring freedom" is with precision munitions, and if a lot of them fail to "establish" freedom in a tribal society, than surely more is the answer.
What thsese folks call their "freedom" is really a narrowly cirmuscribed range of thoughts and activities, the real purpose of which is to "manufacture consent" to the policy of endless aggression, over 1000 military bases worlwide and large-scale dominance of the world financial and energy systems by our elites. They absolutely need people like you to blindly follow their "freedom agenda", supply them with labor, political support and bodies for foreign wars. And you need them as well, because without their political talking points, cleverly reworked history and widely enforced ignorance you would have nothing to say at all.
No, the real tragedy is that you think this of people, without factual basis, and based on lies.
Consider that you haven't the faintest clue.
Do you live in a Goldfish bowl for reality about the US. Trying broadening your horizon, read a bit of Michael Klare or something, anything that gets you out of these narrow minded beliefs!
The US should declare a war on paranoia.
theoldgeezer, I'm going to bet that you have never lived for any extended period outside of the US, or if you have, you lived in some insulated community completely divorced from the local culture and its reality. Between you and Dimitry, it is you, who hasn't a clue. Though it might not be your fault, you sound like you have been quite thoroughly brainwashed. The other possibility is that you are actually one of TPTB.
ON-TOPIC, I as an American have learned much about how others live (and consume energy) in my business travels abroad. It would be so easy for us to get by on much less, but we feel compelled to have large vehicles, large homes (needing heating and cooling), large appliances, and long commutes so that we can spend the weekend slaving to have a landscape others will think highly of us for.
I personally have taken a long step out of the typical American lifestyle, and am happier for it. I'm still making improvements, of course. I can't tell you have freeing it is to not have to worry about how others perceive me through my car, house, lawn, grill, pool, kid's playset, toys, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. I enjoy taking the bus to work now (while on on wifi) on an HOV lane.
Given all that, though, my current career is completely dependent on some form of BAU continuing, though I am busy creating another post-PO set of skills and resources for the eventual transition...
Dmitry, you've demonstrated over a long period that you're too bright and well-informed for this! The only way to deal with incorrigible irrationals like TOG is to ignore them, and simply refuse to engage with their shallow rubbish.
This is a thread about a truly critical topic which still far too few people, especially amongst policy-makers and 'leaders', understand at all well: basically, that the present level of use of energy and other commodities, even for just the Pampered Twenty Percent of humankind, simply cannot be sustained by any strategy at all -- any credible strategy, that is -- and we need to get used to that idea and prepare for it.
John Michael Greer, for example, understands that basic fact, as do several others whom readers here will recognise; Cliff Wirth and Jay Hanson are another couple of bleak-thinkers who've explored it extensively.
This idea is, of course, deeply unpopular, especially amongst the PTP, and those amongst the Abused and Deprived Eighty Percent who aspire to join them (poor deluded suckers!). But the consequences of this reality are happening to us inexorably, regardless of our likes and the idiot delusions with which we strive futilely to protect them. These consequences are part of that broad swathe of reality that even reality-insulated members of the PTP can't wish out of existence for ever.
Dmitry, with your qualifications and unusual life-experience you have something critically useful to input to such an urgently-needed discussion. Please don't get bogged down on arguing with irrationals. Simply ignore their ridiculous waffling, and cut past it to the real discussion.
One other thing, D: 'America the last, best hope of humankind' ? Odd idea for one of your experience to espouse. Worth reconsidering? Doesn't look even vaguely like that from where the majority of the world's peoples watch it: A most unlucky imperial state doomed by its own blind hubris -- especially it's hopeless, lunatic addiction to the idea of ever-higher-tech war as the supposed cure for all its problems -- to a much deeper and more permanent collapse even than the collapse and dissolution which happened to the USSR, I'd guesstimate.
And a note to Nate: I hope you and the other editors continue to delete the worst foaming of the irrationals from TOD discussions. TOD is too useful and important to be clogged and disabled by such wilfully-blind fools. They belong on the futilely-yelling-idiot blogs.
Dmitry must have Stockholm Syndrome, Rhisiart. I will add my voice to many others'; this Geezer troll is in no way sympathetic and gets tiresome.
The US not only failed to defend freedom and allowed tyranny to grow, but we actively worked to defeat freedom and install tyranny in the Middle East. One easy example would be overthrowing Mossedegh and installing the Shah in Iran in 1953. This was done by the CIA and British intelligence in order to reverse Mossedegh's nationalization of British Petroleum's interests in Iran.
This is only one instance. In most cases we have supported monarchs and dictators, so long as they went along with US interests. It is easier to manage relations with a compliant despot than with a fractious democratic government, which may be much more interested in the welfare of its electorate than complying with US demands.
Hindsight is helpful. And thanks for bolstering the idea that failing to support freedom and the basic human rights for all humanity is the cause of just about all misery in the world.
DEAR oldgeezer.
Please comply with the general rules of the forum, and try to respond to the actual content of the responses to the statements you have made.
Do you agree there are hundreds of military bases manned by US troops? Can you explain, in concrete terms, not just flat statements about liberty and freedom, how manning those bases is NECESSARY and SUFFICIENT for the longterm interests of the American dream of freedom?
Was your remark about hindsight meant to concede that America HAS made mistakes in its foreign policy? Could you postulate some tactical responses to the specific incidents put up as examples of the bad faith bargaining and resource wars the USA has waged?
I'm willing to listen to facts, but not really interested in iterations of mom, flag and country. It coarsens the discussion.
Please comply with the general rules of the forum, and try to respond to the actual content of the responses to the statements you have made.
I have. Just becuase you don't like them, or the respondent failed to understand my comments, is not me breaking the rules.
Do you agree there are hundreds of military bases manned by US troops? Can you explain, in concrete terms, not just flat statements about liberty and freedom, how manning those bases is NECESSARY and SUFFICIENT for the longterm interests of the American dream of freedom?
Talk about being utterly off-topic! While my choice of responses is about freedom, individual freedom, it is relevant to the purpose of this forum, which is ostensibly to devise responses to the ever changing energy scenario the world faces. This is necessarily political, in that most here tend to advocate the use of government force and power to 'change people's thinking', and to 'change people's behavior' and to 'violate the rules of ecomomics to achieve a politically desired outcome'. None of these are compatible with a free society, and no unfree society is sustainable, EVER. Thus, my advocacy of individual choice, and my arguments against planned economies, planned societies, etc, as they are absolutely and utterly unworkable and cannot be made workable or anything any sane person would want to live in.
Yet, here you are, with the most absurd twists of logic, insisting that my advocacy for self governance, and the supremacy of the individual is some kind of policy statement concerning which military installations are valuable and should be there, and which are not. Not only is it not on topic, it isn't even slightly responsive in any way anything I've said - ever. So, do the rules apply only to ME, or are you just dishonest enough to try to weasel your way to a fake intellectual supremacy so as to demand I be removed for failing to conform to a popular paradigm?
Was your remark about hindsight meant to concede that America HAS made mistakes in its foreign policy? Could you postulate some tactical responses to the specific incidents put up as examples of the bad faith bargaining and resource wars the USA has waged?
Concede? Concede what? Please quote my statement where I said that American foreign policy has been exemplary...Oh, wait, I never said that, either. In fact, I've said only ONE thing about our historical foreign policy, and that it has been wrong when it failed to advance liberty. That statement was neither a rebuttal to anyone, nor a defense of some unstated philosophy, nor an advocacy of any specific action or event. How could it be a 'concession' to anyone or anything?
I'm willing to listen to facts, but not really interested in iterations of mom, flag and country. It coarsens the discussion.
About the only thing youv'e done here, is to fail to grasp anything I've said and apply it as stated, and yet somehow managing to mix it up with imaginary or otherwise fictional inventions.
I'm sure there's forums somewhere that engage in the discussion of military strategy and strategic thinking as it concerns where military assets should be located, but I make no claim to be any expert on the topic. Further, the matter of where these are and how they are located has mostly been a matter of politics, some local, some international, and a small mixture of military doctrine.
I'm guessing that you'd like to "read into" or somehow equate having military assets deployed globally, at the request, assent, or permission of our allies, as some sort of military hostile occupation or an agressive nationalism or colonialism, so as to justify your emotional state. I'm not interested in playing such a game, and I outright reject pretty much every premise behind such thinking, as it's not based on reality.
I don't understand why this OT polemic is tolerated.
I have lived in a few countries: the US, Japan and Sweden. Only in the US are the politicians constantly blathering on and on about "freedoms" while in fact people are not really free!
Just try biking to work, for example. In Chicago, someone I know was mugged doing that. In a suburban area, you will take your life into your hands while you dodge SUVs. But in Sweden and Japan, no problem. The govts decided to make roads safe for bicyclists, So I do feel freer in Sweden and Japan without worrying about SUVs hitting me and being shot...So much for rhetoric about "freedom"!
Also health insurance in Japan. A lot of freedom because of the cost controls. Doctors aren`t free to charge as much as they would like. They make just enough so they can stay in business. Patients are free to change jobs without worrying about having insurance.
I used to hear a lot of stuff about the US being "the greatest country in the history of the world" when I lived there. But it isn`t true. It`s just the most brainwashed country in the world and the most energy profligate. I think those two things go together, by the way. If the govt had prevented GM and Standard Oil from dismantling good public transportation systems in CA then America could have gotten off on the right track to spend their oil wealth slowly and carefully. But the govt didn`t do that. They brainwashed everyone and put them into new cars. The ME wars are just another example of the brainwashing/energy profligacy connection continuing.
So have a long look in the mirror: you are probably a hapless victim of the propaganda they are putting out there. It is very insidious and all encompassing. They use fine words like "freedom" and "liberty" while they fool with your brain. But they don`t mean it. What they really defend is "wealth" and "privilege".
pi^3!
I have lived in a few countries: the US, Japan and Sweden. Only in the US are the politicians constantly blathering on and on about "freedoms" while in fact people are not really free!
That's because there's a lot of rather blind folks in this country trying to emulate places like Sweden and Japan. Never emulate failure.
Just try biking to work, for example. In Chicago, someone I know was mugged doing that. In a suburban area, you will take your life into your hands while you dodge SUVs. But in Sweden and Japan, no problem. The govts decided to make roads safe for bicyclists, So I do feel freer in Sweden and Japan without worrying about SUVs hitting me and being shot...So much for rhetoric about "freedom"!
I suppose you might have a point about crime taking away from your freedom. I'm not sure if that was your point or not, though. Oh,and BTW, if you're not free to drive an SUV, then you're not free, you're just a pawn in the machinations of others. A slave. Death is prefereable to that kind of non-life.
Also health insurance in Japan. A lot of freedom because of the cost controls. Doctors aren`t free to charge as much as they would like. They make just enough so they can stay in business. Patients are free to change jobs without worrying about having insurance.
You have the oddest definition of freedom I've ever seen or heard. It sounds more like a horror film than any defintion of freedom. If you define freedom as controlling the wages of someone, then you are truly sick in the head.
I used to hear a lot of stuff about the US being "the greatest country in the history of the world" when I lived there. But it isn`t true. It`s just the most brainwashed country in the world and the most energy profligate. I think those two things go together, by the way. If the govt had prevented GM and Standard Oil from dismantling good public transportation systems in CA then America could have gotten off on the right track to spend their oil wealth slowly and carefully. But the govt didn`t do that. They brainwashed everyone and put them into new cars. The ME wars are just another example of the brainwashing/energy profligacy connection continuing.
There's definitely some brainwashing been going on, but it appears that you're unaware of what and where that was.
So have a long look in the mirror: you are probably a hapless victim of the propaganda they are putting out there. It is very insidious and all encompassing. They use fine words like "freedom" and "liberty" while they fool with your brain. But they don`t mean it. What they really defend is "wealth" and "privilege".
So far, you have variously described freedom as having the government force other people to accomodate YOUR wants, and control THEIR wages and THEIR lives, to salve your anxieties.
You have not the faintest idea what freedom is. Freedom is the opportunity to use your skills and what you own to do what you want with them. It includes the possibility of being immensely wealthy...Or starving. It means you can and will suffer the consequences of your choices, no matter how carefully you made them...or didn't. It means you'll be protected from nothing...and prevented from little.
Only small minds wish to use power to force others to coddle them. The weak, the pathetic, they choose your vision. I'd rather die freezing, starving, and penniless than endure your tyranny.
A little bit of a contradiction here. The immensely wealthy have an established track record of taking away other people's freedom. The founder's of the American Republic were very frightened of immense wealth, especially inherited wealth, they seen its corrosive effects in the home country. Very great wealth, and it's insidious effect on the country was why Theodore Roosevelt instituted anti-trust laws. Great wealth is able to dominate the marketplace by force. Great wealth is the antithesis of freedom. But don't you worry your poor little soul, the Federalist Society majority in the Supreme Court will guarantee the continuation of "freedom" of corporate interests to run roughshod over individuals.
If you manage to live another ten - fifteen years you'll get your wish. but not from the tyrant you expect. Most tyrants come into power welcomed by open arms. Neoconservative thought dominates this country. You do the math.
+10 for Dimitry
Seriously off topic
Neoconservative philosophy seems great on the surface, especially for any one who believes the American way of life is the best way.
But there is one huge and fatal error neoconservatives make. The assumption is that because our American system of democracy is the best possible system, that every other society and culture is just waiting for us to help them break the bonds of whatever dictatorship or totalitarian government they are currently subjected to and are yearning to adopt American democracy.
This belief leads to supposing that we will be greeted as liberators in any country that we invade and occupy, and that we don't need to make any preparations for after the invasion as the citizens will immediately set up and administrate an American style government with no corruption, incompetence or bureaucratic waste - just like our system (preObama of course).
Wow, what a con game. Shame on you. You know better than this ( I hope ), which leads me to wonder why you'd post it?
geezer: Look in the mirror. Seriously.
@ Shelburn et al, on energy efficient living.
In Europe (I grew up in Germany (Dad was US Army) and in the cities there was public transport infrastructure in place (circa 1960's 70's) buses, trains(in city and between cities and auto ownership was pretty low.
Insurance was based on engine size and (compared to US insurance systems) almost prohibitive of car ownership.
Got back to the states and even in the early 70's energy crisis and all it was not unusual to see two and three car families (esp in TX which is size of a pair of European countries).
Simply put the US had torn out it's in city trolleys before I was born. And Intercity passenger rail was extinct west of the Mississippi and even now in TX the number of in city transport systems I've see have been pathetically designed and poorly routed.
most of the energy costs in the US are from sorry infrastructure lay out, city and state make cars easy, mass transport not as easy.
woerm
iain posted on another website http://www.energyfromthorium.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1542&p=31463#...
the following:
I found an interesting article, from which I was able to derive US Navy fuel consumption. http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=52031
* The US Navy burned 16.35% less than expected fuel consumption for 2010Q1
* Saved $41M, fuel cost $116.34/barrel
* So, expected fuel cost was $250M, or $1B/year, or 8.62M barrels
* 8.62M barrels is 860M kg/year, or 1.22 GW at 45 MJ/kg for diesel
* at $116.34/barrel, fuel is $0.093 / kWh
Now we have built cruisers with two 150 MW(th) reactors for $675 million (1990). Suppose I can install another two reactors and an ammonia-producing plant for $400 million (1990). Suppose that plant produces ammonia fuel at 15% thermal efficiency. My capital cost for fuel is now $12/watt (1990). Assuming a lifetime of 40 years and a cost of capital of 4% more than inflation, we're writing off 78 cents/year for each watt. Assuming an 80% duty cycle, that's $0.11 / kWh.
This posting is promoting using a Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor to produce ammonia to use as fuel but you can add what every energy source you like. Its the capital expenditure you need to look at.
What is the cost of sending your or your town's kids to fight the Arabs in near meaningless wars?
Do you realize how little of our total oil consumption comes from the middle east?
Around 10 million barrels per day from Saudi Arabia, 3 or 4 million from Iraq, another 3 or 4 million from Iran, 2.5 million from the UAE, 3 million from Kuwait, half million each from Oman and Qatar, and a quarter of a million from Yemen. I can go back to the most recent issue of ASPO OilWatch if necessary. Iraq has the most potential to expand its production and some of the last remaining oil that is technically easy to get to, which goes a long way toward explaining our military misadventure there and why the Cheneys and Rumsfelds of the world were champing at the bit to invade even before they concocted the Iraq-9/11 linkage story.
All told, around a quarter of the world's supply and essentially all of its remaining spare capacity (if there is any left). Nothing to sneeze at.
I didn't say it was "nothing". I merely asked if people knew the proportion. Apparently not.
the argument that we're in Iraq for oil and Afghanistan for real estate is so beyond comprehension it's laughably silly. If we wanted to venture military to grab oil, we'd just take over Venezuela. closer, and provides FAR more oil to us than the middle east. of course, if we just wanted oil, we'd simply allow development of our own resources.
Demonstrates that the idea we did "for oil" for ourselves is complete fiction.
Iraq's oil is technically much easier and cheaper to recover than Venezuela's. Then there is the whole issue of mucking around in our own hemisphere, which might upset some of our major trading partners and probably cause a few other geopolitical problems to boot.
So, OK, if not for oil, why Iraq and not North Korea? Why the permanent bases in KSA?
"So where is the oil going to come from? ... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."
—Dick Cheney, 1999
Like a good capitalist, always keep your eyes on the prize.
The USA *DID* try to take over Venezuela, by a coup that failed.
An old fashioned invasion is doomed to failure in Vz. And we did invade Iraq for it's oil.
Alan
Don, two things:
First, fear of the unknown is how The Brutes operate. Remember Unknown Unknowns? That the U. S. population is susceptible to such crap is an everlasting blot on our reputation.
Second, your statement is simply question-begging: you're assuming that the stated "reasons" for the war are the true reasons.
Here's another opinion: War is what Primates do. They do it because they've always done it to secure resources and status. The "reasons" are slathered on after-the-fact to allow the Primate to think that it looks virtuous. Remember Iago.
That's an opinion right from the horses' ass (reflecting the contempt the military expresses towards the "civilians" they annihilate).
On the banks of the Columbia river, on the washington side, sits an aluminum plant, idle. And all of it's associated industries and support systems. Why? Because it negotiated a great deal on hydropower long ago, a long term, defined rate for electricity. Since then, it became so profitable to sell back that power, that it hasn't run in decades. Yet, the company still makes money, doing absolutely nothing, by merely contracting back that power contract it negotiated years ago.
Rather than build more power plants, we continue to ship our jobs offshore and idle our people. Why?
Because we only have one Columbia river and we've got better things to do with it than make aluminum.
That's trivially obvious, and it reflects poorly on you if you don't know that there are far more worthwhile questions. Then again, you think that the fraction of US imports coming from the ME is important, and the fraction of US oil which is imported vs. the fraction of world exports coming from the ME isn't worth mentioning.
Perspicacity. Get some.
What are those "better uses"?
Be aware I am a child of the Pacific Northwest.
California wants the power more than the aluminum producers. One could debate the worth of supporting irrigation pumps and air conditioning for all the illegal aliens (which go together), but that's the way our system has sorted it out. As a self-styled capitalist you should know all about Invisible Hands.
TheraP
Do not forget to factor in how much you enjoy human rights,
There is a nasty cost to leftist /collectivist politics, so far it has been 200 million innocent lives in the last 100 years(and counting (norks, Cuba and Communist China).
(from Jews for the protection of firearms ownership)
the .mil of the US and most of NATO stood guard to protect Western Civilization from the folks that just love spilling innocent blood. It's a cost I'm more than willing to pay.
Wonder what level of enviro the Communist Chinese go for, oh wait they don't care about Green stuff.
nevermind.
woerm
You might want to read up on Chinese enviro before you get your other foot stuck in your mouth.
Communist Chinese and environmental protection are an oxymoron or contradiction in terms of Epic verging on Biblical scale.
Chinese mine safety (coughs),
Three Gorges Dam (cracked already)
Cough, cough did you see the air at the Olympics?
Both mine safety and air pollution help bring the day of Peak Population closer (and lower) in China. Smoking does too (note no warnings on Chinese cigarettes AFAIK).
I suspect that the technocratic leadership is aware of these implications.
Alan
You're both seriously behind times.
China is dwarfing our efforts, with nuclear, wind, solar thermal and photovoltaic.
There were bad leaks in Hoover Dam when built, that cost millions to fix.
I enjoy human rights. At the same time I want EVERYONE in the entire world to enjoy human rights. Enjoying mine at the expense of others not having them at all affronts my conscience. Thus, I don't think in terms of my nationality or my continent ... and my life is time-limited as well. Thus... in my lifetime I hope to do what little I can to assure these "human rights" are shared!
I'd like to raise a point about externalities not included in the price of fossil fuels today. For instance, coal is the cheapest source of energy when evaluated from the standpoint of simply looking at the available supply and the effort required to get it out of the ground versus the amount of energy that can be provided by burning it in a power plant. But the moment environmental costs are included, such as pricing CO2 emissions or even something as simple as retrofitting scrubbers or building sound ash disposal facilities, it starts to become a lot more expensive. The advantage of renewable energy is that it avoids many negative externalities whose price is uncertain but which are most certainly paid for in one way or another, whether today or at some point in the future (and I'd bet Hannes would agree that mortgaging our future for cheap energy today is not our best option).
I would argue that this is one reason the overall price of energy is not likely to go up as much as some of these charts suggest (improving technology is another reason and a separate discussion, which I imagine will be dealt with in a separate follow-up post). The direct costs as reflected on your utility bill may go up, but many costs are not reflected in the price of energy today and may appear in other sectors, for instance the cost of going to war to secure a supply of oil, the cost of medical care and reduced income from lower life expectancy due to occupational hazards in the coal industry, the cost of cleanup and/or long-term monitoring for major spills of oil or coal ash, abandoned wells and mines, or the costs of communities adapting to climate change (or in some cases simply moving their entire population, as some island nations have begun to do). Then there are intangible quality-of-life and environmental issues that fluster our ability to put a price on them at all, such as the destruction of a way of life (fishing in the Gulf of Mexico, for instance) or the loss of species.
Again, I think Hannes would agree that these externalities should be priced or at least accounted for where pricing is impossible; where I think we may part ways is that I may have a bit more faith in humanity's ability to reprioritize and reconsider whether a "reliable" electricity supply as we have come to think of it is truly worth the cost in lives, wilderness and species.
To follow up on the example of stoves, and raise a counterexample regarding the quality of renewable/"cleaner" energy sources versus those on which we tend to rely today: one reason most of us in the developed world use gas or electric stoves is to avoid the air emissions and poor indoor air quality that would result from cooking over the alternatives of coal, charcoal, wood, or oil. So while there are certainly some disadvantages to flow-based renewable resources, like the fact that energy is not stored, there are also some aspects of the type of energy derived from wind, solar, geothermal, or waves that might prove superior to fossil fuels over the long run. Electricity or clean-burning energy sources like gas make possible certain improvements in quality of life that are simply unachievable using cheaper but dirtier energy sources.
Another example could even be reliability: a home-scale PV/battery system, for instance, could avoid the vast majority of electric power failures that originate in the grid today by simply bypassing it.
I have also come across in my travels another point about wind power, which is that today's turbines are designed for higher average power output rather than higher capacity factors, simply because that is what is economical. In theory, one could build something closer to a base loading supply of wind energy by building some wind farms designed for a more constant but lower output, should reliability become a concern at high levels of penetration (though I do not have much of an idea of the costs or technical obstacles, and I'm sure there would be some).
You said : Another example could even be reliability: a home-scale PV/battery system, for instance, could avoid the vast majority of electric power failures that originate in the grid today by simply bypassing it.
That may be, but the cost per home is phenomenally higher than the grid. If the grid feeds only industrial customers, you know, the big single point users of power, then the cost of the grid per customer and per KWH used goes up dramatically, as well, as does the volatility of useage. All of which decreaes the efficiency of everything.
Tain't an answer, mcgee.
All of this is assuming of course that the price of fossil fuels continues to rise due to depletion and possibly due to some pricing of externalities, and that the cost of PV and other renewables will likely continue to drop at least for the foreseeable future as they have for decades.
If we abandon such assumptions, there would be little point in having this discussion in the first place, no? You are right, big industries will have little reason to use solar unless they are forced to do so by whatever circumstance. The initial post seems to indicate those circumstances are on their way. In any case, the fact that solar is not the best energy source for heavy industries (at least, for now) says little about its viability to compete with retail power purchases. Nobody here is calling for a one-size-fits-all solution, at least not that I have seen. Well, maybe some of the nuclear proponents are calling for that...
To date, on and off-line, I have found a biased agenda (renewables are a "false fire brigade" being the most inflammatory) that cherry picks data and analysis to promote what appears, to me, to be a pre-determined position rather than a more open perspective. The flaws in their approach are fairly deep down, well hidden and some flaws are based on unrealistic expectations, others on assuming the worst possible and some straw men.
Please note the caveat "to date", because I am spending an inordinate amount of time going over basic issues with Dr. Hannes. And as such, is subject to revision.
Alan
Alan
You are on shaky ground here regarding your etiquette in this forum (not just this post). Hannes has responded to your earlier requests and there is more to follow, yet he tells me you still havent responded to his own questions.
Alot of work by alot of people went into the analysis supporting these posts. I suggest you consider your own 'pre-determined position' and perhaps adopting a more open and more civil perspective.
We had a roughly 20 eMail exchange on the first minor point I challenged (and a key differential in our analysis).
He posited a 70% round trip efficiency for pumped storage, I use 78%. the cumulative difference is large using his methodology. My analysis for the future is based on the best available technology today (with supporting reasons why). His was based on older, related but different technology (submarine HV DC) and average to below average efficiency being replicated into the future.
This one point took several days and many eMails. More points to follow.
As for etiquette, I speak the truth as I see it. I did bold my caveat and repeat it.
To date, I see no extraordinary proof for such extraordinary claims that renewables are "a false fire brigade" and a potential "waste of trillions".
Alan
The authors of this post seem to me to be authentically looking for answers.
I don't think their position was pre-determined at all, their logic seemed to carry them to their conclusion, just like the logic of oil depletion has carried most of us here to the various conclusions we've each drawn.
The bottom line is that, though I respect what you are out to accomplish, your communication style (highly argumentative and belligerent) is very wearing to follow and hurts your cause rather than strengthens it. It gets tiring time after time seeing you jump all over people who have a different opinion than yours.
Speaking as part of this community, I'd like everyone to be able to present their findings and have some civil discourse about it. When I look back at how you've interacted with many people, it's often you who first "raises their voice" and gets hot under the collar. (The "false fire brigade" is a perfectly fine rhetorical device for the authors to use to make their point, btw.)
You may not agree with their opinion, but each time you get angry with others you diminish the value of the community and decrease the possibility of someone else wanting to expose their work here.
Since I want to keep getting access to others' cutting edge work, I for one request that you interact with civility and — dare I say it? — some grace.
Do you accept my request?
-André
Edit: Replaced previous word with 'civility.' I regret and apologize for my previous word choice.
Coming specifically from you, André, I will, because I respect both you and your work.
There are different philosophies in debate. I prefer one with more adrenalin flow because it gets to the area of dispute more quickly and incisively and people are more motivated to think through the issues, IMHO.
In this specific case, what you call a "fine rhetorical device", I see as the core and essence of their message (my English teacher taught me that is what titles are for).
Developing renewables is a "false fire brigade" approach (akin to corn ethanol) and, to quote Dr. Hannes, "a waste of trillions".
But if you want me to accept those claims as just a rhetorical device, I will accede. Although I still refuse to accept it as a fine rhetorical device.
Alan
I read this article very differently from you, and apparently several others on the board. What I see is a warning against relying on renewables to do it all in the future. Renewables are being marketed as the solution to global warming (and energy descent). The message appears to be that renewables will provide a 1:1 substitution for fossil fuels, and I am not buying that assertion. Neither is this article, but I don't see the article as dismissing the development of renewables. If anything it is dismissing the 1:1 substitution. We need renewables (maybe not all and I am a fan of R. Rapier on this issue) but we need to think through their place on the spectrum of options and not overcommit them if they can't scale up to the level we are expecting. I don't consider myself a hard core doomer, but if I am missing something here, please explain it to me.
Thank you for accepting my request, Alan. I respect you for that.
I do understand your point about getting to the heart of the matter. The problem is that adding adrenaline to the conversation just as often sidetracks it as moves it forward, possibly even more so. That's because it generally elicits two distinct reactions in people. For those comfortable enough or threatened enough, they will escalate and then the conversation really goes sideways. All forward motion stops either because someone digs in their heels or the conversation turns to how something was said rather than what was said.
Others will back down and turn silent and still others will not participate at all because they don't want to get their fingers caught in the machinery. Either way, we fail to pull from the whole community what each person has to offer.
And of course there is a very real impact to those who might want to present their work here but think to themselves, "Do I really want to go through that?" I'm not for a second advocating that we not challenge everyone's work — that's part of what makes TOD great.
But it's not an either-or thing. We can challenge — even persistently — and do it in a way that draws people into the conversation rather than pushing them away. We can honor the work they have done by recognizing it as a contribution to our community and to our civilization, even if it's lacking in one area or another or, in our view, completely wrongheaded. When TOD conversations are at their best that's precisely what we are doing — challenging and probing and inquiring — while providing an example of how this odd species of ours can rise up to meet a challenge.
Thanks for hearing me out — and I honor the commitment, drive and rigor behind the work that you, Hannes and Stephen, and Nate and Gail and everyone else is doing here.
Has IIER shared the data and models behind TFFB with you? I keep looking on their site, and the mirror of the original article doesn't even mention the data sources.
No, except small data points that came up in back & forth. 70% cycle efficiency for pumped storage for example. So whatever data assumptions they chose to give out, when they want to.
Those red, yellow, green bands for energy prices, where the heck did they come up with those ?
Note: not even any prices on the colored bands, just where the USA was, when. Hawaii must have been in fire engine red territory for electricity for the last 30 years. Someone should tell them, hurry up and collapse !
IIER appears to be a "black box". Oh well, I promised to be nice.
Alan
The prices are on the x-axis of the chart (all converted to kWh)
Alan, I have to now do it publicly, even though I hate it. I was openly telling you that I don't have access to some of the studies that support my 70% round-trip efficiency claim until next Monday and that I will get back to you as soon as it is available. You are very selective in making your argument, picking whatever you wish from our private email conversations. If you agree, I am happy to make our entire email traffic public on TOD, plus my follow-up on the 70%.
Hawaii probably isn't a good example for proof of concept, as it isn't a "complete" economy by its own right. It mostly lives off tourism, some high-end agriculture (fruit, flowers, etc) and the largest public sector employment share of any U.S. state. There is no doubt that we can survive on very high energy prices if someone else does the "heavy lifting" for us. This concept is even applied today, with the shift of energy-intensive activities to places with cheap (mostly dirty) energy.
Sorry, these come from our own genuine research, and are "blurry" because we don't exactly know whether the boundaries are at - for example 2 or 2.2 cents for natural gas, just the ballpark. But there is significant empirical evidence on the fact. Maybe have a look at the economics of trucking and airlines in 2008, when oil briefly went above 100$, or on farming, when natural gas stood at $8. And here's some more stuff on the impact of oil prices on GDP. http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~nroubini/papers/OilShockRoubiniSetser.pdf, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/aeo_2006analysispapers/efh....
I first moved to Austin, Texas (graduate school) in December, 1973. Electricity (99% inefficient natural gas steam plants, 1% oil) was in the midst of doubling in price as uncontrolled in-state NG more than doubled (NG across state lines was price regulated back then).
City owned utility, which made it a political issue as well.
There was no economic collapse or even significant disruption. Just part of the 1973 Recession. Remember that this was a state wide problem. Instead Austin:
1) Established a life line rate (first 500 kWh paid fuel costs and a small amount for capital, grid and other costs).
2) Started what has become a premier energy conservation program, from memory > 1/2 GW saved to date.
3) Started building both coal (1/2 with LCRA) and a 1/6th share of two nuclear plants (STNP).
So I think your "red zones" are *WAY* off.
Alan, I'm afraid that this comment is nearly content-free. It is certainly too vague to be meaningful.
Please describe the allegedly cherry-picked data and the data you believe should be included but was not.
Why do you believe the authors of the OP have a "pre-determined" (before what?) position and what do you believe it is?
Please describe the "deep" and "hidden" flaws you assert and identify the straw men.
Please note the quick and short dismissal in the essay above of what I consider to be a cornerstone responses to post-Peak Oil:
... or taking public transportation/biking to work (increased time of commute).
Please note that "Commute time" is not energy. We will still have time to commute when we have no gasoline.
Biking to work has auxiliary benefits (10 years longer life expectancy per US Census).
Public transit does involve more exercise, more social contact, and time that can be used for other activities besides driving. And is MUCH safer.
Total commute time if one moves into TOD will likely shrink over Suburbia/Exurbia.
Best Hopes for more Comprehensive Analysis,
Alan
Here in the District of Columbia, I pity the fool who chooses to drive to work. Biking or using transit will save you time nine times out of ten.
And yes, you get to spend some time with a good book, chatting up the other passengers, or catching up on the day's news.
Drivers out there envious yet? Or too busy raging at the idiot in front of you looking at the burning wreck across the median to bother contemplating these ancillary quality-of-life benefits?
At a conference, I asked the woman in charge of new bike facilities in DC just what modal share she could get for biking to work assuming
1) $1 to $2 billion to invest (basically all she could want)
2) 10 to 15 years to implement
3) Gasoline north of $6/gallon
Her response was "30%".
Best Hopes for Biking,
Alan
Modal share of which trips? The devil is always in the details.
I've studied these issues for decades now, and it is quite clear, to me, that there is no possibility of replacing our private-auto-dominated transport system (in North America) without first re-designing our built environment. That would take a major restructuring of our societal values and expectations, our zoning laws, etc. And it would require an investment (and subsidies) on the same scale as the post-WWII push that created Carmageddon.
All of that would be very hard, and very unpopular. Americans love living in our national automobile ghetto (see Kunstler).
But, let's leave that aside, for the moment. The same trend is developing in the comments today as in the responses to Hannes' first post: The OP addresses a broad, OECD-scale set of problems and limitations that the authors assert will make a transition from FF-based culture to renewables-dependent culture difficult or impossible. In response, the "renewables cornucopians" want to defend the potential of their favorite technologies. That really isn't on-point. To be a solution, a total package of replacement sources must be available, in a timely manner, must be implemented with the "excess" FF inputs still available, must be affordable in the context of prevailing and developing circumstances, must be politically feasible, etc.
That's the discussion we need to be having.
"To be a solution, a total package of replacement sources must be available, in a timely manner, must be implemented with the "excess" FF inputs still available, must be affordable in the context of prevailing and developing circumstances, must be politically feasible, etc."
.. and I would suggest that you are talking in a language that was created by FF.
Your 'Total Package' sounds somewhat euphemistic to the proverbial Silver Bullet, while the availability and timeliness you paint as a fixed requirement has strong shades of JIT emblazoned onto it.
That's the discussion I'm hearing, from up here in the peanut and BB gallery.. the cheap seats.. Just us and our teaspoons!
Duplicate
It was 30% of "commute to work" (sorry for not specifying that) and slightly higher for "all trips". Slightly lower in summer and winter but not as dramatically as non-bicyclists would think.
My own private theory is that people that routinely bicycle start "feeling bad" (and miss endorphins) when they don't for a few days. So they are motivated to bike in weather that makes others wonder why.
An addiction, but a good one, kind of like TOD :-)
Alan
"My own private theory is that people that routinely bicycle start "feeling bad" (and miss endorphins) when they don't for a few days. So they are motivated to bike in weather that makes others wonder why."
I can testify to that. Been wating for some parts for my mountainbike for over a week now. 10 days without a real ride on the local trails and its driving me NUTS! The daily commute just dont cut it.
Yes! Alan you are right! I usualy bike the 12 km RT to work and back but sometimes if its raining I take the bus.
But if the rain continues more than a day or two then I put on my raincoat and bike in the rain because I just can`t stand sitting still on the bus. I didn`t know it was the endorphins, I just start to feel antsy...and clausterphobic.
Good post. In essence, renewable systems with short production cycles just can't compare with the current energy processes of our current civilization. I agree with Gail that putting a number on the transition percentage is not helpful and is way too optimistic, besides being too concrete. But Gail frames her argument in terms of economics, and suggests that energy responds to money rather than the inverse. The idea that green (or other colored) pieces of paper dictate how much oil we pump out of the ground is backwards.
Your discussion of price tolerance levels frames the discussion in terms of dollars, and hence leads people to think that money and debt drive the behaviors, which doesn’t describe the complexity. I would suggest that the dynamic is more complex and is driven by the energy hierarchy. For example, electric power is of very high quality (transformity) but less emergy yield because of the entropy involved in creating it. You can't break even.
Kalliergo makes the point that our vaunted information society is simply the massive convergence of energy in hierarchical transformations over time from solar energy in plants, to the food chain, to consumers, to the economy, and finally to K’s infoburger. It takes a lot of energy to get to that point (use a log scale to measure it), and when you get there, while the infoburger has lots of high value cultural information in it, you can’t digest it to make heat to keep warm with in winter.
And Thera illustrates the point that productivity depends on the interaction of the high-transformity products in interaction with environmental inputs in a matching process. The object of the game is to make it last as long as possible. The renewable hydro plant matches with aluminum raw materials from Brazil(you can't play for long unless you steal your opponent's game pieces) via shipping and high quality but cheap fossil fuels. This optimized process only works for now because of the contribution of the cheap Canadian fossil fuels, and there is the long-term cost of impact interactions with the system. We are getting free rides from the fossil fuels in many ways that people can’t see, because they are hidden in transformations.
Kalliergo is correct that those of us who can see the big picture need to move on past endless argument regarding specific details and let the naysayers squabble endlessly in their lonely, isolated cul de sacs regarding who gets a piece of the action (talk about free energy, I think we’ve found it). The problem has been recognized for at least 70 years, and the science of how to deal with the problem has been developing for 40 years. The failure to move past details of who owns the better deLorean auto suggests a failure to comprehend the big picture, a knowledge deficit regarding the history of the science, and fear regarding the future. The only way to solve the problem is to accept it and view the solutions from the larger scale, in terms of a comprehensive package of prioritized policies starting with reducing energy use in as many forms as we can come up with. We can drill down and defend details as long as we want, but we really don’t have the time. I’m waiting for someone to post a list of options for us to begin to prioritize, starting with reductions in energy use. Every day that we wait creates more population and less environment and thus less renewable resources to fall back on. You shorten the cumulative length of the game the longer you play. We are so screwed. You can't break even except at absolute zero
Explanations for bolded points below, if so inclined.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6681#comment-668660
"The only way to solve the problem is to accept it and view the solutions from the larger scale, in terms of a comprehensive package of prioritized policies starting with reducing energy use in as many forms as we can come up with."
Yes. And yes, again. If our societies are to have a meaningful future, there can be no question that such future must operate on much less energy per-capita/per-process/per-time period than we have become accustomed to.
It is important to work to produce the highest-quality, most-abundant renewable energy we can, but the evidence has been overwhelming, for a very long time, that we will not, cannot, produce enough, of the "right" kinds, to continue BAU. Thus, the biggest and most important task facing us is to consider the ways in which we can radically reduce consumption (in the over-developed world) and the changes in our social, political and economic systems that must be made to enable those reductions.
"We are so screwed. You can't break even except at absolute zero."
Or, in my favorite version, "You can't win. You can't break even. You can't quit the game."
Good summary of laws 1,2,&3
Don't forget the 4th law...
If the heat is on someone else, it aint on you...
It is impossible to reach absolute zero. Now what?
Jodidos must have heard his name called, and come to see what the ruckus was about.
The average electric consumption of the USA is around 450 GW. The average of Texas's annual wind-energy potential alone is 745 GW. Some 300 million people can maintain the US standard of energy consumption for millions of years on wind from just a few states. The sunlight beating on shingles on the typical house is enough to power it even at current PV efficiencies.
We cannot continue by using the products of nature; stocks run out, and photosynthesis is too inefficient. Fortunately, we are already a lot better at this than nature ever was.
Well, yes, and no. Yes, our harvesting efficiency is much greater -and improving. But, my PV panels don't produce seeds that I can easily turn into more panels. So we gotta do industrial scale manufacturing, whereas with plant based stuff, the buggers replicate themselves.
Then we must do all we can to make sure it is not a zero-sum game. It must be win-win. And it may take personal transformations to assist us in that effort. Like the things we were taught in kindergarten. Don't hit. Share. Be kind to your neighbor. But on a global scale.
We agree, TheraP. I just have somewhat sharper edges than you do.
But, there are no sharper edges than those dictated by the three laws, so the game is truly not optional.
Hmmmm.... there must be wiggle room on number 2. ;)
In the realm of happiness, satisfaction, and meaningful life, all the room in the world. In the realm of energy... sorry. ;^)
Now, as soon as we divorce our notions of "a good life" from devotion to full-tilt gluttony...
Thanks for the clarification. I was definitely thinking of it in terms of how one lives one's life. So, with regard to the 3 laws, I likely misunderstood you were referring specifically and only to resources. Ok, now I get it!
Yes, I am completely in agreement that we must divorce the idea of the "good life" from gluttony and waste. We need to change what matters. How we spend leisure time. Where we live. How large our home is. Consider types of communal living, perhaps. Elders with younger families would work perfectly, like having "grandparents" around for the little ones and someone to keep an eye on you for those of us growing older. Many ways to think about this.
Inner change is imperative. Compassion especially. Acceptance. Letting go of fantasies for "bigger" and "better" - to focus on simplicity, frugality, creating beauty. Making sure nature is part of the living situation. Very healthy to have nature around you. I know, I'm waaaay off the post!
Hi Iaato,
re: "The only way to solve the problem is to accept it and view the solutions from the larger scale, in terms of a comprehensive package of prioritized policies starting with reducing energy use in as many forms as we can come up with."
The idea of an objective body weighing in with policy options and a way to think about FF decline is what we have in mind by our effort to have Congress and/or the President and/or any State government and/or any federal agency, to direct the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) (http://www.nationalacademies.org/) to do an immediate investigation of global oil supply.
Our effort is outlined here: www.oildepletion.wordpress.com.
The impacts of "peak oil" on vital systems, and policy options for dealing with same, are a critical part of this request.
An NAS panel that's established now will be able to give on-going advice as the crises worsens, (assuming it does).
And currently, it would be great if my particular local government could rely on an objective statement by the NAS.
It might prevent whatever the next sad use of public funds might be, now that we have a brand new airport terminal. (The old one was perfectly functional, and also quite cute. The new terminal was built via the sales pitch of supposed future increase in air traffic.)
Is there any chance you might check out our idea - (currently in the form of a petition to Congress) - and give us some feedback?
I also wonder if a "letter of concern" from scientists might help.
Aniya, unfortunately, the NAS is just as sclerosed, siloed, and corporatized as the US govt. The NAS has carefully ignored the science presented here for 40 some years--beginning an investigation of peak oil issues would only be admitting to their rather gross deficits. The academy is just as guilty of responding to complexity as everyone else, with ongoing narrowing of vision into focused, reductionist fields of thought which are then bought and paid for by corporations. The NAS is not set up to value big picture thinking; don't look for them to save you. Why the insistence on them?
I'm pretty sure that within the US government, the military, in particular, is very aware of peak oil. Knowledge is not the problem here. The problem is that our overly-complex governmental processes and lobbyists (the system) is sclerosed into place, and will not change barring massive catastrophe. Aniya, I would suggest that if your group is small, that you start in a more local setting to try to effect change. That is where the future will evolve from; local activism.
Hi Iaato,
Thanks for responding.
re: "The NAS has carefully ignored the science presented here for 40 some years--beginning an investigation of peak oil issues would only be admitting to their rather gross deficits."
http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11771
Energy in Transition 1985–2010
Final report of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems
National Research Council
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C.
1982
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11771&page=617
(Excerpt from the comment by Kenneth E. Boulding.)
APPENDIX A
Individual Statements by CONAES Members
GENERAL COMMENTS
KENNETH E.BOULDING:
"In preparing for the future, therefore, it is very important to have a wide range of options and to think in advance about how we are going to react to the worst cases as well as the best. The report does not quite do this. There is an underlying assumption throughout, for instance, that we will solve the problem of the development of large quantities of usable energy from constantly renewable sources, say, by 2010. Suppose, however, that in the next 50, 100, or 200 years we do not solve this problem; what then?"
re: "The NAS is not set up to value big picture thinking."
The question is, when faced with the necessity of examining the impacts of "peak oil," will they?
They have the 1982 report to refer to; they are set up to be as insulated as possible from outside influences. We'll see...
re: "Why the insistence on them?"
They were established to advise the Nation on matters of scientific import. Members serve voluntarily and are nominated. If scientists can't be scientific, then...
My point is: here we are at TOD. Many people here are fully capable of taking an objective look at the current trajectory, and also looking for ways to ameliorate the likely suffering that accompanies a continuation of BAU.
Perhaps some members of the Academies are equally capable.
re: "I'm pretty sure that within the US government, the military, in particular, is very aware of peak oil."
Agreed. (Please see references that accompany petition.)
Do the American public deserve to be told the truth, as well?
re: "The problem is that our overly-complex governmental processes and lobbyists (the system) is sclerosed into place, and will not change barring massive catastrophe."
This is a two-part point you raise.
Yes, "the system" exists.
At the same time, change also occurs and can occur.
The kind of change I'm thinking about personally is most likely to come about with some pre-conditions of emotional support, an openness to new ways or organizing to meet basic needs, and action on some fairly simple principles for coping with the "remorseless decline."
re: "That is where the future will evolve from; local activism."
Local activism can actually be the catalyst for the NAS to study global oil supplies, impacts and policy options, as we propose. "Local" does not preclude local action for national policies.
For example, one or more State governments can direct the NAS to do such a study. Congress can do so as well.
The critical number of local citizens required to have this set in motion is actually a rather small number.
Local activism is critical. At the same time, all of us rely on large-scale infrastructure, and changes in that infrastructure and/or it's use requires policy changes and/or large-scale capital projects. Take Alan's rail proposals, for eg. Or, re-localization of agriculture. Or, (insert your favorite example.)
At the current time, local governments have nothing to point to...as a guiding reference. That's the idea here. (Among other benefits of such a study, including, at the very least, requiring the nation's leading scientists to look at the implications of "peak oil.")
I disagree. There is nothing, no "solution" that will be a total package of replacement sources to fuel our current society. If this is a discussion we "need to be having", it is a discussion regarding our lifestyles and expectations. It is not the discussion we "need" to be having with regard to which renewable technologies have promise and are worth adopting. That is a technical discussion, involving EROEI, Liebigs minimum, etc.
The authors have more or less completely conflated the two issues, speaking as if renewables need to save the world as we know it in order not to be a "fake fire brigade." It is perfectly "on-point" to ask to have the two issues separated. Renewable technologies should succeed or fail according to their own merits in a given economic situation, and not on whether they will save the world as we know it. Please don't hold "renewable cornucopians" up to the standard of saving car-happy modern society. That's a strawman anyway. If you read carefully, you'll notice that the people defending renewables in this discussion are usually also calling for lifestyles changes.
"Renewable technologies should succeed or fail according to their own merits in a given economic situation, and not on whether they will save the world as we know it."
The key point, I think, is that the world as we know it cannot be saved, but proponents of renewables have led the public, the media, our decision-makers, etc. to expect just that.
"If you read carefully, you'll notice that the people defending renewables in this discussion are usually also calling for lifestyles changes."
Some of them are, but that's not the critical issue. What is critical is that the western world, in general, believes either that FF sources are infinite or that alternatives are in the wings that will permit BAU, today, tomorrow and forever. That is not going to happen and people need to understand it and deal with it... or else.
Kunz and his colleagues do not, in any way that I can discern, conflate this overarching issue with decisions about individual renewable sources. They are simply, in an analogy I find quite apt, pointing out that they cannot, collectively, put out the fire, which is what the world anticipates. It may not be a fake fire brigade, but it is quite likely to be a failure.
This is precisely what I am running into with individuals who call themselves "progressives" in my nabe. There is no energy descent to contemplate. We just have to make substitutions and Happy Motoring continues and their way of life is undisturbed. Minor changes on the perimeters of their lifestyles is all that is required. There is no systems thinking going on at all.
The members of the Transition group I belong to don't expect BAU but have committed themselves to sidestepping the issue in order to provide hope to those who expect BAU no matter what. The thought is that if we don't it just becomes too depressing and folks quit working on solutions. Yet there will not be BAU in the future and that message does have to get through otherwise there will be a primal scream from the BAU faithful about being deceived. And after that scream? Then what? I am very concerned about it, yet do my part because somehow we need to ensure there are intact relationships that will support the descent when it comes.
Hi Kheris
Nice to meet a fellow Transitioner. I am on the steering committee for Transition Town Blue Mountains in Australia (50 miles west of Sydney). I agree with you. It is hard and I find it depressing. It is very hard to stay motivated when I know the reality is almost diametrically opposite to what we do. My hope is that like in the UK the australian Transition movement can get big enough to attract government (at ministerial level) attention. I see this as the only positive; as real solutions demand inspired political leadership at a national level. It also requires use of all of the levers of power of the state. But to get there we must generate enough local interest. It is only when the politicians think there may be a vote or two in it do they pay attention. Otherwise they are a bunch of windbag parasites.
There is a severe marketing issue here. The majority of people don't want to accept that BAU must end, and attempts to convince them are usually counterproductive, as they retreat into pure FF based BAU land, and marginalize those who try to tell them otherwise. Thats why some of us take the approach of pushing BAU-lite (replace the SUV with a hybrid, and add insulation and/or solar panels etc.). But this stuff usually must be sold as making BAU lifestyle cheaper, rather than as the start of a serious energy descent. Any hint of the later and the deal is off.
I'd rather get them started on their way, even if those first timid steps are inadaquate to the task. At least then a few are both physically and emotionally closer to where we need to be.
I disagree. There is nothing, no "solution" that will be a total package of replacement sources to fuel our current society. If this is a discussion we "need to be having", it is a discussion regarding our lifestyles and expectations. It is not the discussion we "need" to be having with regard to which renewable technologies have promise and are worth adopting. That is a technical discussion, involving EROEI, Liebigs minimum, etc.
The authors have more or less completely conflated the two issues, speaking as if renewables need to save the world as we know it in order not to be a "fake fire brigade." It is perfectly "on-point" to ask to have the two issues separated. Renewable technologies should succeed or fail according to their own merits in a given economic situation, and not on whether they will save the world as we know it. Please don't hold "renewable cornucopians" up to the standard of saving car-happy modern society. That's a strawman anyway. If you read carefully, you'll notice that the people defending renewables in this discussion are usually also calling for lifestyles changes.
About the only plus to the post WWII Carmageddon is that the highway system was designed to allow easy bike riding.
It hasn't been used like that but the grades were laid out to allow it.
woerm
Actually for humans it could be considered energy. As a human I have just so many hours in a day in which I can use my body machine to do work. If I spend time standing instead of hoeing then I might have more energy for hoeing but I will never have as much time for hoeing.
Not sure how one could compute that. Basically I understand what you mean, the comparison was apples to oranges. But it perhaps raises an issue about time in the whole equation of ERoEI. Time is certainly a factor in flow rate which is as crucial to the energy crisis as is the amount of fossil energy left.
No conclusions but just noting that we seldom address time in these discussions. For me in my garden in hot Alabama, time of day matters too. I am writing now at 3 PM, not because there are not things to do in the garden but because it is too hot. Some of that is me not wanting to be hot, some is not wanting to water when the sun is out. So I am resting my body machine and hopefully will have more energy when the sun is low in the sky. But the flow rate from my hose is time limited.... Just thoughts on time and energy.
How would your energy balance work out if you spread drip hoses in the morning, and let a PV panel pump water through them all day?
Alan
I for one have no problem with this post. You are clearly attacking the idea not the person. You are showing respect by taking the time to respond, on topic, to this post. Having strong passion for a viewpoint is fine as long as it does not lead to uncontrolled fears that manifest as anger.
Questing a "possible" biased agenda is not only ok, it is appropriate. All positions have biased agendas, sure some more so than others. However it is a lot easier to see another's biased agenda than our own.
Comment 1: If someone commutes 50 miles a day at $0.50 per mile, the cost of monthly cost of commuting is 50*0.5*20 = $500 per month. Why you only count the cost of gas for commuting?
Comment 2: If the average driver travels 12,000 miles per year, your 1000 miles per month estimate is probably representative of all trips rather than just commuting. Commuting accounts for about 1/3 of all trips according to most federal highway administration studies.
thank you for your comment. This is true, we have only looked at variable cost, because this is the one most affected from fuel cost changes. This is particularly true if you have a low income and a very old, under-maintained car, where the basic cost is fuel. And unfortunately, those are the people hurting most - they can't afford to live near work, have a long commute, and a low income.
I think this shows that relatively small cultural adaptations, such as a shift toward telecommuting and away from a regimented, office-based 9-to-5 schedule, particularly in a decentralized and information-based economy, would go a long way toward addressing a big chunk of the cost. Many structures such as this one are embedded into our economy but are archaic and ready to go anyway. How many of us could do our jobs from home, say, at least 3 or 4 days out of the week? Again, we might have to change our expectations, but in some ways these could be changed for the better. So perhaps it is less about the fake fire brigade and more about unfounded and unnecessary desires to continue many aspects of business-as-usual.
I just have two caveats to offer:
- the jobs you describe are mostly the ones that are better paid and not truly challenged by higher fuel prices - I have no problem to work from home and post on TOD, even though the server is 5000 miles away (or so). Someone who has a very simple job involving his or her physical presence probably doesn't have that choice. And in many larger cities in the U.S. that means to live far away from where you work, with only limited alternatives to a car
- the jobs at hand are - in an energy-constrained future, likely the ones to go first. In a world where more basic needs become more prevalent, the number of consultants, marketing people, TOD-posters, heads of research institutions will decrease sharply, as we will have to reverse some of the things we moved over to energy. In that world, a telecommute might be an even bigger challenge.
Sure, telecommuting isn't for everyone, but just an example of a "triple bottom line" (good for people, good for environment, and makes/saves money) that can be achieved in many cases by simply adjusting expectations and shows that not all the adjustment will necessarily be negative. I cannot say for certain what the future holds, but I can say with certainty that virtually all of my previous job could have been done from home (it was almost all online anyway), but I was still required to be present in the office, for little reason other than (it seemed) to maintain a sense of the traditional workplace environment and hierarchy. It's not a perfect example, but I think it is a pretty good one.
I had a high-paying telecommuting career. Most of the work went to India, at a third of the cost.
Manhattan’s Apartment Vacancy Rate Dips Below 1%
Apparently, not everyone is moving to suburbia, where there are lots of homes for sale and many vacancies. Policies should encourage more building where the demand is.
DC, for example, should remove their height limit on apartment and condo buildings.
I lived there and visited often. I disagree. One of the things that makes DC livable is the restriction on height. Head over to Virginia and hit the highrise highways and it is a very different world. Given a choice between a highrise concrete canyon or a street with trees and midrises I'll take the latter.
It's OK by me to argue for a higher-energy society on the basis of livability and aesthetics.
However, the problem in DC is that the height restriction in DC means that the metro area is more extensive geographically than it would be if the high-rises were located in the center of DC and the trees and midrises located on the periphery. The same variety of life-styles and aesthetics could be obtained in a more energy efficient way.
But if the cities are mostly concrete, asphalt, etc. don't they hold more heat? You would use more electricity to cool homes, apt., restaurants, theaters, work place, everywhere.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/06/study-s...
Merill, Tanstaafl. Urban cities concentrate energy geographically, in a different form of energy hierarchy. And if cities can't concentrate it vertically, they'll do it horizontally, through spread. So people who live in cities have extremely high footprints, but we can't see all of the energy transformations and embodied energy because it is well hidden in a smoothly operating city. If you want to find out just how much embodied energy there is in a city, just try a little experiment; turn off the electricity. Think about it.
Historically pre-electricity city buildings were limited to ~4 stories or less. There was a reason for that.
"... people who live in cities have extremely high footprints, but we can't see all of the energy transformations and embodied energy because it is well hidden in a smoothly operating city."
I think you need to back this up, Iaato. For one thing, taking all the energies involved in a city doesn't mean that those numbers should get applied just to the residents. A Key function of an urban center is to be a conduit of trade goods and other exchanges for the lands and towns surrounding it. Cities are nodes, like lymphatic glands serving specialized functions to the body around them.. and it just makes no sense to apply energy numbers to Cities and their people as if that could be kept exclusive from those of the surrounding areas. As such, the energy requirements of individuals within various types of city lifestyles must be gauged with very clear borders guiding which bits of major infrastructure really lands on them.
It's a 'pound of flesh', basically.. if I may include Venice in the cities under discussion. Can it even count if you don't consider the blood that keeps it in constant exchange with the rest of the land?
Here you go, Bob. What is the footprint for food used by city dwellers, especially the gourmet exotic stuff? How much waste and luxury is purchased by wall street financiers? Have you read the NYT or WSJ ads lately? What's the price of a billboard ad in Times Square? What does it cost to put on a Broadway show, or to keep the Museum of Art running? Where does NYC's trash go? When you shut off the power for a week, what happens to a skyscraper's plumbing, and elevators, and security systems, and automatic doors, and trash chutes, and so on? I am reminded of the inventive Cubans during their embargo (from The Power of Community video) who used pulley systems to get water buckets up to their 8th floor apartments.
http://www.epa.gov/aed/html/collaboration/emergycourse/presentations/Eme...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6X3D-4S9G94T-1...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V91-483STHR-1...
I must be missing something, here. I don't see any meaningful comparisons to other living environments.
I think it should be entirely obvious that urban dwellers use much *less* energy per capita than, for instance, modern suburban or exurban residents. Think of transport, heating, cooling, distribution of products and services, etc.
If you want to include the emergy of structures, be sure to calculate building the suburban or rural crackerboxes several times, to account for the differences in durability between those and multi-unit urban structures.
Indeed, there is no more environmentally harmful, energy-intensive lifestyle than the modern Rural Ranchette City. In a world with seven-headed-toward-nine billion humans, we should probably strongly discourage non-agricultural workers from living in rural areas.
Your reference to food is a prime example of flawed reasoning. What, do you imagine, is the food-energy footprint of Western consumers living in single family dwellings on large, widely-scattered lots—"especially the gourmet exotic stuff?"
The Wall Street financiers you speak of have luxury pied a terres in the city and estates in the country. They are not "city dwellers."
Sheesh.
"If you're not an urbanist, you're not an environmentalist."
Thanks for the good question, K. It appears that a lot of folks make this assumption, and I never can understand why. I started to explain further, making good arguments for a city dweller versus suburban vs. rural, but deleted it, because the best argument is to think backwards by deleting support fuels. A natural setting operates from fairly dilute flow-based sources; sun, wind, tides, geothermal. Rural dwellings are closer to the land, and operate using more renewable resources and less non-renewable resources. A city uses very few renewables and relies heavily on non-renewables, including gas, oil, coal, NG, etc. What happens when you turn the non-renewables off in a city? Well, I haven't read the book, but I hear that The World Without Us covers the scenario pretty well. Without FF, one could survive at a reduced standard of living in rural or even suburban settings. But in cities, removing all FF would result in immediate explosions of wrecked cars, immobile mass transit, panicky people without food, water, plumbing, heat, air conditioning, mobility, hygiene, or safety. People live in cities because of the centralized concentration of energy resulting in high salaries and very high standards of living. But the embodied energy, which is apparently very well hidden from view, is often discounted. This argument doesn't even consider the embodied energy required to build cities, which is carefully discussed in the studies linked above.
With significantly reduced FF (a more likely scenario than NO FF), suburbanites would not be able to survive, but city dwellers would. A city by city analysis is required.
New York City has a secure and pure, zero energy required water supply (up to about the 6th floor). Phoenix uses about 20% of it's electricity on pumping water & sewage.
New York City gets some of it's power from the 2+ GW at Niagara, and more hydro from Quebec.
etc.
Alan
Iaato,
We've had cities for Thousands of years. They didn't emerge like the ICE as an outgrowth of oil. They do represent a concentration of energy, but it is energy FROM the region, as it is collected at nodes where it joins the trade routes, or provides systems that the region can only create in population centers. The hinterlands need the cities, and vice versa.
Cities are an aspect, probably an inevitable one, of Homo Sapiens at this point. You choose to focus on Broadway Shows and Wall Street Moguls.. while clearly the great number of poor and who come to the cities for services, for closer access to energy flows that are untouchable in suburban and rural situations, they apparently are as hidden in your analysis as the considerable embodied energies you describe.
Cities today will have to change.. but that's actually what they're good at. They are constantly changing. It's the places that are based on some fixed image from the Cover of the Saturday Evening Post that might have a much harder time seeing the mismatch between what they want to be and what they have to be. And I don't pretend the changes will be easy, either. We see New Orleans rebuilding from one disaster, as it is led by the nose right into another one. Will that erase NO from the map? I doubt it. NO is a function of the river that runs through it, there pretty much HAS to be a port city at the mouth of the Miss. NYC? 'Fuggedaboudit', it's not disappearing anytime soon, short of a meteor strike. (Ooh, I shoonta said that!)
But finally, and once again. It's not an either/or.. Cities are not there with this energy focused in them as an amputatable opposite to the 'country-way' that's out around them.. they are two sides of the same coin.
Good explanation, but...
Cities don't necessarily use a different mix of sources than any other environment.
Existing cities are certainly impossible without FF. So are our current versions of suburbia and exurbia.
You are correct in arguing that a (much, much smaller!) human population would be sustainable at survival levels in rural environments, but the specialization and divisions of labor that make civilization possible would not. Cities are the very heart of human civilization.
For me (and I assure you, I have lived in more rural and primitive ways than has almost anyone else here), humanity without urbanity wouldn't be worth saving.
Gotta run. More when appropriate.
Bob, it sounds as though we agree--I agree with what you say here. The big issue is the ability to support size in a post-fossil fuel society. Preindustrial cities were typically less than 1 million people, and they were situated in geographically fortunate areas (convergence zones for rivers/mountains/the ocean, commonly, in order to take advantage of natural resources, renewable energy sources, and shipping. Cities of the future will shrink.
http://books.google.com/books?id=vsbhwKM3QcMC&pg=PA536&lpg=PA536&dq=pre-...
You bet, K, cities are the heart of modern civilization, because of the concentration of FF energy in terms of culture, art, and fine living. It's one of the things we will need to mourn; loss of high quality centers of information. Let's just try turning off the electricity for a week in a city of >1 million. Think about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Blackout_of_2003
"...cities are the heart of modern civilization..."
Yes. And of all civilization, since there has (arguably) been such a thing. See, oh... Mumford: The City in History.
"...because of the concentration of FF energy in terms of culture, art, and fine living."
No. Not because of FF, although FF has allowed much urban growth and development, of course. Are you confusing "cities" with "oil-fueled cities," or "elevator-accessed and air-conditioned cities," or "mega-cities" or some permutation of that idea? They are not the same.
"It's one of the things we will need to mourn; loss of high quality centers of information."
We can't have civilization without those centers. We never have and never will. If we can't maintain cities, we'll just have to stockpile ammunition and shoot it out in the hollows. We might end up there, of course. Easy to imagine. But we, most assuredly, will not have civilization without cities.
"Let's just try turning off the electricity for a week in a city of >1 million. Think about it."
Doesn't take much thinking, obviously.
OTOH, we can sustain a population of billions concentrated in cities on much lower energy inputs than a similar population scattered widely. If we can't maintain urban centers, rapid mass dieoff is probably inevitable. Which, again, is not to say that it is unlikely, in any case.
Just start putting together the "ideas" presented here and start thinking about how they work out.
Imagine: someone is advocating return to animal power. Ok. how do we return to animal power, but live in dense concrete jungles full of massive high rises?
Hong Kong did it in the past with bicycles, and after a sorrowful traffic mess with cars, is beginning to revert back to bicycles to a large degree.
If you haven't been to many non-US cities, then take a virtual tour of many cities that are either car-free or have car-free districts. I've been to a number myself, including Freiburg, Stuttgart, Lillehammer, Montepulciano, Cortona, Pienza, Sienna, etc.
But, I think that is what Hannes and company are saying, that we won't be able to continue our current BAU lifestyles, which are largely based upon the implicit assumption that energy is too cheap to think about. Most TODers know that with a bit of thought they can get by with a half to a quarter of what is typical. As an analogy, the "fake fire brigade" is quite capable of putting out a fire in a structure which contains few flammable materials, but incapable to putting out a paint warehouse fire. So changes of expectations and behavior are unavoidable.
I do think the numbers they use are overly pessimistic ($.30 KWhr for solar PV, and $.15 for solar thermal). The ratios are stark enough without taking the risk of being accused of cherry picking them. Of course it is legitimately controversial to cost developing technologies future expenses.
"...particularly in a decentralized and information-based economy..."
Honestly, do you really believe that there can be any such thing as an information-based economy? There cannot be.
There can be, and is—for the moment—a segment of the economy that is able to devote itself to information-exchange activities, but only because others (in other places and for lower wages) are taking care of the agricultural and industrial production that are the real bases of any economy.
As we move into our energy-constrained future, it is quite likely that the market for Xboxes and "social networking" will feel a rather painful pinch. And infoburgers are such an unsatisfying lunch.
I doubt there will be as much emphasis on information and "services" as pundits have claimed over the past couple of decades, at least under something that looks more like a sustainable/steady-state economy than what we have now, but there will certainly still be a role for them. Perhaps more importantly, in such a world, the office, commute and 9-to-5 as we know them today are likely to evaporate as well; perhaps suburbs will turn into farms and craft shops to replace the less labor-intensive but more resource-intensive industrial agriculture and factories we know today. How we get there exactly is still a mystery, but for now, telecommuting is certainly something that should be embraced where possible until such time as we do get there. As of today, many businesses and organizations still demand a worker's physical presence when there is no real need for it. Eliminating this aspect of the corporate culture could help us at least get by for a little bit longer with the skills we have today, before or while we learn those we will need tomorrow, and would probably make your average cubicle-dwelling Dilbert happier to boot. And get some congestion off the roads, probably saving a little more fuel in the meantime for those who do still have to commute.
As I indicated above, if you succeed in achieving telecommute privileges you risk being outsourced. Also, computers and telecommunications account for a lot of power usage, so it isn't clear if telecommuting is sustainable either.
Thanks, Hannes and others.
It seems to me what you are doing is drawing a huge box around the system, saying that we can do no better than this huge box. You can see that we will hit speed bumps, at least by a certain, fairly far out point.
But I think you need to be careful of drawing inferences that are the converse of this. We may very well hit other speed bumps, much sooner.
For example, you say
In no way are you proving that we are "good to go", up until we have to use flow based resources at a rate of more than 20% or 30% of total consumption. For example, it may be that we hit financial limits, as soon as we cannot maintain an adequate economic growth rate to pay back debt with interest, and that this limit will greatly affect investment capital. This may inhibit our ability to invest in any energy sources. It may also affect international trade.
You also say
I am doubtful that you will be show that advanced economies will, in fact, be able to produce 30% to 50% of today's energy without fossil fuels, considering all of the issues involved (including financial). Perhaps they will, but perhaps they won't.
Also, at the future point where this lower amount of fuel will be available, there will be many issues to deal with--probably reduced global trade, reduced water tables, depleted soil, ocean acidification, reduced fish stocks, immigration issues, and perhaps global warming. A major lifestyle change will be needed for almost everyone. Furthermore, no one has fully thought through the implications of this lifestyle change--what new infrastructure might be needed to go with a low energy society; what new training might be needed; what mix of crops might be grown in various locations, if fossil fuel fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides and most irrigation is no longer available.
In the light of these issues, I think you can only make a much weaker statement--something like, "If advanced economies are able to figure out ways to maintain 30% to 50% of today's energy supplies without fossil fuels, it seems probable that the energy issue, by itself, will not be an overwhelming bottleneck to feeding everybody, providing shelter, and providing heat and other basic services."
Gail
I don't necessarily think you're wrong, but the above analysis take place generally 'outside' of financial issues - ergo if the world economy had NO debt, these issues would still apply to energy. But lets assume we make it through currency reform/financial crisis in a relatively benign fashion, with social stability/viable international trade etc on the back end. In this scenario we would need precisely the energy solutions that are still feasible, with much less credit, and as Hannes et al analysis suggests, much less wishful thinking on infrastructure than today.
But yes - the fact that we have hundreds of trillions of money/credit outstanding makes our current energy situation more challenging/complicated. But it doesn't mean end of world, or even of industrial civilization for that matter...
A couple of related issues:
1. We tend to think in gross energy, when what is really important is net energy. I can almost believe non-fossil fuel source producing 30% to 50% of current gross energy supplies (although this is a big stretch). Assuming that they will produce 30% to 50% of net energy supplies is a much bigger hurdle.
2. The statement regarding population including the comment
gives the impression that the authors do not really see "Limits to Growth" (of the type analyzed by Meadows et al) as an issue. It seems to me this is simply the result of incomplete analysis--not because the world does not have limits.
This is only because you assume a very low net energy for non-fossil fuel sources. If renewable energy had only a modest average EROEI of 4:1, then 40% of gross energy supplies (which you can 'almost believe') would produce 30% of net energy supplies. Thus the latter scenario is only a "much bigger hurdle" if you assume an EROEI for renewable sources of energy below 4:1. I'm not aware of any analysis you've done or quoted that strongly supports such an assumption. The EROEI of renewables is simply not an issue that has been laid to rest in any such way.
Indeed, people you often quote, such as Charles Hall, seem to believe that an EROEI of 4:1 for sources like solar and wind is plausible, within a wide range of uncertainty. Why is your range of uncertainty so much smaller, and so biased towards one end of theirs?
The USA uses roughly 100 quads/yr of basic energy from all sources. The potential wind energy from the top 10 states in the continental USA comes to about 105 quads/yr (sort by column I descending, use column J for cumulative total of column I, quads = GWh * 3.6/1054400). Then we've got about 50,000 tons of uranium in spent nuclear fuel alone, at about 90 quads per thousand tons.
Nature will let us do this, it's human failings in our way. If Bill Clinton had had the sense to fire Hazel O'Leary in 1993, we could very well have commercial IFRs in operation and AGW would elicit a shrug and "let's move this up a bit".
Nate, commentators in this thread who are peak oil aware can't even agree on the fundamentals of ecological economics even though its being spelt out.
If your serious about your post, it quite clearly means the end of industrial civilization as we know it.
The fundamentals of the post I thought you were stating is that netEROI means there is nothing left over once you get to about 1:3 or less, and this is fundamentally all renewables has to offer (or less) and/or poor substitution/storage value for what our infrastructure is built on. Before you hit break-even the extra energy is simply being used to maintain what exists.
The lead in time to change course the false fire brigade course is very long, I don't expect people or politicians to act in a rational manner. Look at some of the posts!
The picture/narrative you're painting with these articles indicates ecologically we're already at the point of a major discontinuity. You seem to be retreating from the implications of what your post is stating.
First of all, let me defend Nate, he just posted, but we at IIER wrote what's here.
And yes, what you say is probably the real bottom line - that the highly complex societies we have created (mostly in OECD countries) has no long term future. And yes, I think that we are in for some quite non-linear events in the not so distant future. There is a reason why Joe Tainter is on our scientific advisory board.
However, I am not sure the only trajectory has to be towards absolute doom, even if we only start acting at the eleventh hour. Doom is definitely a possibility, and one which our models give a chance of more than 10%. But I would rather try everything to avoid a world where the only thing I can trust is my farm, my family and my gun, and that's ultimately what motivates me to do what I do with IIER.
How about posting your models and data, or at least your sources?
Try the Limits to Growth (any of the versions will do) Dennis Meadows et al or the writings of Dr Bill Rees Ecological Footprinting, Dr David Goodstein, Dr Paul-Ehrlich or Dr Al Bartlett.
Energy is our capacity to undertake activity in the wider ecological system.
Or how about Millennium Assessment, enough scientists.
http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/BoardStatement.aspx
Or if you want a more anthropological point of view how about Dr Wade Davis.
How about you posting one single source that has looked at this post as a complex systems problem, which is what the post is essentially about.
The data for the annualized gaps and surpluses for UK wind energy will not be found in TLTG.
I've been asking for the data and assumptions behind this graph, among others, since shortly after it was posted. So far, nothing.
I understand that you have received the draft of a scientific paper on "Net Energy and Variability" from Nate Hagens, which details the methodology, albeit related to Denmark. We chose Britain for TOD because it's a larger area, but still has the same problems.
There are two misconceptions about the research we do. It is always from scratch using raw data (which we always reference), so for wind data, as the graph in the post says, it's based on raw data from the British Atmospheric Data Center (http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/home/index.html), where it refers to real-life wind electricity data, it comes from Energinet.dk or the Spanish grid manager. But we rarely quote other people who already have processed data, and just use their work to check our own assumption. So maybe that makes this seem "unfounded", but it is just genuine research from scratch.
However, when someone contacts us and gives us the impression of NOT being genuinely hostile, but interested and ready to engage in a dialogue, this person receives all the data and models without any hesitation.
Which dataset(s)? A search for "wind" turns up nothing related to wind power. I did a cursory search for "energy" and I got this, which includes nothing on wind power. The models at Energinet.dk have nothing which is obviously relevant.
You could convert this critic by showing me how you got e.g. Figure 5 and convincing me that it's the best interpretation of the data, but you seem more interested in stonewalling and obfuscating. You could have forestalled my questions by hyperlinking to your sources (something I do out of courtesy and habit), but after more than a week of questions your "answers" have not answered a thing.
"I am not sure the only trajectory has to be towards absolute doom"
hannes,
I see rather more in your post than you seem to. To me, business as usual (BAU) is a trajectory towards absolute doom. It is so, because of the manifest and unavoidable unintended consequences of BAU. The fake fire brigade image is a useful phrase for capturing the essence of the issues.
But if BAU will not continue and cannot continue, that does not imply absolute doom, whatever that may be. I do not expect a second battle between God and Satan in which Satan wins. But there are many ways in which our global economy can become less organized and less interdependent. I don't think there is much reason to hope that any of these less organized futures would be better (better in some vague hand waving sense) than BAU. I just think that the actual future will not be BAU and that in will not be absolute doom.
I think you have established that BAU will not survive. You may want to restate your arguments with new and different variations, but it might be better to think about scenarios that are real departures from BAU and what might usefully be done to mitigate bad features of a few of the more likely ones. Yes, I know, foreseeing the future is difficult. But we should try.
It seems to be that one major change will be in the size of civil societies. Will there be a class of people called diplomats who flit about the globe in jet airplanes discussing global issues and making important pronouncements? I think not. But I also think that there will be civil society that is larger than the bands of Native Americans of the type that populated North America before the arrival of the Europeans. Defenders of Native Americans, hold your peace. I seriously doubt the that Native Americans were as disorganized as the history of my youth made them out to be. But I am talking speculation about the future, not supposed facts about the past. There are other stories of less highly organized societies than our present one. I suppose some mix of features from the past might emerge as a typical organization. (Your Farm/Family/Gun vision seems unrealistic to me because it does not provide for breeding a healthy next generation. It won't happen, because it is at odds with our animal nature.)
What could we do that might prepare the way for a more civil kind of civil society in these smaller groups? One thing we can do is develop a body of technical information about various biofuels that might be implementable by a less highly organized society. Maybe do not assume shipment of raw materials over great distances, for instance. But my point is not to actually suggest a solution. It is rather to suggest moving on to addressing a different problem after having demolished fake fire brigades.
I am not sure if I totally buy this idea that declining energy flows will lead to a total collapse of available credit, particularly for renewables and energy efficiency measures. For one thing, it discounts the possibility that economic decline might be pushed back by using less energy-intensive technologies, and in fact energy intensity per dollar of GDP in the U.S. has been declining steadly, by around 2% per year - something that scarcely gets mentioned around here. And secondly, even if there is a general contraction of credit, even a large one, credit would be made unavailable to virtually every other sector before funding the up-front costs of renewables and efficiency becomes impossible. 2009 was one of the worst years in history for credit but it was also the strongest growth year for wind and solar, and saw increased investment in other renewables as well. The E.U. added around 27 gigawatts of new generating capacity in 2009, some two thirds of it renewable (including 5 gigawatts of PV, which represents enormous year-on-year growth in that sector).
May I offer our (research based) view on why energy intensity of the U.S. (and most other Western societies) is going down? This happens because we are outsourcing the most energy-intensive production activities to places like China, where they get done with lower-cost energy.
As soon as you start to include the energy content in those goods in the picture, almost all the efficiency gains disappear.
That may be, I don't know. Regardless, the point remains that we still have to somehow reconcile years of staggering growth in renewables with staggering declines in credit. The problem is that renewables are still mostly a supplement to fossil fuels to allow continued aggregate growth when that is clearly impossible, and it is not yet clear to what extent wind or solar energy can or will substitute. Though Europe did lose around 450 MW of coal-fired generation in 2009 too, so there is some displacement occurring.
Then the obvious conclusion is that we can cut our energy consumption quite a bit (heavy technical term, but quite in keeping with the rather relaxed rigor of the original posting) by being poor and not buying all that Chinese consumer dross, eh?
Could you show your numbers?
As far as I can tell, this just isn't true, at least in absolute terms. The US manufactures 50% more now than it did in 1978. People are misled by the fact that US manufacturing employment has dropped substantially in that period. But, that was caused by sharply rising manufacturing labor productivity, rather than by a decline in absolute levels of manufacturing output. See http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/m3/index.html, including http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/m3/historical_data/index.html , Historic Timeseries - SIC (1958-2001), "Shipments" http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/m3/historical_data/index.html.
My preference is not to pay for renewables (and energy efficient infrastructure) with credit, but "cash on the barrel head" by reductions in consumption (both financially and resource wise).
Consumption, especially in the USA, is a "big fat pig" as a resource.
Alan
"..before we lull ourselves with the expectation that our energy future will somehow be at the same or higher level of today’s."
As you have embedded this theme into both essays, I will reiterate my objection to the way this mis-frames the issue, and then lays the blame for the predictable failure at the feet of "Renewables".
I'm sure we can all find some example of these 'died-in-the-wool optimists' who would try to make the case you're disputing above.. but I can't say I've ever run across a person who is advocating for the immediate build up of our Renewable Power options who doesn't also clearly understand that we're absolutely profligate in our use of energy today, and are headed for a time of much more constrained access to 'raw, cheap power'.
If 'durable solutions' to some fraction of our energy needs is really at the heart of the question here, I would love to see an analysis of 'Low-Grade (but widespread) Solar Heating equipment' and the effect this would have on offsetting our use of imported and burned fuels. I'm particularly interested in how we might devise an EROIE estimate for the cheapest forms of Renewable Energy, which would be Homebuilt Solar Heat Collectors made from reused and directly recycled materials.. such as the Glass, Wood and Insulation that can come available in pretty much any neighborhood when someone is removing old Storm Windows, renovating, etc.. While this sort of project is not a picture that many of us are used to seeing in American neighborhoods on much of a scale today, I would expect that, like population and per capita energy use are expectations that can and will be changing soon enough.. and especially if a calculation of the Energy Return on such an endeavor was generally known.
Of course, nobody would risk looking like a great fool if the public has been taught instead that 'Renewables are only Pretending to put out fires' These things work. I build them myself from junk and scraps, and could teach pretty much anybody who can make Cinnamon Toast to do what I've been doing. Build enough of them and I can scrap my furnace, and finally put out that fire!
I do appreciate your effort, but I really hope you see how, from my perspective, you've created a message that can seriously undermine the effort to build a wide range of tools that WILL put out fires.. if not all of them, then as many as we can.
Regards,
Bob Fiske
Portland, Maine US
Bob,
your comment is much appreciated, but I think you already live on a different planet compared to the people who just now want to assign hundreds of billions to high-tech fixes for our current energy delivery systems .
Maybe the stuff you do is closer to what we have in mind than what you think. And I bet you do your work with hundreds of dollars.
Hannes
Thanks Hannes;
You might be right about my planet-of-residence. But it's a planet controversially called 'Renewables', and I'd like to see how I could get some more of my neighbors to come and see how great it can be. It doesn't have to include ALL renewbles.. as I say again and again.. but without the ones we should have, what else is there?
I wonder if the Internet is a mode of communication that begs for vast amounts of 'Debunking', as your article, like the 'Without the Hot Air' book are keen to Debunk some kind of Renewables Myth, .. when I would personally hope to see researchers making more of an effort to help guide people TOWARDS something, at least as much as they are Warding them Off something else.
Eliminate the Negative, but also Accentuate the Positive.
You have a conclusion that warns people to make careful calculations before investing in dubious enterprises that make spectacular claims.. but you've got access to a lot of researchers and numbercrunchers, it seems.
Are you looking as dilligently for what can help us, as you are for what cannot?
Are you worried that identifying any useful tools that 'could help' will merely dissuade people from seeing energy still as a looming problem, and they'll go back to sleep? I think you can identify problemsolvers without compromising the message that 'we're hitting an iceberg, and need to gather anything that floats'..
Thanks,
Bob
Bob,
first of all, comes recognition, and not by people like yourself, but to people who are now on the "technology-will-solve-it-all" trajectory. So one of the reasons why we make a case against any expectation of "business as usual" (and one with much less energy driven by high-tech) is because we think we don't have the time for the Bobs of this world to find their individual solutions with their own bare hands, but need to put at least as much effort from traditional science and policy-making into "real" alternatives.
And yes, you are right, we don't have "the solution" yet, but one of our relatively important jobs was to simply find out what can work and what cannot. We have another project called "sustainable low-tech renewable energy sources", on which I would be happy to brief you and even get you involved. But this isn't enough, it's not a few people who should work on this stuff, but thousands of scientists. And ultimately, this is our key objective, to get some attention diverted towards a "realistic" objective.
Does that make some sense?
Hannes
I'm certainly very interested to hear about your low-tech program.
While I'll resist acting all scorned and wounded at the description of those unreachable 'Real Alternatives' out there (I'm fine, really.. but I could use a glass of water.. and a hug), I will still respond to it by saying that the millions of households, with their Fridges, Water Heaters, Lights, Cars etc.. represent a very real portion of our energy demand, just as they represent that forbidding force in the global economy.. their jobs, their housekeeping budgets, their product/appliance buying power, their energy buying power is clearly an intimate series of strings that net a major chunk of this issue. It's not just the Bob's who build their own, but also the simple solutions that I would build that can be small or large businesses across the continent, and which we already know work, and can work in Neighborhood after neighborhood, where the spread of such things as even a bit of PV (500w-1kw?) and a bit of Solar Hot Water would increasingly provide a level of resilience from economic and energy interruptions or fluctuations.
One can call this 'Small and Low tech', as is constantly done.. and one can find other ways to deemphasize such unexciting amendments to the ordinary household.. but that is deceptively downplaying what is really a significant contribution towards our energy situation. As with every US rail project needing, it seems, to be "HighSpeed" to get any attention whatsoever, these rice and beans efforts would gradually (read- "BORING") put us in a less-insecure spot.
WHICH, is what I would call, "Helping throw a couple real buckets onto the fire" .. and hence, my continued efforts to let you know why I think that while your research may well be helpful, but your framing of it is continually doing a disservice to what would appear Humbler, but necessarily MUCH broader appeal to engage many, many people in critical this issue.
The word "Renewables", at the very least, needs some differentiation IN THE TITLE/ABSTRACTS/CONCLUSIONS, between the broad range of systems often grouped under that broad roof.
Bob
Bob,
why don't you mail me offline, and I am happy to share what we do. I also would be happy to discuss a little further on PV, but I won't do that here, as this is going to be one aspect of post #3.
Hannes
Thank you Hannes, for the offer, but I will probably wait to have that conversation after post #3, since The Oil Drum is where I allow myself some time to carry on these topics, and I do like having it in a public square where other views (from many sides) can weigh in.
I know you've gotten a good drumming (drubbing?) on these articles, so far.. but I think this disconnect between what you're saying and what I and a couple others have been pressing is a significant question on the approach much of this work hangs on. I hope you stick with us.. I will try to be clear and pertinent in my remarks.
Best,
Bob Fiske
I'd say not many TODers fit the latter description. I think a lot of the reason you've gotten the reaction you have is that you're speaking to the wrong audience with these posts. The negative reactions you've gotten are of a sophisticated nature. You're pushing people in a rhetorical direction of more doom-and-gloom, while many people here are trying to get away from feeling just horrible about all this, and figure out what responses will be useful. (Notice I don't say what responses will be 'solutions'.) You've spent a lot of time dragging down technologies that some here think are a useful response. (Notice, again, I don't say 'solution'.)
It doesn't you help that you have, intentionally or not, largely lumped all renewables together. In this audience, people here have mostly thought a lot about these technologies. They've weeded out what they consider the good from the bad, and some of them probably know as much or more than you do about particular subjects. And so they want to talk about that and disagree with you on particular points.
I think that observation is quite on point. I myself have been struggling with my own reactions to this post.
I am a very strong and vocal proponent of renewables in general but in no way do I ever suggest that they can in any way support our current notions of BAU. I don't see anyway forward without profound paradigm change in the way we structure our civilization and and most importantly our perception and expectations of what it is that really constitutes a high standard of living.
Case in point, this morning I attended a round table discussion with our newly elected Congressman to specifically discuss what renewable energy business owners feel would be helpful to promote the implementation of renewables in our state.
This round table was organized by a national organization, "working for bold federal legislation to transition our economy to the clean energy future", to quote their own mission statement. The impetus behind this organization's is based mostly on our need to control runaway climate change, a goal with which I agree, BTW.
However, when I attempted to conect the dots between peak fossil fuel energy and how that might impact any attempt at transitioning away from those very sources of energy, and the implications that would have on maintaining BAU, my attempt pretty much went over their heads.
There seems to be very little recognition amongst the public at large as to what is coming down the pipeline, and I'm not talking about J6pk here, these were intelligent, aware, highly educated people in positions of leadership both in government, business and grassroots organizations, many of them involved in renewable energy businesses.
So if this post were directed at the people who were present at my morning round table I could see where it might make sense to raise awareness about "The Fake Fire Brigade".
To me, already being peak oil aware, and having accepted the fact that BAU is completely dead, that description elicits from me a very different reaction, than what I think, was actually intended.
I think of renewables as playing a real role in a completely different paradigm than what now exists. To me they are not a "Fake" Fire Brigade at all, they are very much the real thing.
Thanks for reading my comment. Glad to know that at least someone like you is talking to a congressman. They say that you have to tell something to the average person 7 times before they will really think about it. Hope you'll keep getting chances with those folks. :-)
I sent them a link to this post... maybe I won't get invited back as a result ;^)
Seriously though, this was supposed to be the first of many meetings so perhaps I will get a chance to further present some ideas and my POV.
But the force of BAU amongst these people is very very strong. And again, as I previously mentioned these are people who actually have some brains and a sense that change is necessary.
Imagine if I had to convince a Sarah Palin and her Tea Party :(
That's a very real possibility.
When conversations are threatened, they defend themselves by rejecting the threat. A sort of immune-system response.
I have spent countless hours working with my climate change colleagues to bring them up to speed on oil depletion with very, very little success. Even when they get to the point of fully understanding the issue, they want someone else to stick their neck out before they will.
It takes courage to keep saying something in the face of no agreement.
A lot of the reason I created my company completely online is because via the Internet I can reach the people scattered across the globe who are open to the message. Trying to get a critical mass in one specific location is difficult indeed.
But I'm ready to pounce when gasoline goes back up in price :-). I think it will present a very good teachable moment.
Given that these meetings were were initiated by a Climate Change grassroots organization that is pretty much what I have seen already. And I'm certainly all for reductions in the release of greenhouse gases to combat climate change.
Even though the issues of peak fossil fuels and climate change are deeply intertwined, to be understood in depth they need to be examined independently so as to be able to fully grasp their implications. Very few people that I have encountered outside of TOD staff and readers seem to have the necessary analytical wherewithal and tenacity to grapple with these two very data intensive and science based topics at the levels necessary to be able to see the emergence of the big picture.
Often when they do, they panic and completely shut down in denial of truth of what they see. Then they lash out and shoot the messenger... So I've learned to wear my metaphorical bullet proof vest when engaging in these conversations. I already know I won't be making many friends.
Hi F,
My total empathy on this one:
"However, when I attempted to conect the dots between peak fossil fuel energy and how that might impact any attempt at transitioning away from those very sources of energy, and the implications that would have on maintaining BAU, my attempt pretty much went over their heads."
The only times I've felt I've managed to convey the point has been in one-on-one conversation, face-to-face. (And even then, some surprising examples of "no takers," despite their impressive resumes, which would seem to uniquely qualify them for the straightforward logic of how to put down the pencil.)
I can't say I've had the opportunity for this kind of chat w. elected officials, but will say that extensive email exchanges on your point got me exactly nowhere at all.
Reminds a bit of a Brazilian saying that might be useful to keep in mind in that context.
Translation: Soft water, dripping day by day, wears the hardest rock away...
"but thousands of scientists"
IMHO, as a retired scientist. This sounds like making scientists into a fade fire brigade.
A good, new idea is very rare in science. Perhaps, if the scientists were working in parallel Universes with differing natural laws, and we had some way of transporting ourselves to a Universe with better laws ... maybe it would work. But there are probably restrictions on how laws can differ in parallel Universes. Could there be a parallel Universe in which numbers had different properties?
e.g. 2+2=5 ?
Bob: Could you describe your physical environment, please? Do you live in a standalone single-family dwelling? How large is your lot?
Can you help us to envision a world in which, say, seven billion humans, most of them necessarily in dense urban environments, could apply your solutions?
Am I supposed to be the median or the mean in order to make an extrapolation of my home, my environment, my attempts to reduce external dependencies.. out to 7 Billion?
I find this kind of question intentionally snarky and not really looking to find helpful answers, but instead to present an intro to an 'Oh Yeah?' kind of discussion...
First, you are assuming '7- billion', or that somehow my plans are supposed to rescue them all if they are to be considered at all (What I'll call the SilverBullet Strawman). I don't. If Oil goes down, Pop. will follow, is what I expect. Finding useful tools to reduce energy can apply to whomever wants to try it out. My neighbors, both in Maine and online, etc.. are frequently shown my wacky experiments, and reminded that there are people paying attention to energy, and they come up and we have great exchanges of notions and plans.
Beyond that, when I propose simple DIY or Small Business Renewables that could be created all over the place, I'm generally looking at a range of applications that reflect where we use energy, and how we can do the same job without burning some extracted or harvested fuel. Solar Cooking is one of the simplest and could help people and ecosystems from the economic bottom to the top. Some very low-tech like that, using those scraps of aluminum we got our leftovers in from the restaurant the other day.. old glass, old mirrors.. to higher tech, but with profound implications, like little solar or pedal-generated LED lamps, to allow Off-Grid folks the chance to read and study at night.. which of the 7 billion would these things help?
We can do our wash whether rich, middle or poor, in solar heated water.. and that's an improvement, right? Do I have to sign a note and promise you that all 7 billion will get to do their wash on the same day in order to make this applicable or useful?
Any of us in the Seasonal Climates can do VERY simple things to unplug EVERY fridge for the Wintertime. Would that have an effect on the Euro, US, Russian or Chinese Grids? It could, if people knew it wasn't just a 'False Fire Brigade' .. might not give them the 'Leave it to Beaver' panache', but it could keep their Yoghurt from spoiling..
So what's your question really?
PS..
"Do you live in a standalone single-family dwelling? How large is your lot?"
How does that matter if I'm here advocating for renewables?
If I'm living in a Tent, Apartment building or in a Mansion, wouldn't the effect of my committing to renewable sources of energy that strike or blow over my rooftop, for example.. amount to the same thing? The volumes would be vastly different, but the point is the kind of tools I'm promoting, and how they can easily apply in large AND small ways to a broad range of people.
**(and yes, people in apartments have figured out ways to use renewables, to join coops, etc.. BUT, I'm not pointing to 'Rooftop Solar' as a Universal Fix, and many Apartment Bldgs clearly don't have this particular option. Fit it in if it fits) and still, some of the energy profiles of Apartment dwelling are already pretty incredibly small, with all the shared services, and generally very modest Square Footage, and for some the access to built-up communities, resulting in far less distances traveled and more walking available.)
But if you want to poke at my demographic and see if that proves your point, I'm in a 3-unit apt building in a very walkable city. We own it, and the other two rents cover the Mortgage. Shared walls and floor/ceilings leave us burning about as much oil (yes, we do.. transition is a process) as the typical single family house in Maine.. but the number has been going down a good chunk every year.. be that my Weathersealing efforts or Climate Change, I don't know)
You give a very impassioned endorsement of renewables, but you don't address the overriding question. That's OK. Not everyone needs to be working on the same aspects of the problem.
Your work and your commitment are admirable, but I doubt that they scale well. And I'm quite certain that they won't meet the general expectations of our Western neighbors for a future of plenty (let alone the demands of the people of developing world for their own chance to party). Thus, I think that lowering expectations and changing habits of consumption are they goals we, as a society need to focus upon.
What does that really mean, "I doubt that they scale well" ?
How limiting is the expansion of Solar water heating? Storage is not a problem, there's a massive potential market. It can be built from numerous materials, and serves a known need (albeit one that is still being undercut by temporarily cheap fuels, and fuels which are pouring more and more C02 into the air) .. so what does 'Doesn't Scale' mean?
Frankly, this acclaimed 'Mainstream Expectation of BAU' is to me another convenient excuse for people who don't want to look too 'Jimmy Carter' by doing the humbling work of pushing this forward. 'Doesn't scale' is another handwave, as far as I can tell, or a way for economists to blithely suggest that 'you'll still make more money pushing burnables'..
Now really, I DO get that people outside of this and a few other communities (if you will) do fully expect to see BAU continue, whether it's 'we'll find more oil', or '..coal..' or 'they'll come up with something'.. or even 'Wind and Wave will run the world..' I get it, and I don't think what we need to do starts with worrying about them. They're wrong.
They're wrong. But they're focused on other things. They bake bread.. bread that I eat. etc..
We do need to focus on changing habits of consumption and lowering expectations. AND, we'll still need to bake bread, heat up water, make a phone call or use a radio, grind some seeds or saw some lumber. So We DO ALSO need to focus on workable energy supplies that will contribute to the new habits and lifestyles we are heading into.
"Thus, I think that lowering expectations and changing habits of consumption are they goals we, as a society need to focus upon."
-and so That is a false choice.. it is hardly that simple. We can't just worry about consumption alone, we have to move both the supply and the demand in the right directions..
Bob
"-and so That is a false choice.. it is hardly that simple. We can't just worry about consumption alone, we have to move both the supply and the demand in the right directions.."
Come on, now, Bob. The protest is excessive. Please, read what I wrote.
What you're working on is fine. Keep it up.
Kal - how energy intense is your lifestyle? You have asked Jokuhl essentially this and he has replied - it appears clear to me anyway his lifestyle is less energy intense than many in the US. What do you do as a consequence of your energy opinions? For myself, I do what I can - limit driving as much as possible (it causes a little family conflict sometimes, but they get it), I heat with wood from my own and my fathers property, (I shut my oil furnace down 3 years ago),I raise some of my own food (I'm trying potatoes for the first time this year - hoping for 700 lbs or so) - its a learning process - a little more each year -
I think Jokuhl is right - the greater part of the answer to our energy predicament is comprised of many small changes reiterated. Changes in mindset as well.
The short answer is that my energy consumption is much, much lower than the US average. My wife and I live in a small apartment/condominium in an urban area, travel little (I have public transportation available within a block, own a smart car that is driven less than 3,000 miles per year), consume little by American middle-class standards and, importantly, have no children.
However, I think all of this is quite beside the point. Our energy consumption as a society is driven by choices we make collectively, and those are driven by, among other things, earlier decisions that have shaped and limited the options available today. In the US, for instance, we tend to live in single-family dwellings in suburbs because, in the wake of the Second World War, we decided to fund the construction of those suburbs with VHA mortgages and make commuting to and from them more convenient by subsidizing highway construction. In the process of shaping our environment, we've largely dictated many of our choices for generations.
Most of us rely upon personal autos for travel because we've built an environment that virtually requires them. The infrastructure for automobiles, and the cars themselves, along with the Euclidean zoning codes we've adopted, literally push our homes and jobs and schools and entertainment farther and farther apart, while creating low population densities that can't be efficiently served by other modes.
It's comforting to believe that we can solve our energy problems by making good personal choices and taking individual, incremental steps, but I don't think it's realistic.
You speak of heating with wood from your own property and growing a significant portion of your food. That's a good and admirable course to take, but it's not one that is going to change the national energy picture. Even assuming that a large percentage of similarly-situated individuals made such voluntary choices (very unlikely in our current circumstances), it could hardly make a dent in the overall problem. More than 80% of Americans are urban and suburban dwellers, as, indeed, they must be in order to effectively concentrate and distribute the goods and services of a high-technology culture. The choices available to you are simply not available to the vast majority of your fellow citizens.
If we are to address the looming permanent energy crunch in a meaningful way, we will have to do so by making very different decisions, and having very different expectations, as a society. It's going to have to be an organized, concerted effort, rather than a random collection of ad hoc individual steps. That's just how complex cultures work.
Sorry if that came off too intensely, but while I appreciate the supportive comments, you made a couple points which do set me off. You did, in fact present a false choice. We do NOT merely have to worry about overconsumption.. we have to keep our attention on the energy resources we will rely on as well.
My protest, on its own was hardly extreme, in saying that we Surely need to use less (Demand).. and yet also look to where the energy supply comes from, and get a greater portion from better sources. When my principal examples have been Solar hot water and solar cooking, either of which could be as functional in the Serengeti as the Ritz Carlton (relative to the available Sunlight, of course, but to demonstrate how broad a swath of energy users this could help), it's frustrating to have to take these inevitable challenges about 'my personal situation' as if I were projecting my lot as the key to everyone's success.. or how I might be proposing that these offer a (clearly defeatable) solution to an overpopulated planet.
Neither of those challenges in any way help this conversation determine whether 'Solar Heating Works'.. and so can help whomever it can reach. .. or the same for PV, CSP, Wind large or Small, the Many faces of Geothermal or Hydropower.. etc etc etc. And yet they are here getting tarred with this same 'Merely Fossil Fuel Extenders' brush that pretends to be keeping people from 'Throwing their money away...'
That is why I'm up in arms over this article. It's clearly tossing babies out in the bathwater.. babies that I will again and again propose can help grow up to assist us in the future.
So 7 billion of us turn to scrapping for energy? How do 7 billion people feed themselves with replace my furnace energy? I think you made the point of the post. BTW, thanks Nate, best post of the month!
In relation to the table comparing a US worker with a Bangladeshi worker you would need to do this comparison on a physical output basis.
For earthwork in Bangladesh (food for work) a daily output of 4.5 m3 is an acceptable average.
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/employment/recon/eiip/download/banglad...
We had up to 500 workers hauling soil for road embankment work from surrounding fields to keep one mechanical, diesel driven sheep foot roller (twin drums) busy compacting for 10 hrs a day
Hi Matt,
Here in the relatively hard and rocky soils of my locality, a good man day is about two to three cubic yards of soil broken up and shoveled onto a cart or wheel barrow;and thats for a young tough well fed farm or construction type guy with heavy calluses.
Your Bangladeshi figure compared to mind brings up a point that is not made often enough;virtually all the issues I see argued here are going to be resolved by the effort put into scaling them up.
Somebody once gave me a humorous business card advertising fast solutions to construction problems;the last line read something to the efffect that "we can do the impossible too, but it takes longer."
Your Bangladeshi (sp?) are ready to make the sacrifices necessary to build roads by hand;the Western world is not.
I believe that if the supplies of coal and ng hold up fairly well over the next few decades, and the energy crunch arrives gradually over a generation or two, and we are lucky in respect to wars, natural disasters, and the entitlement(want it now!)mentality, Alan's vision will win out.
I'm generally pretty pessimistic and cynical when it comes to humans as a species, but I am enough of a short term pessimist long term optimist to believe that barring a hard crash, renewables will be quite affordable in twenty years or so, assuming the economy is still functioning reasonably well;the cost reductions will come from both new technology and economies of scale as ther technologies mature and are widely adopted.
And assuming the crunch arrives very slowly, the public can adapt incredibly well;a prosperous suburbanite can and will give up a new suv and spend the money on conservation and efficiency as well as installing his own pv system, etc.
He will learn to like driving a fifteen hundred pound car two seater car that won't go over forty five mph if nothing else is available, rather than giving up his energy refurbed mcmansion for a high rise apartment.
But he won't learn these new behaviors overnight.
But it seems to me that the odds of our being so fortunate are very slim indeed.
I think that we are going to run short of capital, trained manpower, and physical resources, with the result being that renewables will stall out like an airplane in too steep a climb or that everything is destroyed in one last big fight for the last slice of pie.
Some of our "manpower" is in fact woman-power, and not everyone is in the 20 - 50 year old age range. Not everyone is really cut out for heavy lifting.
Very true Gail,
My own haystacking these days is limited to about a pickup truck load and even then it takes me an hour or so whereas forty years ago it might have taken fifteen minutes or so.
As a realist who believes my own lying eyes,rather than the pc lectures of my intellectual betters, I can say with great confidence that women are never going to be able to do quite as much of the very heaviest physical labor as men.
But when I was a kid, the women around here could keep up with the men on most of the jobs on the farm, and did.Only on a few jobs such as stacking hay bales continiously did they have to step aside for a man half again thier size.
But there will be an ample supply of somewhat lighter physical work than stacking hay all day to keep all the women in the world busy in the event that the economy crashes in such a way that intellectually oriented work is not available.
The real question as to whether we successfully transition to renewables is whether the transition can be slow enough and drawn out enough for the men and women of the next few decades to adjust thier expectations and lifestyles.
The girls and women I grew up with could have taken the transition in stride just like they took living thru a dry year or looking after a long term bedridden parent in stride.
I am afraid the yong women and men I know today are simply not prepared to really get out there and seriously work, physically, or with thier brains, unless the anticipated rewards are fat and juicy.
Undoubtedly most of them will be able to adjust thier expectations and attitudes if forced to do so by uncompromising reality, but the process is apt to take a while.
The young women of today who expect a prestigious and renumerative career as cpa's or lawyers are apt to take to the streets with molotov cocktails if they suddenly suddenly find themselves collectively deprived of thier expected rosy futures.
I do believe that women have "arrived" in the fullest sense of the word over the last few decades.The men would have rioted under such circumstances at least as far back as the sixties.
Note also the units: 4.5 m^3 / 3 yd^3 = 1.96, not 1.5. The Bangladeshi workers are moving essentially twice as much soil per day as the "young tough well fed farm or construction type guy with heavy calluses" in your locality.
If this is the issue you are analyzing, please stop using the "fake fire brigade" term. It is a bad analogy. (And I believe that you are not using it to talk about exactly the same thing that Robert Rapier was when he used it about certain renewables.) The standard you are setting in the quote above is not how to put the fire out (which is what a fire brigade does), but how to stop it from starting in the first place.
Given your final sentence of the previous post ("Let's finally bring in the real fire brigade."), and the general lack of anything positive said about the technologies mentioned, I think people were justified in thinking what they did. I hope you've at least learned something about how to communicate your intentions.
In principle, I agree that we shouldn't lull ourselves into complacency or false expectations. However, there is an opposite danger, which is failing to take helpful actions because they would only partially fulfill those expectations. The important questions one needs to ask when considering whether to adopt renewable energy projects, large or small, are these: a) Will the project produce a meaningful energy surplus over its lifetime? and b) will it reduce green-house-gas emissions over its lifetime? Those are more important questions than whether such projects will allow us to "maintain our lifestyle" over the long term. And those are the only criteria by which "fire-brigades" should be judged "real" or "fake", in my opinion.
Alan mentioned this above, but I'm going to harp on it...
a) Increased commute time is not an energy cost.
b) In my previous job, I commuted by foot, bus, and subway. My commute was about 4 miles and lasted 25-40 min one way. This cost me $70 a month (actually the fare ws cheaper then, but that's the current fare). Due to parking issues, doing the same commute by car either would have taken the same period of time or greater, or would have cost at least $250 per month for a parking garage pass in order to save between 10 and 40 min a day. And this does not account for the greater cost of owning a car, which for a time I didn't.
In other words, taking public transportation can save time and money. And almost always saves energy.
c) As the example above shows, the key factor in commute time is not really the mode of transportation. The key factors are the distance of the commute, and the topography of the endpoints.
I have commuted by car and rail (65 minutes and 95 minutes one-way respectively). The rail commute was better because the time spent could be used reading and writing.
Yes, thanks, I was going to mention that and forgot. I also often use the time to sleep. ;-)
A Counter Thesis
As we proceed with all haste "wasting trillions" on "false fire brigades" and striving towards a roughly 90% (Note: not just 20%-30%)) non-carbon grid (renewables + nukes) with current technology (including Demand side management), we make a concerted effort to create throttle-able sources of renewable/nuclear energy. An issue that I have pondered.
Some reasonable possibilities.
- France (and formerly Ontario) just built too many nukes and shut some down every spring and fall. The new EPR nuke is designed to vary between 60% and 100% of nameplate (5% per hour rate of change from uncertain memory).
- Geothermal could be designed for dispatch#.
- Super-insulated solar thermal generation
- Generate (and store till needed) hydrogen, methanol and/or ammonia when electricity is in surplus and burn as needed.
Alan
I'm curious about using advanced geothermal as a way to spread around some of the load balancing needs so it is not all on hydro and stored fuels. It seems the biggest problem is figuring out whether advanced geothermal drilling techniques are scaleable enough and can produce enough of a positive EROEI to turn geothermal from a useful but geographically quite limited resource, into an important part of a national energy mix.
If the technology works and it can be scaled and built economically, using geothermal first for load balancing would seem to synergize well with the nature of the resource, as it would allow natural heat reservoirs to rebuild over time in between deployment and avoid depleting geothermal resources as might happen with overdevelopment of constant-output plants. Make it function less like a coal-fired power plant and more like a gas-fired peaker plant, and displace the base loading generation by using available wind and solar resources first before turning to those that face potential resource constraints. And in turn, conserve hydro, biomass and stored fuel resources simply by adding a layer of redundancy to the system. It certainly seems like it can't hurt to make this a major focus area for R&D at the very least.
geothermal energy would cost the same as a natural gas plant on the turbine side.
The problems being the cost of drilling for places where the heat is not near the surface.
The length of time the heat would remain without it recharging is an unknown.
The corrosion of pipes and pumps in the system from minerals.
You got to look at the cost of capital equipment and the length of service expected. If it corrodes every few years then whats the point?
Sure, the technology is not yet proven to be viable. But the theoretical basis is at least there, and doing the R&D will give better estimates of the costs and replacement rates for equipment and help address other uncertainties. If a reasonably high EROI can be achieved, it would be worthwhile; if not, then at least there will be data to show that it is not a worthwhile investment. Moreover, the value of the recovered energy would be very high because of its role in filling gaps created by a system built on a backbone of variable resources (primarily wind/solar). Similar to the way gas is used to meet peak daytime and summer loads today, at much higher costs than off-peak electricity. So it could be worthwhile even if the costs of equipment and maintenance turn out to be quite high, and if the capital expenses are similar to gas as you suggest, then the cost could end up being lower (relative to other future generating stations) than the cost of meeting peak load today, as the cost of gas-fired electricity is primarily driven by fuel prices rather than capital investment and equipment replacement rates.
Better a shot in the dark than no shot at all?
Let me post my thoughts on widespread "hot rock" geothermal. Live steam geothermal (most today) can also be varied (I have checked with Landsvirkjun) but more limited application.
Use oil drilling tech and drill holes down. Say four wells down and one up, they all intercept at 9,000' with fractured rock around (in a "hot" area).
A field of these supply 165 C water at first. Heat exchange with mixture of alcohols (one of several working fluids used today for low temp geothermal). Alcohols steam and drive steam turbines. Two closed loops.
Just for illustration, say initial field has several wells feeding 60 MW generator. Operate said generator 120 days/year, typically 7 hours/day (one hour increasing to 60 MW, 5 hours at 60 MW and one hour wind down).
Easy to modulate (with decent efficiency) between 25 & 60 MW with stored hot water on the surface in insulated tanks)
After a couple of decades, rock temperatures decline (despite heat transfer from below) and the operating temperature is changed with a different mix of alcohols and a new "steam" turbine.
Revised power plant now produces a maximum of 38 MW and is used only 90 days/year for an average of 5.5 hours/day. Slightly reduced volume of water circulated, but lower temperatures (say 150 or 145 C). Over a century of production as the extraction rate is close to the geothermal heat transfer rate (cooler rock increases the transfer rate in).
LOTS of engineering hand waving going on, but I hope this illustrates the concept of what could be widespread.
This geothermal power will be expensive (tell me interest rate since mainly one time capital expense) but it feels a niche need for reliable power 24/7 as FF grow scarce.
Best Hopes for Planning Ahead,
Alan
Alan, I've become pretty pessimistic about hot dry rock geothermal lately. Seems a few of the attempts have triggered small earthquakes. So now NIMBYism is going to become quite intense about most potential sites. I just don't think we will succeed in getting very much of this resource.
A very useful and well presented commentary that is a strong warning to those who would be complacent about our energy (and general) future in a world with 7 billion people and a couple billion consuming way too much! Thank-you.
There is a potentially significant factor that is often discounted or not discussed in this context that I have found to be controversial. I do not want to cause controversy but rather to evoke thoughtful discussion of the potential implications. So please take this suggestion in this spirit. Is this a "fake fire bridge" or a real factor that needs to be considered??
Recent (and not so recent) data from open-air CO2 fertilization of crop experiments (e.g. corn and soybeans) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champagne (UIUC) and many other comparable experiments has provided strong evidence that plants which provide a substantial amount of the food for North America (and other locations) show large gains in crop yields as a function of increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. This is heavily corroborated by greenhouse studies and commercial green-house use of CO2 to increase growth rates and crop yields. In addition, increased airborne CO2 leads to improved water use efficiency, improved drought resistance and improved other nutrient efficiency. For example, some of the UIUC data suggests that soybean yields improved by 19% and water usage decreased by 5% for an increase in ambient CO2 to 540 ppm. Similar UIUC data on Corn suggested an increase in yield by 40% and a decrease in water usage by about 10% for the same ~50% increase in CO2 concentration in the ambient air. Note that these improvements in crop yields were across a wide number of varieties of the plants in question, and there was no attempt to genetically engineer the crops to take advantage of the CO2 increase. Other experiments suggest that all plants show gains in yields as a function of CO2 concentration but that the specific increase is dependent on many factors such as plant variety and other nutrient availability.
In an energy starved (or energy expensive) future procuring better crop yields from a lower amount of available fertilizer or water (less irrigation) could be a very important factor in feeding the large human population. I am NOT suggesting that BAU is possible (or even desirable!!), but what I am suggesting is that increases in CO2 concentration are not necessary all bad and might be able to contribute in a positive way to mitigating some of the worst effects of the coming energy crunch. Current climate models are very uncertain in the amount of temperature increase and rainfall changes that might accompany a given amount of CO2 increase. For example, many (or most) of the current climate models use increases in the amount of water content in a hotter atmosphere to magnify the effect from CO2 alone. Suggesting that such a scenario would automatically result in less rainfall to a given area would seem speculative at best. In contrast, the crop yield gains from an increase in CO2 seem much more certain (many experiments have verified this).
Of course, the possibility that EROI decreases and capital unavailability would curtail future CO2 emission scenarios would seem all too plausible. So any crop yield gains from future CO2 emissions are indeed highly speculative because CO2 increases from BAU are very unlikely to continue for very long since BAU is so unlikely to occur for very long.
So my worst nightmare is the potential that CO2 increases would NOT occur, but that the world would become energy starved in the near future at the same time as a solar-induced global cooling event. I hope that this does not transpire.
Hopefully, this is not too controversial and is a helpful contribution to the debate.
Iwylie
Growing food more easily might be a moot point if people die simply because it is too hot.
http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2010/05/odds-of-cooking-grandkids.html
As to corn.
As AGW advances, and it is doing so in a rather startling manner, the higher temperatures will greatly affect corn. Our major crop in the USA.
At elevated temps during the pollen/tasseling phase temps around 100 degrees will greatly reduce the yield as the pollen is rendered impotent and damaged.
Already we are reaching those temperatures and the once usual rainfalls are either extremely heavy or extremely scarce.
As I speak right now thousands of acres of corn is at risk. Some is already going to fail in yields here in the midwest. Wheat suffered badly this last season and much was not worth combining.
So the question of CO2 is moot. Weather is the problem and that weather is becoming very very erratic as of late and will only worsen.
We are far far over extended as to our monoculture and nature is going to be delivering some massive body blows IMO in the very near future.
Driving thru corn country I see some stalks only 3 foot high and trying to tassle. This corn will not make a crop. Yet due to the vast acreages under corn cultivation we will have plenty but the future is now very cloudy and will most certainly not improve.
Its not the make up of the atmosphere as to CO2. Its the rest of the weather. Studies in ivory towers not to be taken to be reality. Its experiments and controlled ones at that.
Most of the TOD crowd speak of the details but very very few actually see up close what is really happening in the agricultural of this country.
We are destroying the planet with our bent on grain production and produce crops the value of which is very questionable. Soy products are very unhealthy for survival means. Corn is wonderful for survival BUT not genetically modified no viable plants.
They are engineered for one simple reason. To make a corporation more profit. The seeds have within themselves their own destruction.
Science is doing very little to ascertain what effects will occur in the future. Its all about money and profit. Little about health and survivability. The fox is truly in the hen house.
Most of today's farmers are not going to be able to survive once the hammer comes down. They lost those skills long long ago. Some will but most will not. They will leave behind vast areas of weeds that are extremely aggressive and very depleted soils. The nation will become a vast jungle. This will be natures way of reasserting control but it will take many many years for the timber lands to reestablish, if ever. Much hardwood species is already gone for good.
It will be a difficult world for survivors to bring forth fruit from. I am glad I will not be there to experience it.
I left my own garden for 4 days to deal with other issues. I have not been able to recover it very well due to the enormous weed growth. In 6 days it would have been impossible. My yield suffered and some I lost outright.
CO2 makes the weeds grow as well as the corn. ??????
???!
http://www.osti.gov/accomplishments/mcclintock.html
Barbara McClintock and Transposable Genetic Elements
"Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!"
Your out of touch with corn genetics.
GMO as well as hybrid will NOT reproduce true to form.
Only 'open pollen' will reproduce. There may be a few instances of it happening but we have known this for ...well since corn first started being altered.
It will grow somewhat but will not yield.
Did I miss something in your comment?
Not joking. Monsanto RULES.
With that, I can agree! We need to dethrone them somehow.
Re: "joking", science most certainly does quite a bit to ascertain the future. Not all scientists are shills and work for Monsanto.
I have to wonder whether they have tied their own nooses..
With farmers buying their 'Terminator Seed', they appear to be in a catbird seat for now.. but as the longevity of their product is borne by a pollenator of money and not honey, I wonder what kind of colony collapses are waiting to undercut their future? It just seems structurally unsound to have a live product line that can't reproduce without a functioning lab/factory.
" Weather is the problem and that weather is becoming very very erratic as of late and will only worsen."
And well you should worry. Check out "The Little Ice Age" by Brian Fagan. The erratic climate was as bad as the cooling, which was not consistent across the entire period in any case.
This has probably been discussed at TOD a hundred times, but isn't the above primer a part of a larger analysis that has been done several times, the best known of which is "Limits to Growth"?
For those who follow this subject, an enterprising graduate student has recently published a very thorough tracking of the LtG's predictions for the last couple of decades. Bottom line is we are tracking the "baseline scenario" awfully well.
http://www.csiro.au/files/files/plje.pdf
Dimitry,
I think you are right, this is nothing new. The only difference - as I would see it - is that we're now approaching the problems Meadows et.al. described 40 years ago. And that brings us to the problem: we still don't face the realities of "finite resources on a finite planet", and keep dreaming about finding something that replaces a couple of hundred million years of stored sunlight without major reductions in our lifestyle.
And while desperately trying this, we spend all what's left (and a little more by means of credit) on things that are supposed to extend the past...
...so ultimately, as much as it's "nothing new", it hasn't made it into too many people's heads yet, and thus the old saying: "Learning through repetition" still has merit.
It seems like this lesson, if it is going to be learned, will be (unfortunately) by genetics.
I only hope we are more successful at it than simpler organisms, which reliably outgrow the petri dishes every time.
You might be right, and I have a strong suspicion that you are. We're going to hit that brick wall. But maybe we can put some decent airbags into our car and have a few ambulances standing on the roadside?
What Dennis Meadows says is the limiting variable is lack of capital--with declining EROIs, the system starts to produce too little capital for reinvestment.
The model of Limits to Growth does not consider debt--perhaps because in the early 1970s, when it was put together, this was not a major issue. But it would seem to me that much of the capital used today is really borrowed capital.
But the borrowed capital we have now is really ephemeral. As soon as debt defaults start to rise (because of lower economic growth, which in turn is due to less increase in oil supply), what capital we thought we had will drastically be reduced, back to what it would be (or close to what it would be) without debt.
Going forward, we are likely to have very limited capital. We are going to have to make some hard choices. If we choose energy sources which themselves have a low return, we will quickly hit zero available capital for re-investment.
Gail, the last 10% is worth far,far more than the previous 90%! At a blink of an eye 7 billion people will panic at the lack of food for some. This is the real problem the realization of the problem. When people finally do understand where we are and what little remains the SWHTF. I still can't believe the opec countries sell non-value added crude! We should say thanks everyday they are dumb enough not to stop exporting raw crude.
When I won a science fair back in the sixties on crude production I found writings of Hubbert and even then understood crude as the greatest energy resorce per btu ever and we were wasting it even then. I have worked in energy all of my life and am now convinced there is no way out once the realizaton sets in the reduction most speak of here is a reduction for others ha! War is the most likely outcome for the final resorce allocations. Our biggest fear should be when everyone understands that fact we mine and drill in mile deep water the easy crude is long gone.
Hubbert was ahead of his time back then and still is.
7 billion people won't panic, 1.3 billion who've been having the party will though!
I have worked in energy all of my life and am now convinced there is no way out once the realizaton sets in the reduction most speak of here is a reduction for others ha! War is the most likely outcome for the final resorce allocations. Our biggest fear should be when everyone understands that fact we mine and drill in mile deep water the easy crude is long gone.
The server stops screaming, the fans slow their frenetic spin. Posts trickle off. Even the shills appear to have left the room, because what do you say to that?
We're all grumbling in response to this post by Hannes and Nate, but no one really has any valid arguments to the main premise. Except for Alan from Big Easy, who bobs unsinkably like a cork from a wine bottle. Even Will Stewart gives it a general nod. So what's next? Give Nate and Hannes the trophy for "First Place in Debate?" Randian withdrawal for the rich? Squalor and pain for the rest of us, ended by a really nasty war? Argue indefinitely about alternatives online until the internet just fails to boot up one day? For all of man's heralded creativity and ingenuity and bravery, are we really going to give up that easily?
Or do we try to do something about it?
I think we have to try. At least, some of us must; we're wired that way.
Serious discussions about what to try and how to go about it won't take place in fora like this, however. There is too little agreement and too much randomness and hostility.
But forums like this can connect people that are interested/capable of trying and alert some few others that trying may be worthwhile...
(At least I think so.)
I think so, too. We don't disagree.
Instead of endless debate on the GOM this is the area we need to be about.
What does the future consist of? What can we begin to do about that? What will happen if we do nothing?
These are discussions that are needed badly. Waking up people. Jerking them into the realities.
Either they will cap the well or they will not and the GOM and other areas will perish.
We are getting a preview of possibilities from that event but it will not be enough , no matter the outcome , to affect the near future.
TOD needs more of this type of discussion. Enough til the pain sets in and we realize just how bad things are currently both here in the USA and the rest of the world.
It tends to cause great pain to realize just how bad it could become. Myself I spend a large amount of time in a very sad frame of mind. Sometimes overwhelmed. Sometimes drinking alcohol to try to ease the angst and anger.
Finally I just decided to go fishing and try to not think too much about it,yet invasive fish species, Asian Carp, have ruined even this pleasant pastime to a large degree. Last month a friend had to have surgery on his face and nose as a leaping carp ripped flesh from the front of his face. Almost tore his nose off.
Some fish farmer in Texas, rumor has it was Texas, stocked virile Asian Carp and let them escape when it flooded. So most of our inland lakes and our rivers are now rampant with a biological nightmare. They are now in the Great Lakes as well.
Modern farming/agriculture will save us? It is destroying us.
At the risk of restarting an endless loop on whether "specific wars" seem justifiable (to some), I think that unless we focus on COOPERATION - across the world, not just here, not just via one country or another trying to amass resources and fend off others having them, we are in a "world of hurt" (so... if we do nothing, as you say, that's where I think we end up, rich nations, rich people hoarding and arming themselves). And what we do? I think we have to focus on becoming more cooperative, encouraging the virtues of hospitality, for example, which have always served cultures living in harsh conditions (deserts, mountains, the arctic, etc.).
I apologize to Nate and Hannes if my initial comments derailed this post. But truly I simply can't see that war is a good use of energy. I can't see how we can justify it from a point of view of energy expenditure. And I'd be interested in the economics and statistics around the, yes, I'm saying it, waste of energy inherent in solving problems - of whatever type - via such energy-intensive means (which destroy lots of infrastructure, not to speak of people) - all of which represents "energy" (to my mind - that built it and has to rebuild it) in addition to the wasted energy of all that destruction in the first place.
So, I'd work on building cooperation. That's basic to my mind. How in the heck can we possibly arrive at any solutions which involve changing unless we get lots of cooperation? Because otherwise the word-wars here will become real wars elsewhere.
I may be a lone voice in the wilderness, but I'm trying to start somewhere - as your questions ask. And I think we need to build from a Peaceful Somewhere - next making use of Hannes' experiments etc. I'm open to the data. But I simply can't believe squandering resources in "war arguments" (rather than word-arguments) benefits humanity - across the planet, mind you - viewing us as all in this together!) is ultimately beneficial. (And we can see it happening now... the wasteful use of precious resources, which we can never get back....)
Thera, thanks for reframing your comments regarding war in terms of an energetic basis rather than politics. Let me take your comments a step farther, then. What is the nature of war, historically? Arguably, for the most part, war develops when populations expand and begin to struggle over resources. It's not a "good" use of energy; it is the system's way of solving the problem. So eras of increased population or decreased resources results in positive feedback loops of increased violence, which fixes the problem. It is a predictable thermodynamic outcome. Similarly, losses of freedom and human rights occur in these same conditions. There is a reason why the formerly heralded democracy of the US is beginning to devolve into something that looks a bit similar to "1984."
As the equalizing nature of surplus FF energy wanes, cooperation will work on local levels where an adequate natural resource base exists. But Mother Nature will take charge in places where overshoot has taken hold. In this regard, you are still thinking in terms of BAU.
Not sure what you mean by Mother Nature taking charge. Honestly, I see what needs to happen as akin to a spiritual tranformation that needs to happen - if people are going to share resources and plan in terms of what is good for all of humanity/our one planet. It's not just my finite life or yours - for we will die. Thus it's trying to ensure a meaningful, more simple, life for those who come after us.
I have more questions than answers. But I do espouse values which speak to enlarging our sense of "ego" - to include a sense of our common humanity.
War, as I said, above, in my view, wastes resources in order to destroy resources - for the purpose of gaining dominance over resources. It's madness!
To speak plainly regarding the interface between physics and biology that we are talking about here, when you have too many rats in a cage, they fight over the noms until some of them are dead. Then there are enough noms to go around for those who are left.
But we are humans, not rats. Sounds like you take a very deterministic view. In which case all that you write here is determined by physics and biology?
We are talking within different worldviews then. Peace be with you.
No, but the science we need is cognitive science, precisely because people part ways about such things as "spirituality".
We can study why people are believers in spirituality, god, Gaia, science, whatever, and we find out how to modify how they interact.
You're both on the same page.
And TheraP..just how does this work when there are no methods of communications?
You think the internet will survive? Really?
People now use cell phones almost exclusively. They are very fragile as is the infrastructure they use.
Peace and Good Will? Lasts perhaps until someone's ox is gored or taken and then the weapons come out.
Where is the communications then?
I am NOT derailing this Key Topic Post. I am suggesting that we continue on in this vein and forget about the chaos and events in the GOM. Bandwidth is necessary and time is slipping away.
We need to be focused on the issues of survival. And mostly that comes down to the very small group. The small group who must protect themselves from the 'takers'.
Right now the 'takers' are bankers,financial types,corporations, and so on. Not the little folks. The one who really really NEED to survive because the others are just 'feeders'. Feeding on the populace.
I could communicate. But no one cares to listen. Read my comment post down below.
For instance: How does one store corn ,sans grain mills, on their site? If you get mold or infestations with just ONE crop then you are doomed when the winter arrives and have lost that grain. It can come down to JUST that one event. A loss of one crop.
I lost ALL my stored corn and didn't realize it til just 3 weeks ago. Mold on one set of storage and weevils on the other. Result NO seed corn. No grain to mill.
Now I can buy meal and so forth but in the future? No trucks running? No local mills producing? Well you can take it from here.............
See, you are focused on "defense" - keeping the takers away, but that makes you a taker too.
We come into this world with nothing. We don't deserve what we receive as infants - whatever values those things may confer on us. And we have no rights really that supersede the rights of others.
I'm not counting on an internet. If it goes away tomorrow then I'll be freed of the internet wars! In the end I have a spiritual view of human development - a psychological one too, of course, but a spiritual concept of how people can choose to allow themselves to evolve.
You mention corn. And that reminds me of how societies had to band together to store up the seed corn. To protect it. They needed some type of system they could trust for that. So we need some types of governance. And may it be compassionate governance.
You can attack me all you want. But I do not possess answers, so much as important values which I believe underlie compassionate, cooperative social endeavors. That happens to be my focus.
You can try and engage on a sarcastic level, but that's not my playing field. And it gets us nowhere...
deleted as OT and over the top at that
Passingby;
a cellphone is just one kind of specialized radio, and we have many others. Some shortwaves are technically fairly simple electronically, and can keep intercontinental communications possible after VERY deep cuts into our industrial base. We have enough surplus electrical equipment around to fashion a broad range of comm equipment.. along with Texts and blueprints of such circuits duplicated all over the world.
They are good smoked. I used to get them with my Grandpa in Minn forty years ago.
You're new here. Most of the time, when there isn't a spill or a hurricane in the GOM, this is the type of discussion that happens here.
Look in the Campfire section at the right for more.
Now we take our best shots in the dark, hedge our bets as much as we can manage, and pray for good weather.
Most of the folks here agree that a big crunch is coming sooner or later, whether we like it or not...it is up to us to mitigate it as much as we can. If the OP is true, then that is the best we can hope for. Don't take offense if this applies to you...but I will say it seems easier for the members of the older generation to give up hope. We are certainly limited by both the laws of nature and by our own creativity, but ultimately I think it is the latter that restricts our options more than the former.
dupe
no one really has any valid arguments to the main premise.
Actually, they do. I just haven't written much because I didn't think it would get listened to. But, when I see a question like yours, I feel impelled to say something: really, the original post is highly unrealistic.
See http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/2008/09/can-everything-be-electrified.html and
http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/2008/09/can-shipping-survive-peak-oil.html and
http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/2008/06/there-are-several-studies-by-rober...
I agree with the premise of "fake fire brigades" as presented, while being in support of Alan's probabilistic approach of constructing a specific least-worse plan and trying to get it implemented.
I'm impressed at the quality of the people at IIER, there seems to be a lot of sanity collected there. So saying, I'll note that the apparent core rationale - optimizing the human standard of living in wealthy nations in the coming century - isn't really my "thing", and my comments should be taken in that context.
It's well-established that humans have evolved to err on the side of delusionally optimistic beliefs to relieve undue physiological stress. This worked well in our evolutionary past or it wouldn't have been selected for, but it comes at a price: we are collectively not sentient, sapient, or self-aware. We impute these qualities to our societies since we subjectively seem to experience them on an individual level; but that's incorrect.
That mistaken impression, in turn, leads us to defective reasoning concerning the rationality of those societies, and always with that optimistic skew. Even those who believe the human world is controlled by massive conspiracies are expressing a tacit belief that it is, perforce, under control; that there is a driver at the wheel and that some flavor of self-consistent and sane volition is the grand mover of events.
I think it also leads us to a fallacy concerning the efficacy of complex reasoned arguments presented to society at large; the central rationale of entities from institutes to manifesto-wielding individuals. In general, complex arguments are only accessible to those who have schooled and motivated themselves to seek out complex arguments to fill a perceived need. Even among that self-screened demographic, decisions on which arguments to accept are subject to primarily-irrational decision-making processes. So I have developed some skepticism towards what might be referred to as "enlightenment paradigms", which seek to move the course of events via complex (multi-paragraph) arguments, however brilliant.
The original post was pretty clear. The following four posts may owe a tip of the hat to a person on the IIER scientific advisory board, because that "investment in complexity" will certainly show diminishing returns in terms of reaching people who didn't "get" or "agree with" the first one.
Presenting a complex argument to the world at large, outside of academia, is a lot like trying to move a specialized species from one environment to another. Unless that species has superior answers to the demands of the new competitive context, it won't survive. And the context for the argument's survival is not "a niche in the real world" but "filling a perceived need in a large number of brains". I recognize that this is a comment on "complex plans" generally and not IIER's posts in particular, but their core work is intelligent enough that basic assumptions become salient to discuss.
To the posts themselves: EROEI seems basically what we're talking about here, and a bit of energy quality. Not discussed is the nature of events; connectivity, criticality and cascading collapse, phase shifts, systemic hiatus, threshold effects and bootstrapped infrastructure lag time. I'm just waking up this morning and must fly the keyboard, so I'll leave the meaning of that sentence for others to tease out, or maybe I'll come back to it at the end of a long day. My gist, though, is that the reasoning is good as far as it goes, but is incomplete, with which the authors may not disagree.
I think it's a good general point that - given time - systems invariably evolve to the bleeding edge of what's available and depend on it. That's why a half-degree of global warming will destroy many species even though it seems a small perturbation, and why a doubling in the price of oil will cause problems in society even though it's still preposterously cheap in absolute terms.
However, these essays are quite perspective-dependent, as we humans are wont to be. From the point of view of a thousand years hence, the retroactive EROEI of all energy used in this century will be less than 1, because the wealth of the 'natural capital' (world) will have been hugely and irreversibly degraded. Immediate utility and comfort thus become pretty subjective measurements, and perhaps ill-suited to a hypothetical sane species. How well do our collective recommendations stack up against this "thousand year" test, and why does this question seem silly?
You can tell I haven't had my coffee. I'm off to do pointless monkey chores, g'morning.
Well spoken. However, the reason for the original post and the follow-ups isn't The Oil Drum, but rather the people who have to make decisions or research more. So maybe call TOD our "training camp", if you want, which confronts us with every possible argument we will face out there, and on a mostly very high quality level.
Enjoy your coffee, it's well deserved.
The first half of this thread went off on a tangent about war and is completely off topic. The second half of the thread is stray comments and refinements. There is no real disagreement at this point. Your comment suggests that we are to be viewed as a means of taking the same old tired arguments elsewhere rather than moving the argument forward here? Are we just wasting our bandwidth here in terms of promoting real change? Are you stuck on defense of details or are you capable of moving forward into solutions?
I think that this might be a slight misunderstanding. "Training ground" wasn't meant negatively, but instead as something that helps us to better understand what we face in the world, as the spectrum here includes everything there is.
Now what we also hope is to find here are people who are ready to work beyond the "critique" of current and future systems, who see the huge risks we are currently facing, and want to help that this doesn't affect us in a way that we have no more means to respond, because we have been robbed of almost everything we took for granted, and ultimately support our work in the many ways possible.
So please accept my apologies for sending an inconsistent message, this wasn't the objective.
Thank you for your comments, Hannes. Your statement aroused my ire because the implication is that you are motivated towards pursuing top down solutions through political intervention. And while those are important adjuncts, the real change will develop through bottom up, disseminated, relocalized changes. Most top down solutions are more of something, even if it is alternatives. Very few top down solutions result in reductions in energy use, except for policies that promote positive feedback to decrease growth behaviors, such as taxes on waste and luxury.
For the most part, the future will result out of relocalization experiments at the smaller scale. There is no big money to be made in relocalization efforts, for the most part, and perhaps that is what pushed my button here. I see the top down efforts as mostly connected to profit of some sort, and thus growth. The internet can be of use here in the transition to get the word out, and TOD might be a useful tool for it if the leaders here could just move past their own bargaining or their reactions to the bargaining of others.
Let me offer my thoughts on "relocalization". I wholeheartedly agree that the future will be much more local, most likely turning back >90% of today's globalized economies.
However, when looking back in history, there is no evidence, rather the contrary, that societies with population densities way below today's can work without some kind of larger-scale management (e.g. central government), just because distribution and specialization problems will otherwise make that path too rocky for small communities to survive.
Thus, any scenario that REQUIRES small communities to get through the worst to me is something that I would like to avoid if ever possible, which gets us back to a need to eventually make governments part of the solution on state and federal level. And since the results otherwise would be so devastating, irrespective of any localization effort, I think it is definitely worth trying.
IATA statistics show:
US Air Carrier Statistics show:
It is likely that reduced availability of energy and higher prices will result in reduced mobility of people more than in reduced mobility of freight. Moving a salesman to a meeting in China or a family to Disney World are less valuable than moving iPods from China or books from an Amazon warehouse.
Higher energy costs are unlikey to reduce mobility of information at all, since semiconductor and lightwave transmission techologies are still improving in their efficient use of energy.
So the localization effects will be strongest with respect to people and services, less strong with respect to goods and production, and compensated for by increases in the use of information services.
Excellent post. You have encapsulated what has been occupying my mind for quite some time.
I highly disagree with those who suggest that globalization will reverse and we will be making things by hand here at home.
We won't. Peak oil does nothing to change the wage advantage of cheap Chinese labor. Freight is remarkably efficient. Driving an SUV 60 miles to work and back each day and to the NASCAR race on the weekend isn't.
I know you posted to hannes but exactly do you mean by solutions.
There isn't a technological solution for our problems in terms of a magic bullet, we have likely got all the technology we need. Hubbert ins a prescient paper wrote about this.
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/hubecon.htm
The real problem is cultural, and it is a massive cultural change. Humans are not rational creatures, they are essentially emotional ones. The rational solution is acknowledging our Western culture has a problem, call is the falsity of the economic growth imperative, call it whatever you like.
The cultural solutions may come when it is abundantly clear the old model has failed. If you look at the US or UK examples, the politicians and the advisers appear to be the same ones drove us into the problem.
How can we move to solutions when there is not collective agreement on the problem.
"Solutions" - This is a very valid question you bring up. My take would be that we're not just emotional, we're also rational, and our moves ultimately contain both aspects. And yes, we don't expect any solutions to emerge on a broader level before things are very close to breaking down, but maybe it makes sense to prepare for that moment.
And I repeat something I wrote further above: Even if nothing can be changed and we're going to hit that brick wall, maybe we can put some decent airbags into our car and have a few ambulances standing on the roadside?
I think that it is unlikely that solutions will emerge first in the US, which is a society that places a very high value on individual autonomy and self-sufficiency, even to the point of self-delusion.
Societies that place a high value on social relationships and cooperation would seem to be better positioned to make progress on solutions.
Amen! Yes, this is my point! Maybe it got lost in the shuffle in my first question... but: How much more energy efficient and useful is cooperation! (and how wasteful is its opposite... which ultimately means "wars")
Bingo! For us humans reason is the slave of the passions, and it cannot be otherwise. Pure reason is impossible. We first must make a value judgment and then we use reason to facilitate this preference. For instance, if I believe that urban life is the life one should have, then my solutions will follow that preference; likewise for the county bumpkin (being a newly minted bumpkin I mean no disrespect). The problem with refusing to recognize this trait will result in rationalizing solutions that might be injurious to ourselves and others both in costs and externalities. So we must first identify the most important basic common values, if there are any, that society can support.
I endorse your comment and your sentiments, Bruce! Thank you!
Well, I'm back at the end of the day after even sillier monkey chores than I expected. Scanning the comments, I see a lot about war, and various tussles between posters.
The EROEI of war might be a good keypost for somebody someday - it gets to the 'privileged frame-of-reference' aspects of return on investment - but this keypost wasn't it so I won't join in.
In my earlier comment I was kinda questioning the "honing of arguments" as a means to real-world ends.
Not that there's anything wrong with it, and my comment may seem uselessly orthogonal to your post, but I mean it in a constructive way. It may not always be entirely productive to spend a lot of time making a complex argument flawless, because its penetrance/virulence in the human population at large probably won't derive from it's logical perfection. (I'm not advocating this, I'm just pointing out it's true). In a democracy such as that of the USA, "drill baby drill" will always trump "bummer ideas".
It could be that advocacy must become a two-stage process: first coming up with a well-researched set of arguments within academia or its equivalent to fortify the intestinal fortitude of the would-be "border collies" of society, and then figuring out what sort of stumulus or mythology would be likely to move the other 99% of humanity in the direction indicated by that rationale. No rational complex goal is achievable in a democracy without irrational support.
g'nite.
G
thanks for your insightful comments, as per usual.
To wit:
Perhaps the problem is there still are too many whose belief systems preclude them from getting to the 'border collie' category. Ergo, the majority of border collie population is grizzled and has hip dysplasia and until there is a younger, larger, more viable population, logic and systemic analysis is still needed.
But other than that we agree - facts are very important in understanding this situation, but facts won't change behavior much (via rational thought)
Screw logic! What we need is bait and switch advertising and marketing collies... We need to fight fire with fire. No more of this pussyfooting around.
Beware! The wolves are not what they seem to be either.....
Baaahhhh....
"Ergo, the majority of border collie population is grizzled and has hip dysplasia"
Yes this is true. And when one reaches that age and realizes that the knowledge he has attained will be wasted then a sort of melancholia sets in and you become almost helpless about the future.
I am in my seventies. The other day I worked hard enough to bring on a close call with heat stroke, due to the need to weed my garden and the temperature bumping 100 degrees.
I found my self collapsed on the porch shedding great tears for a long time and unable to move, and rather confused as to just why. I then was abed for one night and two days recovering. I was drained both emotionally and physically and had about given up hope on all fronts. Both mental and physical.
I revived finally and set about my chores and work on the farm but it will never be the same again. I realized the futility that I had up til now I had refused to face openly.
Men my age cannot any longer hope to have any effect in what is to come. Many do not listen anyway and are completely lost without any hope or even a desire to learn.
The youth are the worse. They are not even able to listen to someone who is beyond 30 years of age, much less my age.
I have thought about spending all my funds and savings in a reckless drive towards opulent consumption. A new boat. A camper. A newer vehicle. Spend my inheritance heedlessly. I have done all the above. What is next? I have actually done all the above in just the last 30 days. A new bass boat is a sight to behold. A 170hp Mercruiser and full electronics , I have dreamed of this for years. Now I own it.
Reckless to be sure. Was against my ideals but those ideals are fast fading. Am I doing the right thing? Reversing my course in midstream, actually endstream.
What else can one do? Try to live the few last years recklessly as possible and then 'passby'(passingby) and on to the end.
I am now looking at lodgings on a largish lake some way off. Selling the farm and all. Forgetting about the present and future. Live for the moment? Let the garden and land go to ruin and weeds.
The fight is no longer in me I fear. I have buried many in the last few years. I was saddened to see the oldtimers go and so I keep a 'dead list' and take it out to read on occasion just to recall who was once here and who is no longer. "Ahh old Jamie Marshall Riley...he farmed with his mules over on that hill ground. He was a talker and fisherman. His brother lies beside him in the grave. Where then is my last favorite uncle who let me ride his mare? When did they all of a sudden depart and why?"
They were worn out but they ended the race well. They were men to taught me much.
My 92 year old mother is now in the ground since I put her there a month ago. Of my previous family I am the last and of my paternal grandfathers line I am the last male living.
Its hard for those of advanced age to think about the future. Its harder yet to desire to live it as it appears to be heading. I no longer seem to have any fight left in me. Posting on TOD seemed a good thing to do but now I am not so sure.
Just....PassingBy
PS. These are the type of comments I usually delete. Perhaps this one needs to be seen and help explain why the elders of the past and their knowlege will not be available to the younger ones.
Our times are over...yours are now here. Godspeed.
Glad you shared it this time Passingby.
I held my 72 yr old Mum's hand for the last time last september. I'm a good bit younger, but getting some of my first tastes of that giving up.. it comes and goes. But I've got a 7 year old, who takes my hand when I'm ready for it or not.. and so I do look to the world she'll have around her when she's an old woman.
".. but the land was sweet and good, and I did what I could"
Bob
You're grieving now, but after a while you could consider seeking out a younger person who might well appreciate hearing about Jamie Marshall Riley, along with your own experiences, skills and life lessons. If not in your own family, then perhaps a little further afield. Not everyone under 30 is disinterested. Some are just disconnected.
Make the effort to make a connection. Perhaps you will find yourself with a little help in the garden on those hot days.
And take a kid fishing in the new boat.
Please don't delete thoughts that contain feelings, PassingBy. Losses are hard to cope with, and we need to bear witness--we are all grieving here. Scientists tend to wall off emotions, and thus lose a piece of the whole. It results in blind spots.
You have a farmer's systems perspective and wisdom of age that is important here. Your kind of knowledge will be in short supply if we are going to expand the number of farmers in this country to 30 million or so. Heat exhaustion takes a while to recover from; give yourself lots of time and coddling.
Commiserations, passingby. I'm in a similar beat-up old man's case myself.
Interestingly, though, my experience is that lots of the young here do listen, thirstily actually (but this is Britain; worse for the US, maybe?)
Also, my optimism remains at it's lifetime setting (high), though tempered with a lifetime setting of realism -- which some would miscall cynicism.
And living very frugally as I do, I find not the smallest inclination to a final big splurge of consumerist gratification. In fact, I just gave away the equivalent of about $30,000 to my partner and her daughter; also a 70-foot ship to a young couple who will be able to take it on to sea-going completion, as I can no longer hope to do.
Yet despite these different responses in detail, I think that all the old men reading and commenting here know and sympathise with the feeling that you describe. I sure as hell do. Keep plugging as serenely as you can, brother, and continue to get what peace and pleasure you can -- till that joker with scythe turns up one morning....
Thanks for the kind words; as you can tell I'm procrastinating on waking up again, facing another day of silly tasks winding up the earthly affairs of my parents.
And I'm a big fan of logic and systemic analysis, which is why I'm here as opposed to someplace else. (It was - in no small part - your writing on the evolutionary and biological basis of human decision-making which originally caught my attention at TOD. Sanity!) I'd like to see the goals of groups like IIER achieved, which is why I'm throwing in a little logic and systemic analysis from a whole 'nother direction.
Such as the observation that the quality of a logical argument doesn't determine its competitive fitness except in very structured situations like academia. The pursuit of the perfect logical argument is - I think - one sort of monkey trap, containing insufficiently-examined assumptions about what moves human systems. It's laudable in intent, but often functions to put off engagement using "good enough" arguments and rationales.
Certainly I fit the grizzled/dysplastic description, but that's after 35 years of moving the herds. I think my point is that I look forward to IIER incorporating further layers of analysis drawing from your work, as well as from the behavior of complex systems generally. My guess is that once that's done, the Institute will find that it needs to deal with mythology to inject its conclusions into human systems.
Woof.
"the Institute will find that it needs to deal with mythology to inject its conclusions into human systems."
.....though I fear we'll reach peak mythology before it does enough good.
YES! And especially your last bit:
It's how we foster cooperation, in my view, via different "pitches" to different groups. Some may be willing to sign on for one reason. Some for another. But once we see the lifeboats as the ship is sinking, how do we move folks into them? Or to making them? And that presumes cooperation (I hope) - or you'll have some groups simply stealing the lifeboats and letting others sink.
So... while my initial comments may seem off-base, to me they are the heart and soul of how to make use of irrational support while diminishing irrational destruction.
Hannes -
You're not really learning anything until you respond to people AND then they acknowledge you've answered their questions.
I'm personally unimpressed by your transparent gambits of asking people to communicate by email, OR "I can't talk about that because it's in a later post."
I'll leave it to you as an exercise to work out the logic of these fails-to-communicate..
Greenish speaks of a 'half degree' of global warmning as sufficient to destroy many species.
Yet I have here staring at me on my desk a paper submitted in 2009 by Clive Hamilton to the Royal Society titled "Is it too late to prevent catastrophic change?"
The answer in the text appears that we are already past the 2 degree C for our future and quite likely not able to control the very likely possible 4 degree C increase.
2 C increase would be disastrous and yet it appears this is what is in the offing.
The paper is more concerned with a 4 C increase. The results would be unthinkable. Yet this is what is staring us in the face and governments do not act. The spew of chemicals in the atmosphere continues unabated.
We are the canaries in the mine and this is our fate apparently. To disappear off the face of the earth. Brought about after 4 million years of the human lifeform we have sought and found total destruction is a very short 400 or so years. Yes there was a run up but its within the last 200 that the most damage has occurred. Commensurate with our large cities coming into vogue, at least here in the USA.
It once was back 400 years ago a vast bountiful wilderness. Inhabited by natives for over 20,000 years and we decimated it in a very short time and called 'them' savages!
I hope you understand that I entirely agree with your comments; I was using a "half degree" as an example to make a point. From my point of view we have already failed to prevent catastrophic change. Yet like temperature, catastrophe is a matter of degree.
Indeed, I think that global heating/climate damage is far-and-away the greatest threat our world faces, and it probably will become my main focus now.
It may be true that nothing can be done to alter it, but I don't believe it. There are large degrees of freedom still in how things play out, and the asking of the question "is it too late?" is a degree of self-indulgence our species hasn't earned. That is, going straight from "it's not important" to "it's too late" as a belief.
We can't know it's too late, we only know that it may be. Many will use this as a serviceable rationale for inaction.
It will be an interesting next few decades.
Our group already has a plan to reduce CO2 by 38% in twenty years, and I firmly believe that even more could, and should, be done.
Like you, I see the slowing of Climate Change, and lowering the peak CO2, as primary goals, with all else being secondary except limiting the severity and depth of the die-off. Demographics being much preferred to the 4 horsemen.
Our plan appeals, for fundamentally good reasons, to a wide variety of interest groups.
Worried about National Security ? Deliver food and essential materials without oil. Get (some) people to work and shop w/o oil.
Worried about the US economy ? Employment ? etc. We have a solid answer.
See my post on this thread about Prohibition.
Best Hopes,
Alan
Hi Greenish,
I liked your first thoughts:
I think the idea of debating the mix of technologies that might support some human population that is in balance with the rest of the planet (and its other inhabitants) in 1,000 years is very useful. But, I would only rank it at about 30% of what is needed to fulfil our inherent drive to preserve our own species over that period of time.
The other 70% of the need is to find a way to get a critical mass of humans to really understand the nature of the problem. I firmly believe that understanding the symptoms and causes of a problem (and even correctly stating a problem) is the most important first step. Following this comes goal setting and finally selecting was are considered the best "solutions" that satisfy the goals. This is an iterative process with feedback loops whereby experience with solutions can modify the understanding of the problems and setting of goals.
And, sanity would dictate reliance more on provable technologies (or rejection of many technologies) than gambling with the future of generations to come by wishful thinking technologies.
As we have discussed before, this idea of getting a critical mass of people to understand the problem leads us into the tar pit of religion, politics and economics (and probably some other messy things). However, I find it hard to understand how we will make any real progress with digging into this pit.
BTW, I find it interesting to back into a person's understanding of the problem by asking them if they are in favor of a couple of unpopular "solutions" (although a reverse of how I would most like to start this type of discussion). So, I ask: "would you vote for a law that mandates a 35mph max national speed limit for motor vehicles using public roads - and requires all vehicles to be equipped with a governor set to 35mph"? And, "would you like to see a national debate started to determine the sustainable size of the US population - with an eventual goal of enacting laws that strive to achieve and maintain that number"? Resulting attitudes are always interesting.
Hi BikeDave. Thanks for the comments.
I probably come off as a curmudgeon here, but in my experience the entirely logical process you describe seldom works except at times with a very small and focused group. For full-on democratic process, the retroactive narrative makes it seem like a critical mass of humans have understood a problem and taken logical action, but it's largely rationalization. It's not impossible for it to work that way, it just doesn't usually. Heck, look at pretty much ANY legislation which actually gets passed. The action which occurs is more akin to komodo dragons fighting over a piece of carrion than an abstract process to weigh the merit of differing arguments. And I say this as a guy who has written national legislation and had my wording become law of the land.
That's where I'm coming from. I'm sharing part of what those iterations have showed me. Logical rigor is important to those with high standards who wish to be fairly sure they're advocating the right thing, including me. But the quality of their argument doesn't translate to competitive fitness when it comes to advocacy. As long as it's "good enough" to sound reasonably sane - and the bar is set pretty low there - whether the argument sinks or floats is determined by other factors.
My pointing this out - which I rarely do - is generally received a bit like the "peak oil/human overshoot" message is: people don't hear it because it's jarring to the sensibilities. It's not the way things oughta be. We can be just as dysfunctional about process as we can be about thermodynamics.
I fully agree about the difficulty of progress under this paradigm. Again, I'm not at all sure that I buy the "critical mass of people" thing in the sense it's usually offered; as a large number of people understanding a complex issue and embracing the same conclusions. Rather, an existing high level of mental stress/dissonance in a population can be tapped to go any number of different ways, which may have no logical connection with anything. Once it has happened, the narrative congeals to provide a retroactive veneer of self-consistency.
Those who trigger the sudden resolution of a such a "criticality" may determine its direction, and that's the way power works in human society. Very few people really get this and act on it.
I trust you're not asking ME these questions. I'm onboard for a draconian oxygen tax and leaving fossil carbon in the ground. And on "national debates", see above RE critical masses of humans.
All best.
greenish said to Dave:
Yup. The chances of getting the masses, or the legislatures, to adopt the changes we need to make to have real hope of making it past the end of this century with some sort of intact civilization, based upon widespread analysis of the situation and general agreement on the results, are probably vanishingly small. My take on the reality is simpler and blunter than greenish's: I don't think the neighbors and the pols are interested enough, sufficiently informed, or smart enough to undertake the task. Not at the beginning.
If it is going to happen at all, it will have to be packaged and marketed as more attractive and desirable, hipper and cooler, sexier than BAU alternatives.
That's how we got here, in the first place. The Levittowns were sold. "See the USA in your Chevrolet" was a massive marketing campaign. The headlong race to die with the most toys was fueled by advertising.
We just need to figure out how to motivate the financiers (and or public sources or cooperatives) and whoever the hell passes for pop culture opinion leaders—Oprah? Brangelina? LeBron James?—to build and sell some model projects.
My personal fantasy is to turn some of the ruins of Detroit into carfree, vertical mixed-use districts with a 50% reduction in per-capita energy consumption over the national average. It's a slam dunk. Please send money.
Greenish & Kalliergo,
Thanks for your thoughts - why I hang around TOD.
I have to admit that my 35 years as a computer software developer have caused me to think in terms of engineering models for nearly all problem solving. It is somewhat painful to deal with the idea that rational approaches have limited utility.
I guess the whole notion of trying to effect change based upon indirect strategies is beyond my pay grade.
Greenish: no, no, not asking you those questions (I still have a few marbles left in my sack!). But, I'm always curious how people respond to those questions - maybe give it a try sometime and tell us what happens.
You obviously understand what I've said, but to be clear I think rational approaches are the only thing worth pursuing. It's just that expecting rational complex arguments to convince human societies is not a rational approach.
Not at all, it's just a different and somewhat aesthetically non-pleasing process. Due to the way it "feels" to get things done that way, it is largely spurned by those to whom spotless personal karma is important - such as populist activists - which is why such folks often wind up doing ineffectual things.
This post is probably old enough now that it won't be further diverted much if I mention a high-profile example: after the world trade center was taken down, there was a high level of stress/dissonance in the minds of the US populace. This was used to enable a pre-existing plan for invading Iraq, which had nothing to do with the NY attack, and two years later a majority of US citizens - north of 70% if the polls were right - felt retroactively that the US had been attacked by Iraq. That stress/dissonance could have been collapsed in about any direction, for the humbling reason that we are collectively no smarter than a hive of bees.
In that example, Dick Cheney had a rational plan. It was not a nice or admirable or well-advised plan by my lights, but it was rational because it was based on a realistic appraisal of just how little rational arguments have to do with steering public discourse.
There's nothing inherently evil in employing unromanticized behaviorism in the steering of human affairs; but by its nature it is less likely to be employed by those who consider themselves altruists/idealists. To the extent that they'll just give up rather than walking that path, even with their species and planet at stake.
Well-summarized, greenish.
Hi Greenish,
Your point is well made and I think Iraq is a perfect example. I saw immediately what Bush was up to and did my letter-to-the-senator thing (which we have discussed before) strongly urging a rejection of support for the Iraq plan. Actually, one of our senators, Feingold, did not support the vote. But, clearly, the vast majority of the senate behaved as you suggest.
I also agree that is a very "aesthetically non-pleasing process". For me, this really is the rub. Even if I had the power of a Cheney when he was in office, I would have a very hard time using his tactics as I so strongly believe in democratic notions of open debate and such. It is one thing for me to believe, like many TOD regulars, that we are headed for serious problems and need to implement something akin to "Plan C" very soon. It is quite another thing to subscribe to the Cheney modus operandi.
But, as you say, my squeamishness is not without risk: "just give up rather than walking that path, even with their species and planet at stake." But, as a practical matter, I'm not sure (using Plan C solutions as an example of what actions are needed) who or what to support for the kind of changes that might at least mitigate the worst consequences that could well be visited upon the human race and many of our fellow travellers. Perhaps, a person like myself can only wait for the right opportunity to present itself. In the meantime, I continue to support (give some money) to organizations that advocate separation of church and state and address population growth. Have not found an effective way to support the fight against corporate corruption of our political process.
Once again, thanks for your thoughts - always challenging.
G'morning BikeDave. A sleepy reply:
I appreciate your effort, truly. But as I say, rational arguments simply don't play a significant role, with legislators or with the public in general. The disconnect between the actuality and the way people "think" things get done is at least as large as the disconnect in public understanding of energy and growth issues. Which is why I inserted this into the "fake fire brigade" string.
It's a very big rub, and it cuts through the ranks of potentially powerful activists like a plague. There are only so many realistic paths open to make the future better, and if one summarily strikes from consideration those which don't "feel nice", or aren't sufficiently egalitarian in process, etc, it's easy to sink into becoming a lotus-eating voyeur-nihilist rather than actually trying anything that has a chance. To a good first approximation, all self-identified activists are entirely ineffectual.
I doubt that Gandhi felt good about the process; he probably agonized over it, and I'm familiar with that agony. It's excruciating. He was making calculated decisions and actions that led to the certain death and injury of many of his supporters. In pursuit of longer-term goals, he engaged a very uncertain situation. Being willing to shoulder that moral hazard and heavy responsibility is the hallmark of someone who cares enough to risk his own sense of self, and all else.
The question is not whether human affairs will be steered by those employing opportunistic behaviorism and its sub-disciplines. It will. The question is whether the greedy and shortsighted will be the only ones trying, and the answer to that is mostly "yes" at this point. Maintaining our personal senses of purity is quite a self-indulgence in the context of a world at risk.
I'd counsel that there's no reason to wait, no barrier. Individual initiative - if undertaken with a good mental model of how things actually happen - is hugely effective, and the moreso the better you get at it. As a person who has created dozens of organizations, programs, and global campaigns, I'll say that supporting them is fine... for people who can't spare the time and angst to actually engage. But most organizations are using flawed world models as well, and they are quite inefficient as tools, generally speaking. Don't fear corporations; they are buffalo which can be driven off cliffs. And don't look only to the political process, for that's not where things mostly get done.
cheers
I agree.
Total moral purity is not a viable option if positive "real world" change is the goal.
And one # person can make a difference.
Best Hopes,
Alan
# I originally had "self actualizing" as an adjective here. Which is what I believe, one cannot do this properly for ego, material etc. needs.
PS: If we can get our society to even 1/3rd renewable (preferably 2/3rds or 90%) before it becomes common knowledge that 100% is going to require major changes, so be it. We will have matured the renewables technology significantly by getting that far, we will have an industrial base to build a LOT of renewables and we will have a significant renewable installed base, something to work with.
Hi Greenish, thanks for your thoughts - much to think about here.
If it is going to happen at all, it will have to be packaged and marketed as more attractive and desirable, hipper and cooler, sexier than BAU alternatives.
I am reminded that, at one time, a majority of new & remodeled homes had either avocado green or harvest gold appliances and burnt orange (or equivalent lime green, etc.) shag carpeting.
What sane and rational human being, of their own free will and aesthetic judgment, would chose such color combinations ? Even living in a city where the house color choices# are enough to make West Indians gasp, I find this fad inexplicable.
But it shows the power of "the herd".
My poor powers of cultural trend setting would focus on not being morbidly obese (easy sell IMHO), "stick it to" the evil oil companies and car companies, a revulsion of Suburbia and "that way of life"/consumerism, the coolness of knowing your neighbors and merchants you buy from, and walking and bicycling instead of gyms. The innate uncoolness of malls and drive-thrus and the sheer ugliness of parking lots, strip malls, car accidents and more.
"Life as it should be lived", "People before Junk" or some such.
Best Hopes for Better Cultural Trend Setters than me,
Alan
# I painted my house brick red with peach trim and chocolate shutters, ironwork and gutters. Except the 4th side that is off-white (slight touch of sage-green), sage green trim and chrome green shutters. It is normal here not to paint all 4 sides the same, this side is not visible from the street and it gets most of the afternoon sun.
No mention of bicycles as a viable transport option in Figure 2? Why not?
In terms of kWh per km travelled they are much more efficient than walking, plus you can use them to carry goods and you cover distances far more quickly.
The future of the automobile is the bicycle.
"The future of the automobile is the bicycle."
To some extent. For able-bodied people. On flat ground and very gentle slopes. When the wind and weather are reasonable. And...
...if the built environment can be reconfigured to require shorter travel distances for many daily activities.
Our environment is legislatively fixed. Such changes to accomodate future needs cannot occur until the beaurocracy is squashed.
Our human settlement pattern often referred to as 'sprawl' has been guided almost exclusively by land speculators, developers, and builders. They tend to fund campaign contributions of local officials and are essentially the 'shadow government'. Capitalism at it's (sic) finest...
The only way to overcome this is to upzone around transit stops, and transfer development density away from outlying areas. But land speculators are rich and powerful, and those with the greatest monetary resources crush any real "we the people" solutions...
It always interests me to read these, because they're always static. Give the same person the same task, to do all over again, but have him do it every 10 years, and the results and conclusions come out different, becuase we live in a dynamic world.
Where, in this process, do we allow for things not yet implemented, not yet tried, not yet thought of, not yet invented? The fact is, you can't. This is why planned futures are always fiction. Why they're inefficient and stagnant and behind the curve. Because we, be that 'we' is defined as a group, a nation, a government, an agency, a think tank, or any other entity, cannot envision what will become, if there is freedom to invent, to innovate, to explore in ways not yet dreamed of.
Many people say that "there is nothing new under the sun". Perhaps that's true. But it can safely be said, if that's the case, that "there is much that is forgotten at any one time". Necessity is the mother of invention, to use a common phrase, is something that can't be denied as a truism. We can neither predict nor discount the creativity of people who need to solve something. Nor can we truthfully declare "there is nothing else".
It is self defeating to operate under the assumption that nothing will be invented, that nothing will be created, that brings about the production of easily transportable or useable energy. Instead of brainwashing people into being sheep and molding them into a conceived, calcified, and straitjacketed lifestyle, why not employ the energies people will exert to maintain what they value, by focusing them on creation of as yet unknown alternatives?
We SHOULD be doing this, but we're not. Instead, we're more and more tightly regimenting people into the current system. High levels of regulation and taxation have placed us in the part where nearly every individual must play a specific, presently defined game witout deviation, just to survive.
I'd love, for instance, to convert some of my vehicles to natural gas. But can't. The regulatory and beaurocratic obstacles are insurmountable to the individual. Even to the sizeable business. Even to the LARGE business they are nearly insurmountable.
It is illegal in my state to build a home that is "off-grid". You must connect to and invest fully in "present day norms" in terms of heating and electricity, etc. If you then wish, after having invested your money in the present energy regimen, you can, but it's financially self defeating. Why? My state claims to be highly "progressive". But it gives no room to allow anything but what is now "norm" to be implemented. Federally, it's illegal to self convert any vehicle less than 30 some years old to CNG or LNG without EPA approval, the cost of which is prohibitive.
Nearly universally, the drumbeat on this forum is to use government (force) to bring about "change". Yet, synonymous with that "change" is merely yet a different version of "forced sameness", just like the one we have now. Yet, almost nobody recognizes that the pace of adaption and adoption to new things is more hampered by the philosophy and implementation of centralized controls than by any other factor. Poster blame capitalism and greed. Yet capitalists are itching to bring you alternatives to make a profit, but cannot, due to our straitjacketed society, where the central planners have all but completely prevented it.
Before ANY signficant change happens, the recognition AND implementation of a deliberate and wholly encompassing school of thought which allows and fosters individual and collective efforts to try and to fund the untried or unpopular. A wholesale conversion from the popular centralized planning model, to one of no centralization at all, and an environment where individual reward can be obtained for success.
Capitalism can and will save us, but only if you get out of the way and let it.
No ism is going to save nobody.
Isms do not make a good substitute for religion or other forms of ethics systems. At the end of the day, Isms are just organazing principles. In America, our Ism has taken on a larger role, some say it is almost religious in its supposed miraculous powers.
But when the chips are down, man will save man. Or a larger power, if you believe. Or not.
You don't understand, among myriad things, what capitalism is, either. If you did, you'd not call it an "ism", for it is not an ideologically designed order of things. It is simply a human-compatible method of orderly relationships between people. It has evolved from human nature. All other "isms" are plans which seek to adjust the human to fit the concieved model. ONly capitalism does not seek to defy human nature.
Thats just it - human nature X 7 billion on a sphere, and environmental cues start to be very different than those that begat capitalism.
Human nature is to eat dessert first.
Prudence and foresight are learned behaviors, acquired from family, community, and society through education and experience.
No, they are not. They are not learned from books or by hearing. They are learned by experience, by the cycle of success and failure and the pain that happens from failure.
That's why this nation has no prudence, and is running amok with wild, crazy, desperately stupid ventures in socialism and other madcap ideas, because we have not lived with the results of our actions in too long. The WWII generation learned the value of liberty, for having fought for it. Currently, the popular "intelligentsia" thinks liberty is overrated and are desperately and fanatically pursuing centralized power and command and control economies and societies. They have all completely forgotten all the lessons of prudence, patience, and bruised flesh, for they never experienced any of them. They seek to redefine "freedom" as freedom from responsibility for yourself, and the life of ease, paid for by "the rich".
in other words, we know very little, right now, in terms of what we need to know in terms of judgement, prudence, and careful consideration, and most on this board display precisely NONE of it, are either screaming like chicken little, or are pell mell rushing into centralization and authoritarianism as the answer to challenges. Why? They "know" nothing, having learned nothing by experience.
I would say most definitely they are. Give a young child a bowl of honey and a bowl of rice/beans. They'll down the honey at every given opportunity, unless they've been taught (or restrained) from doing so.
Capitalism unleashed, as you put it, has given us this current economic crisis, from overspeculation in real estate to NCDSs.
Bush said, "America is addicted to oil". Is this liberty to you? I call it a form of hedonism, an obeisance to whims.
You say others know nothing, but you have yet to perform a similar introspection on yourself...
You have it all wrong. It is capitalism corrupted by government intrusion that created the mess we're in. It may sell to certain audiences to spew that noise, but it doesn't sell to people who have a clue. Please, don't repeat it to me. It is absolutely false and no amount of repetition will ever change reality. Every problem we face economically and financially is directly and wholly and solely due to governmental interference and efforts to break the laws of economics by political types.
You have it all wrong. It is government corrupted by capitalist intrusion that created the mess we're in. Every problem we face economically and financially is directly and wholly and solely due to economic interference and efforts to break the laws of physics and chemistry by economists.
The crushing lessons of naked credit default swaps and torrents of other deregulated "capitalism unleashed" are lost on you. The neocons now own you...but they have little influence on independents such as myself.
Does it ever happen that someone's posting rights are withdrawn? Someone who only threadjacks, starts irrelevant arguments, posts political opinions, denigrates others, and NEVER cites any factual basis is not only a net negative but a GROSS negative, and this site would be better off without wasting electrons - and readers' time - on such.
One can wish..
That Alan get's taken to task for pointed but salient criticism, and Geezer is still wheezing along is a gol-durned Christmas Miracle, by gum!
Go figure, 'kuhl. Although we haven't heard from TheOldGasser today. Miracles do happen in cyberspace.
Ignore him. Don't respond, and watch him wither.
Great post. You CAN change your car's propulsion, but you CAN't tell anyone.
You CAN get off the grid, but you need to move Beyond the Supervised Area.
The future you can envision where everyone is happy (or free to work to that goal) is UNimaginable, literally, to most.
By chance if we are not the highest life form in the universe, perhaps "the game" is not over yet.
"It is illegal in my state to build a home that is "off-grid".
I've been involved in the off-gid community for years and have never heard of this. Different States have different codes and requirements, but I have never heard of a State that has "outlawed" off-grid living. As usual, no sources.
You have accused others of "fiction" because they don't support what they say, yet you seem to be above your own requirement to do so.
"Either tell us what it is, or it must be assumed to be fiction."
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6704#comment-671269
Your posts are as empty as your profile.
I would bet that you will NOT get a reply to this request.
Would that OldGeezer would display some type of credentials or life styles or what ever such that he could be believed as to the veracity of his statements.
Just blunderbussing away seems his style and forte. And in a very adversarial manner at that.
Perhaps he forgot about the flies,vinegar and honey analogy.
"Your wrong and I am right!"
"You do NOT know but I do know!"
"You do not remember but I do!"
etc..............
There are solar technologies under development that convert a heat differential directly into electric power. This technology has demonstrated a Carnot efficiency of 92% in a proof of concept exercise.
One possible application is power extraction from the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf Stream transports about 1.4 petawatts of heat, equivalent to 100 times the world energy demand. This ocean thermal energy could be harnessed to produce electricity utilizing the temperature difference between cold deep water and warm surface water
In more detail, a highly efficient power conversion capability between heat energy and electric power based on the utilization in the temperature differential between the 90 degree tropical ocean surface temperature and the 40 degree water temperature at depth will provide abundant electric power.
Another possibility is to utilize the temperature difference between warm Gulf Stream surface water and cold arctic air off the coasts of Northern Europe.
And what "solar technologies" are these?
Every time I read this, it's passed on as if it's a secret, one that can't be publicly divulged. Yet, they never appear. Either tell us what it is, or it must be assumed to be fiction.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:XNzUY_5lHX0J:en.wik...
Hum. ,Nantenna's...That is interesting. Thanks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_generator
I saw that movie too! The space ship lands and gives us all we need, cheap energy, health care more food than can be consumed. Wait, it's a cook book, to serve man!
That would still be 0% at night. solar is available about 20% what ever it efficiency.
It depends on which solar technology you are referring to - solar thermal with molten salt storage can work around the clock;
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10420278-54.html
I agree with much of this. Renewables by and large are too costly compared to oil and natural gas, which gush almost freely from the ground (well, used to).
But you fail to recognise the potential of energy efficiency at costs (£ per kWh saved) which as long as you avoid certain costly measures (like extremely high building insulation) appears close to the costs of energy from new oil and gas fields (and pipes, and refineries). Passive solar is also pretty attractive in new buildings, even in the UK (in the world's cloud belt).
The problem seems to be that few societies have tried to overcome the institutional barriers to implement it. Governments just assume that something will come along to replace the terawatts of oil and natural gas we guzzle. (As you say, it won't). Renewable energy proponents go along with this myth. The public think that any replacement for fossil energy must be ... well, another form of energy supply.
For one society that has progressed, visit Denmark and see cities heated by waste heat from power stations, and buildings with double the insulation levels that the UK used at the same time. But far more needs to be done.
My high school had 1984 as required reading. What did I learn? The wars in Oceania are "faked" for social cohesion (among war mongers and 5-minute haters) and profit (for contractors).
It took 4 years to beat the German Luftwaffe and the Japanese and you're telling me in 10 years "we" can't beat a few guys in caves. What's wrong with this picture?
As for changing to renewables, one holdup is that petroleum (the petrodollar) is the basis of all the fiat money floating around.
This article series is becoming more refined (think of a top of the line samuri's katana that is flattened and folded 100s of time during its forging), so we can focus on some of the more salient aspects;
I would strongly agree with the first sentence fragment, but haven't seen any support for the numbers (20-30%), beyond some UK data, which should not be considered to be representative of the world at large. I have found some wind studies in the US that arrive at different conclusions, so am surprised that you are taking this particular stand so early in the article series.
Even if we assume for the moment that you are correct for wind and solar, what happens when we add hydro and geothermal into the equation? MIT notes that geothermal power could reasonably power 10% of our electrical needs. There are 30 GW of undeveloped hydropower potential in the US alone. And that doesn't count the 500 GW of low power, low head hydro potential, about 130 GW of which is considered feasible. Look them up on the GIS tool Virtual Hydropower Prospector.
Note that wind and solar work well with hydropower - you'll find a number of charts and data points of value in the following link;
http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/pdfs/workshops/2006_summit/acker.pdf
Speaking of wind, there are at least two studies that show how interconnection of wind power from varying locations can provide counterbalancing levelization;
1. Willett Kempton, Felipe M. Pimenta, Dana E. Veron, and Brian A. Colle, 2010, Electric power from offshore wind via synoptic-scale interconnection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107 (16): 7240-7245. (April 20, 2010) doi: 10.1073/pnas.0909075107.
2. Eric D. Stoutenburg, Nicholas Jenkins, Mark Z. Jacobson, Power output variations of co-located offshore wind turbines and wave energy converters in California, Journal of Renewable Energy, April 2010.
And even some with more localized interconnection foci, such as;
San Francisco Offshore Wind Farm Analysis, Preliminary Report, Stanford University, 2009
So hydro and geothermal could provide 30-40% of current electrical demand, with wind and solar providing an additional quasi-baseload on top of this (given the ability and will to pay for the capital costs). With smart appliances and consumer choice concerning real-time pricing with smart grid capabilities, this would add resilience to the supply network by virtue of large scale demand response.
There are benefits to some of the above (and I doubt very few would quit work under the circumstances you mention);
- Biking/walking: Greatly reduced expenses, greatly improved health
- Public Transportation: In the DC/NoVa area, taking mass transit can save time, reduce the significant rush hour stress, and reduce air pollution. I use the in-transit time efficiently with my laptop and the bus' free WiFi.
- Fuel efficient cars (Corrola, Fit, Civic, etc) are much less expensive than SUVs, pickups, minivans, and 'family' sedans.
Don't forget to add telecommuting, carpooling/vanpooling, and rezoning to carfree areas, the latter at which the Swiss are rather effective.
Does that mean any/all of the above can be applied to prevent a depression (or even collapse) from rising oil prices? Or at least prevent moderately elevated oil prices ($80-$100/bbl) from inducing a return to downward global economic (and semi-permanent) decline?
Not in a guaranteed manner, or even a highly probable one. The future will be one of much lower energy resources per capita, perhaps greatly so for the currently 'developed' world. It may be a somewhat punctuated but steady drop... or not.
Will, we will to try to answer your very relevant comments in the post coming up on "electricity". I hope this is ok.
That would be the preferable way to address the above points.
**ERRATA** on low flow, low power hydro in the US from my previous comment;
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/doewater-11263.pdf
The science or technology of small scale hydropower is neither complex nor all that expensive. IT would, however, require a much bigger fight to implement. It would require the complete overhaul of the laws and rules that govern our water.
The federal government has just attempted a full scale seizure of control of ALL naturally flowing water, mostly for precisely PREVENTING any kind of development, use, or diversion of said asset.
I note with some interest that it appears a large percentage of the TOD posters would fit the profile of 'environmentalist', but yet, environmental groups by and large are entirely antagonistic to the interests of alternative power. Publicly, they talk about it, but any effort to actually DO anything is instantly met with the NIMBY response, no matter what or where.
At the risk of starting a civil war on TOD, how will the environmental lobby, and it's billions of dollars funnelled into activists and lawyers, be pushed aside, to allow the use of alternatives?
From the EPA's prevention of the use of alternate fuels, to the monopoly and straitjacket regimentation of electrical power and home design ( for instance, my city forbids building homes smaller than 1400 square feet for single level and 1800 square feet for multi story, and having garages less than 400 square feet ), and while those of us on the right are perfectly willing to allow smaller and less consumptive homes to be built, we can't get such ideas past the political left, who defined those sizes to prevent "greed and misery" from being forced onto people.
It seems that there is a vast gulf, a serious cognitive dissonance among the "left" in this country. At least, if nothing else, it exists within those in power. This needs to be addressed here, as that is actually the FIRST HURDLE, not the last, not one that can be ignored, nor one that is even likely to be surmounted. Can any of you acknowldge that "big government" is not all it's cracked up to be?
Please provide a reliable reference that supports this assertion.
I agree that there have been a few high profile instances of NIMBY responses, but on the whole, such an assertion is groundless (unless you can provide evidence that shows that GWs of wind power have not been installed in the US in the last 10 years, for example).
You drone on and on, oblivious to the facts, but in full broadcast mode nonetheless. Since you can't even get simple facts like the above right, we have no basis for trusting your analytic abilities with more complex assessments.
Odd, ethanol is the second largest selling liquid fuel. And while limited, biodiesel is being used by some. What other alternate fuels is the EPA 'preventing'?
That's very odd; what city do you live in? My last home was a 1100 square foot 3 story townhouse. Are condos and apartments forbidden as well? I'll take a look at your ordinance when you provide your city name.
Here's an archive of a couple of sources for what I just said... Please note that the "sources" are a member of congress and a county commissioner, and the information is whole and well written.
http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/cwa/cwbillendslocal050410.htm
You can find a LOT of discussion of this scattered all over the place, if you're interested in knowing, not just spouting.
Where did I say that NIMBY was applicable to only Wind power?
And, why would you call ethanol a "renewable" resource? AT the very best, it provides about a 10 percent gain on the energy consumed in producing and transporting it, not to mention how dangerous and deadly it is. Ethanol "enhanced" gasoline is absolutely deadly to spill, on land or water. Far, far more so than straight gasoline.
Next, biodiesel is ILLEGAL TO BURN. Yeah, it violates the EPA rules for diesel engines. You can only burn it legally in "non emission controlled engines".
Propane, hydrogen, natural gas, ethanol, are all illegal to use as a replacement for gasoline, unless a multi-million dollar process is done PER VEHICLE. And that certification lasts ONE year, for ONE model with ONE set of options. Conversion systems designed for a '05 Crown Vic are illegal to install in 07, or didn't you know that?
No legally built conversion systems exist for 99.5 percent of vehicles in the US that are emission controlled.
I'm just flabbergasted that you'd choose to argue against reality, rather than admit we're totally stifled until our nanny government is totally reigned back in.
Which is why it's sold at pumps across the nation without the dye used for off-road fuel. Yeah, right.
Had yourself checked for Alzheimer's lately?
AlanfromBigEasy on geothermal and ausgang on ocean thermal energy differential bring up two energy sources which could each easily produce the equivalent of our 20 million barrels of oil used per day. Would like to see knowledgeable tod folks comment on these and other large energy sources. Lets skip limited wind and solar sources.
There is too much political and science fiction noise on tod.
What is the scientific proof that man’s use of hydrocarbon fuels causes global warming? If that is a scientific fact, and not just a political opinion, then our planet could be uninhabitable in a century. The basic science needs to be done which answers this fundamental question.
Don’t want to shut down world economy based on a hokus pokus global warming theory. Don’t want to wipe out mankind for lack of due diligence.
Oil engineers perhaps NEED a little fiction, fuzzy uncertainty and politics in their diet, precisely because they so fervently believe they do not.
The "outsiders" have come here to learn about oil rigs, but perhaps with a disaster of this scale in progress, there is also something to be learned from "outsiders".
PS...I used to do some marketing work for the Oil and Gas Journal so I write sentence number one based on meeting oil people in the real world too.
First, most tend to ignore the problem that many renewable technologies are still heavily dependent on the application of relatively cheap fossil fuels when it comes to raw material extraction, manufacturing, transportation, installation and maintenance. Those inputs mostly come at relatively low cost. So if these alternative energy technologies (even nuclear plants) will have to be built with renewable sources of power in the future, or with higher priced fossil fuels, this would make these relatively expensive technologies even more expensive.
This POV ignores a countervailing trend which appears to be of the same magnitude.
Since I started considering the dilemma faced by our society (hint: I had a full head of hair), the most efficient commonly used coal and natural gas fired plants were both 32% efficient. Today, one can buy a GE combined cycle NG plant (H series from memory) that is 60% efficient and China is building one 44% efficient coal plant/month. These efficiency gains help reduce the rate of depletion and lower the economic cost of electricity.
The Danes later sold 60 kW wind turbines with "not very good" EROEI.
The biggest and most efficient nukes were in the 600 MW range. Gaseous diffusion enrichment of uranium used a dozen times (or more ?) the electricity that centrifuges use today.
Design was done with slide rules and drafting paper.
As noted in private eMails, tunnel costs have been falling at -3% compounded for several decades as TBM machines improve and operators gain experience.
Power electronics have improved electric locomotives. HV DC transmission has improved (and continues to improve significantly). Hydroelectric turbines are a couple of % more efficient.
The pace of technological improvement has been quite uneven across different fronts (computers, wind turbines and uranium enrichment are leaders) and a rational society will shift the balance towards the areas with the most improvement.
I contest those that believe in what I call a "Just in Time Technological Fairy", that will arrive with just the right solution at just the right time.
OTOH, assuming zero progress in all areas of technology is just as specious.
One simple example.
I do not doubt that you used current wind turbine designs for towers and bases (and likely failed to calculate that they should last through at least two generations of wind turbines mounted on top).
However, if steel and concrete were bigger issues, one could build WT towers as hyperboloid towers, with a bit more labor and a lot less material (1/4th ?).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperboloid_structure
Alan
Alan: The points you make seem generally accurate—and relevant, too. They don't however, add up to a refutation of the OP's claim:
Do you believe that we can meet current expectations (not yours or mine, the expectations of the average Western worker/consumer/decision-maker/journalist) when no more that 70% of our energy can be provided by FF or other non-renewables? I really doubt that you do; you know this subject too well for that.
The key point Hannes is making is that the generally-held expectations of our developed societies will not be met, and that we thus would be well-advised to change both expectations and our behavior as consumers. I see no condemnation of renewable energy schemes or of proponents, developers or providers of those technologies, merely a recognition of limits.
I repurposed an essay I was writing for another reason, how to get a hard case, Florida's electrical grid, down to about 9% FF (all natural gas) by around 2035 (also 72% nuclear). I sent it to Dr. Hannes as a common technical point to discuss our differences around.
So I do NOT believe in the postulated maximum of 30% non-FF over-all.
Alan
See my comment to Gail above (if nobody censors it). At least in the USA, our RE resource base in land-based wind alone could power the country with ease. Add the centuries of power we can extract from existing stockpiles of "spent" PWR fuel and depleted uranium (U-238 tailings from enrichment for light-water reactors), and we're set for quite a while.
Oh, sure. People are NOT going to be roaring around behind 400 HP V8 engines as a matter of routine. But Tesla roadsters? Not a huge change in expectations, but an enormous increase in feasibility using RE.
I can't quite see why you don't get that the Fake Fire Brigade bit. Scient-ism is your Magical Leverage Point. Link below
http://www.sustainer.org/pubs/Leverage_Points.pdf
You've essentially not engaged with either Nate's or haans post at a systems level.
Your quote -
Your opinion or story, or have you got a number for your magnitude - the relative size of a mathematical object in question.
ps we haven't got decades to fix this problem.
Thank you for that wonderful quote from Einstein. I am in total agreement - particularly with the entire first paragraph!
This is where I am coming from.
Restated:
The only realistic expectation is that resource constraints will result in changes in the ways almost everything is done, shifting the combination of resources required. Any calculations made with "as is" resource requirements are almost surely wrong.
Renewables, because of their lack of technological maturity, are an especially fertile area for such substitution.
Conversely, rail is also a good candidate because of the 1.75 centuries of experience and the vast number and sites of installation. A good rail historian can find an innovative solution(s) for almost every case.
Alan
Alan, the real game changer is the realization of post peak oil. There will be no time for change the moment people realize many will go hungry. There will be no chance for slow change and ramping of alt energy on a large scale. The system does not allow it. We will drill baby drill to the end and one day OPEC will say come to us for your energy needs. We all saw what happens when crude hits 100$ a barrel the world stops and people starve. The real problem is how to keep most from understanding it's already to late for change.
I think hyperbole, certainly in the near term.
$300 oil may well crack the economy (> Greater Depression) but not $100 oil.
And if we stop eating corn fed beef, eat less corn feed pork and eat more corn feed chicken, catfish, etc. there be enough surplus corn to feed "many".
Raise edibles in our lawns (could largely be done in a couple of years except for fruit & nut trees) and the problem is less severe.
Best Hopes for some hope !
Alan
Alan, the world stopped here in the midwest when oil hit 100$. I agree we will all be veggies sooner than either of us think. When you can feed eight people with the grain that feeds one person animal product it's a no brainer. I love the fact you see time for change and I hope at least 99% still do:) The alternative is what I fear. For me the barrel has tipped.
Alan, though you might not know it from reading the above post, I am more hopeful than I have been in years, particularly after spending time with Hannes. We have a culture (via books, movies, media) that always has a happy ending - where adversity is somehow overcome despite the odds. So its natural to want to see things in a Madison Avenue schematic 'hittem with a negative message and follow it right up with a positive message'. Science doesn't really conform to that model - just as most/many people disagreed with Hannes original post, assuming he was 'against renewables', many people don't see the silver lining in the above (partial) analysis. The main point is not that renewables are failures, or wastes of time/money, but that they would be misallocations of resources IF they were built up alongside a belief that extraction/growth model will continue into the future. Once it is understood that this model is broken, all sorts of other assumptions start to unravel - and designing a system that uses considerably less resources is the logical conclusion. So I think it important to consider this series of posts (and the viewpoint in general of Hannes' organization) as a stepwise argument. (Obviously) we will gradually have to live off renewable flows (though I suspect due to debt overshoot that cheap fossil fuels will be with us a few years longer than many here believe) - but the constant media pronouncements of 'a clean energy future' and 'the green economy' rarely if ever detail the fine print accompanying these glib soundbites - that the green future will more likely be brown, and have vastly different living arrangements/standards than we now have. Sure-this is unpleasant to hear and will not be popular politically, but its a message that once understood will have the best chance of actually envisioning and creating something to hope for, that is realistic.
The bigger message here is that the complex system of just in time inventory, international finance based trade and higher global throughput over time is nearly over. Hope, and the hormones/neurotransmitters that accompany it (lower cortisol, higher T cells, etc.) has been adaptive so its natural to want to see some desirable actionables following a post such as this. To marry hope with reality is one of our key challenges. Neither Hannes or I are particularly confident that THIS system (and the perceptions of wealth/claims that comprise it) has much longevity. But that doesn't mean we aren't hopeful about what comes next - it just has constraints, the sooner that are acknowledged/internalized, the more people can get to work on reality. 99%+ of our population is still following the Jiminy Cricket strategy, not the Jimmy Carter one.
Gaseous diffusion is about 2500 kWh/kgSWU, centrifuge figures I've seen are 40-60. It's down by roughly a factor of 50.
the energy systems are global, so the costs of most of the new nuclear reactors or other new energy build should be the costs in China, India, Russia and other places where it is mostly being built.
http://nucleus.iaea.org/sso/NUCLEUS.html?exturl=http://www.iaea.or.at/pr...
61 reactors under construction, 24 in China, 11 in Russia, 6 in South Korea, 4 in India
in the 1980s, 218 power reactors started up, an average of one every 17 days. These included 47 in USA, 42 in France and 18 in Japan. The average power was 923.5 MWe
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html
EdF Flamanville EPR: EUR 4 billion/$5.6 billion, so EUR 2434/kW or $3400/kW
Bruce Power Alberta 2x1100 MWe ACR, $6.2 billion, so $2800/kW
CGNPC Hongyanhe 4x1080 CPR-1000 $6.6 billion, so $1530/kW
AEO Novovronezh 6&7 2136 MWe net for $5 billion, so $2340/kW
KHNP Shin Kori 3&4 1350 MWe APR-1400 for $5 billion, so $1850/kW
FPL Turkey Point 2 x 1100 MWe AP1000 $2444 to $3582/kW
Progress Energy Levy county 2 x 1105 MWe AP1000 $3462/kW
NEK Belene 2x1000 MWe AES-92 EUR 3.9 billion (no first core), so EUR 1950 or $3050/kW
UK composite projection $2400/kW
NRG South Texas 2 x 1350 MWe ABWR $8 billion, so $2900/kW
CPI Haiyang 2 x 1100 MWe AP1000 $3.25 billion, so $1477/kW
CGNPC Ningde 4 x 1080 MWe CPR-1000 $7.145 billion, so $1654/kW
CNNC Fuqing 2 x 1000 MWe CPR-1000 (?) $2.8 billion, so $1296/kW
CGNPC Fangchengang 2 x 1080 MWe CPR-1000 $3.1 bilion, so $1435/kW
CNNC Tianwan 3&4, 2 x 1060 MWe AES-91 $3.8 billion, so $1790/kW
recent OECD study projects a 3 c/kWh cost for coal generation in China, a 3.6 c/kWh cost for gas, and a 3-3.6 c/kWh cost for nuclear, the cheapest non-emitting option (all assuming a 5% discount rate). A 0.01-0.04 RMB/kWh carbon tax adds 0.0015-0.006 c/kWh to the cost of coal generation, which simply does not change decisionmaking. (If one uses a 10% discount rate, coal comes in at 3.3 c/kWh, nuclear at 4.4-5.5, and gas at 3.9, making the gap even bigger.)
http://en.smm.cn/information/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=867761
We can all build all the reactors we want, the fuel is the problem and they know it too! There is not enough ore for the reactors we have now. We just consumed the last of the Russian weapons fuel.
landrew - the reason there is "not enough ore" is because there has been Russian weapons fuel available for several years depressing the fuel price. Mining effort will increase to make up for the lack of weapons fuel. Any shortages will be political and regional in nature, such as in India.
Funny, an agreement was JUST signed to turn a bunch of Russian weapons plutonium into fuel. This means the effort hasn't even started yet.
Robert Mitchell 25 minutes in, earns his living from investments related to uranium, doesn't agree with your assessment.
http://www.financialsense.com/financial-sense-newshour/big-picture?page=1
Uranium != plutonium, and if Mitchell doesn't know the difference he's not worth listening to.
EP if you listen to the podcast you may find out what he's talking about. Wow, I can't believe you've given the two people posting this such a hard time over their lack of info, if you listened to him he is very measured about the problem. But hey, only the closed mind knows certainty.
The point is that weapons-grade U is trivially down-blended to LWR fuel, so it went first. Pu requires fabrication of MOx fuel, which is trickier and the utilities aren't eager to use it (for reasons I don't understand), but as a consequence there's a lot of it that hasn't been touched yet.
I won a bet on uranium production.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/07/world-uranium-production-for-2009-was.html
World uranium production for 2009 was 50572 tons.
This is 15% more than 2008 annual production which is also 15% more than what Michael Dittmar said it would be.
Dittmar had four articles in Arxiv which were also oildrum articles last year.
Reactors can become 60 times more efficient with fuel with either deep burn reactors or various forms of reprocessing.
Canada is getting the Cigar Lake mine back on track. Targeting 2013.
Namibia is getting South Rossing ramped up for 2013.
Kazakhstan is still increasing production.
I'm with Nicole Foss (Stoneleigh)....unless these new reactors are extremely simple to operate and relatively easy to keep secure in a contracting/disintegrating society, I think we'd better think twice about building more nuclear power.
1. If you build enough then your society does not contract or disntergrate. Why would you plan only for decline ?
The trends do not support the case for decline
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-ridley/down-with-doom-how-the-wo_b_63...
Plus declines can be avoided or reversed
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/03/sorry-collapsitarians-doomers-and.html
2. Most as I said are getting built in China, Russia, India, S. Korea and a dozen more in each of Vietnam and Japan. So who is the "we" in we'd better think twice ?
Do you have influence with the State Council of the People's Republic of China ?
How about with Putin ?
3. There are also the new designs which only need to be refueled once every 5,10,20 years and run mostly with passive systems. Two examples Hyperion power generation and China's pebble bed
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/01/atomic-show-interviews-hyperion-power.html
the shift to a lead bismuth cooled liquid metal reactor and the design decision were to enable a faster development and approval of the 75 MWth/25MWe reactor
* the reactor is being designed for a 10 year operating life. The first prototype reactors may only run for 5 years and at slightly lower power. There are regulatory rules where prototype reactors have a faster approval if they are designed with enough safety margins
* the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) may not approve reactors quickly but the DOE can approve its own nuclear reactors. The first reactors may also be outside the United States, but still with US controlled interests
* the lead bismuth cooled uranium nitride system will be shipped with the lead and bismuth in solid form and will be reheated onsite to get the system working
* the system will be designed to ship inside regular shipping containers.
* safety is a key part of the design with nearly conmplete passive safety being the goal
* the power and cooling connections for the system will have a dual setup so that you can drop in a second replacement unit and transfer the power and cooling connections to it while the first is still operating. Then switch on the replacement and allow the first to cooldown until you are ready to ship it back
* Hyperion Power Generation has been looking at and talking to parties interested in using the system for nuclear powered shipping
* the company is still targeting first units to be operational in 2012-2013.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/02/current-status-and-technical.html
The HTR-PM plant will consist of two nuclear steam supply system(NSSS), so called modules, each one comprising of a single zone 250MWth pebble-bed modular reactor and a steam generator. The two NSSS modules feed one steam turbine and generate an electric power of 210MW. A pilot fuel production line will be built to fabricate 300,000 pebble fuel elements per year. This line is closely based on the technology of the HTR-10 fuel production line.
After much study of the topic, I believe contraction is unavoidable as oil declines. It will reorganize not just our economies but probably many political systems, as well. I further think that the people who advocate solutions hoping to continue BAU or something similar focus on one area of the picture but miss the whole systems approach.
I understand that you have a different view.
Can you provides some dates and predictions that you can use to confirm that you are right ?
Biofuels are over one million barrels per day now and could be 5 million barrels per day in 2020.
Liquified natural gas is also expected to see a lot of growth.
Efficiency of cars and trucks should improve by 50-100% by 2020.
Nuclear power should be up to about 500 GW in 2020. 3600 TWH.
hydro will have increased.
so are you predicting a sharp collapse before 2020 ? What is your prediction on global liquids average for 2015 ? 2020 ?
The bakken/three forks area looks to be heading to 500,000 to 1 million barrels per day.
Horizontal multi-frac drilling is being used to boost old fields in Texas and around the US.
THAI/Capri and other new oil recovery look to boost production and lower costs in the oilsands.
Someone needs to read some back posts, methinks.
500,000-1mmb/d going to make a difference given decline rates in deepwater and onset of decline in Mideast oil?
Liquid biofuels won't/can't scale enough to replace petroleum volumes, and even at small production volumes have led to environmental conflicts and contributed to the rise in food prices.
Efficiency of cars improve 100%? Huh?
Fracking is quickly becoming the #1 source of air pollution in many areas and will be pretty much out of the question as soon as water protection exclusions are revoked, and the EROI is too low for production to be sustained. LNG doesn't fit with existing built infrastructure, and projects due to come online cannot and will not make up for declines in domestic gas production. And it's damned expensive. Unconventional gas is a chimera, as a quick look at the environmental impacts will show. You can survive without gas, but an entire region can't survive without clean water, and the silence by the producers on the unanswered environmental questions is truly deafening right now.
500 GW of nuclear? By 2020??? What?? Wind maybe, but we'll be lucky if we have 5 GW of new nuclear by then given the lead times and cost overruns, and maybe not even that given the aversion of investors to the associated risks, financial and otherwise.
Renewables and efficiency might do the trick, but if you want to talk about fake fire brigades, why not start with the above...
There's been more than that in the planning cycle since 2006, and the lead time is only 10 years.
Please see:
http://www.postpeakliving.com/preparing-post-peak-life
Plus:
http://www.postpeakliving.com/peak-oil-primer
They lay out all my thinking.
Best,
André
How about something like a LFTR? It chugs along without active control for years, dumps its fuel to holding tanks if things get too hot or otherwise out of whack, and only needs to shut down for maintenance if something actually breaks (no outages to add fuel).
We've known how to do this for than 40 years, but the employment prospects of ex-Navy reactor operators seemed to be more important than safe, cheap electric power at the time. Then we had the oil-price shocks... if only they'd come first!
Energy is the most important subject there is, because without it most things come to an abrupt halt. Even our Military would be totally useless if energy was cut off. Our Government couldn't function, and our society would be at a loss.
Yet we have done almost nothing to insure we have energy in abundance, at low cost, and without relience on foriegn sources.
We are tilting at windmills, and banking on solar power, both which only supply power when the wind or sun is there.
We rave against nuclear as if it was using bombs to make power.
We have dismissed everything that can help reduce our dependancy on foreign oil, from Ethanol, Bio Fuels, and Even Natural Gas.
We keep hoping that some new technology will just miraculously appear to save us, and solve this problem with us doing nothing to help out.
Water power has been around since electricity was invented, and was used by water wheels to run our factories before electricity. Yet our Government made people pull out their water wheels, and switch to electicity to make the electric companies more viable.
Technology has proven that huge dams are no longer needed to extract power from running water, and water wheels and turbines can use just the flow of water to run generators. Yet we see no huge projects to build water power installations. Running water has one advantage that few other things have, and that is it can be used over, and over, and over. If You have a turbine in a river, a short way down the river from that turbine You can put another one, and the same water will again turn that turbine.
The Germans almost took over the world with a total war machine that ran on fuel made from coal, and our Military brought all that technology back from Germany after the war, never to be heard from again. Granted the process may have been dirty, or not cost effective, but with all our advances You would think we would be working to find a way to make it cleaner and cost effective.
All most all of our energy and power problems are wrapped up in one fact, that our Government has sold out to the power producers. The Oil Industry, and The Coal Lobby we take as a granted, but forget the Power Companies and the Manufacturing and Service Sectors that supply them. We are made to think that being on the grid is the way to go, when Independant and local power producers would be much smarter.
We have been sold out in energy, but it goes farther to our telecommunications, and even television, Radio, and broadband suppliers. We have become, "at the mercy of the people who supply us with everything."
Our scientists, Engineers, and even regular people are not trying to solve any of this. Our Government actually works against anything that would solve these problems, or work to try and solve these problems.
We have become a people content on complaining, but unwilling to do anything to change things, or make our energy supplies any better. The not in my back yard syndrom is alive and well. We will spend trillions to fight terror, but hardly a dime to solve our energy problems.
There is enough power in the running waters of all our rivers and streams to supply us with low cost, or almost free electricity. Low cost or almost free electricity, would be the way to electric cars, trains, and make the costs of heating and air conditioning and power cheaper, safer, and more climate friendly.
Without cheaper and more abundant electric power, the dependance on oil and coal will only go up instead of down.
We could as a Nation make a commitment to solve all of these problems in a very short time, but it would take Leadership, and a Government of People who actually care about their Country instead of Money, Power, and Politics.
Put down the Kool-Aid Barney! If anyone had a sorce of cheap energy we would use it! The 100 mpg carb is fiction, it would take 5 Three river damns built every year for fifty years to equal our crude use now. Try to build four damns.
You must have spiked Your cool aid, because I just told You about the cheapest most plentiful source of power we have available, and You can't seem to comprehend that.
The building of dams for water power is pushed by engineers who like to do things in a big way, and they dismiss the simple water wheels and trubines that cost less, You don't have to move the world to install, and can be put closer to the need. When water flows trough the turbins in a dam, it's just dumped not to be used again. Water wheels and turbines can use that same water many times over.
An electric car doesn't need a carb, and we had electric cars well over a hundred years ago, but the oil industry partnered with the automakers, to see we never had the option of them.
It must be really bad to be so misinformed, to think that we would have used what has almost bit us in the ass, and we dismissed as not feasable. This Country has never used what's best for it, and it continues to shoot itself in the foot daily.
Yes, it is terrible to be misinformed.
Here, inform yourself:
Catton, William. Overshoot.
Gleick, James. Chaos: Making A New Science
"We are tilting at windmills, and banking on solar power, both which only supply power when the wind or sun is there."
If we could avoid these half-truths we stand a chance of making progress. I just watered my garden with water pumped and stored while the sun shined and am running the dishwasher, watching the news on TV, running an air conditioner and fans, this computer, lighting,,,, all with energy and water stored with PV/solar thermal while the sun shined. 100%. The freezer (now switched off, automatically) was cooled with PV energy today. We are not wealthy (or ignorant).
Scalable and distributable.
Silly grid addicted minds.....I'm going to go take a hot shower while you folks keep burning stuff.
I never said that single family houses couldn't be supported by wind or solar, but to assume that a huge office building, factories, and our major users of power can be run on these 24 hours a day is naive.
If everybody did what You say Your doing, it would help, but few would take the steps to make that happen for them.
We often base our whole world view by what's happening to or with us, but that seldom is reality.
LOL, there is nowhere near the capability and industrial capacity to provide PV/storage systems for every home. or every other home. Or even every 10th home.
And then imagine the massive level of heavy metal waste...
I'm sure the heavy metal waste would pale in comparison to coal fly ash.
And PV might not have the manufacturing capacity to supply the majority of the world's energy today, but...
http://www.globalpowerresources.ch/shared-images/CumulativeAndAnnual%20.jpg
The quote everyone loves here applies just as well to growth in renewables as it does to population:
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." - Dr. Albert Bartlett
Coal and oil had to start from zero production too. Anyway, these things are depleting now and causing major environmental problems, so what alternatives might you propose? Merely asserting that PV is not the answer is rather unhelpful. There are no major resource constraints that would limit wind and solar energy from providing the majority of the world's energy needs, the problem has simply been bringing down the cost relative to fossil fuels, and we are near the crossover point already, or already past it if one account's for externalities like the aforementioned coal ash issue. Now see what happens when you put a nice hefty tax on carbon, and you start to see why I think we have ignored the question of externalities at our peril, when it is THE central question at hand. Moving costs into the energy sector where they belong can and will help us make better choices, if we can get past the embedded political interests of the status quo. Think how much further along solar and other renewables in the U.S. might be already if Reagan hadn't de-funded DOE renewable energy research...
.
"LOL, there is nowhere near the capability and industrial capacity to provide PV/storage systems for every home. or every other home. Or even every 10th home."
There was nowhere near the capacity to build tens-of-thousands of ships and planes prior to WWII, either. It happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics
I have many other sources regarding the exponential increases in PV production and wind as well. I suppose you think lead/acid batteries are beyond our capabilities as well.
For such a "can-do" guy, you're surely full of "can't dos". Know this:
I "HAVE DONE". I guess you admit that little ol' me can do something your "Greatest Nation" can't; solving problems and taking responsibility for my own production/consumption of energy.
Laughing at other folks' successes while documenting none of your own is telling indeed.
Would this have happened if the country wasn't united in its belief in necessity of the war effort? So what percentage of this country (US)today believe in resource depletion or AGW?
A battery bank for a single home contains, depending on choice of the owner in terms of reliability, anywhere from 1/2 to 2 tons of lead and in addtion, sulphuric acid. in addition to the lead, deep cycle batteries contain antimony, not exactly an environmentally friendly metal to play around with...
So, let's just say that we equip, over the next 5 years, 15% of those homes.
There's something under a million single family homes, but for sake of ease of the math, let's just call it 800,000.
15 percent of that is 120,000 homes. So, 24000 homes X 1.2 tons. That's 58 MILLION POUNDS. Sicne lead is produced in just two states of the US, and half of our lead is imported, that means that 3/4 will be transported, either from Alaska, or overseas.
Please calculate the energy budget for that, and insert it into the calculations for "energy saved" and 'energy produced", please.
But, consumption of lead in the US is only a small part of lead consumption world wide. If you're going to make a difference, then India, China, and other population centers are going to start consuming lead at rates which will boggle the mind.
And, pretending that lead is inexhaustible, when it's in even more limited supply than oil....
Sigh.
And people wonder why I start coming across as sarcastic, when they think they've thought up the definitive future solution.
Which is the capacity of 1 or 2 typical mainline American freight trains, dozens of which cross the continent every couple days.
It's also roughly 0.003 percent of global annual lead production.
(What was you're point?)
Which can be reduced by about 2/3 if something other than lead (such as vitreous carbon) is used as the electrical connection. This eliminates failures due to corrosion also.
Pennies a pound, and environmentally benign once diluted.
It sits inside sealed vessels along with the lead.
Batteries don't consume lead in their operation. Every gram of lead put into a battery when it's made remains there through charges, discharges and off-gassing. Lead-acid batteries have the highest rate of recycling of any consumer article in the USA at over 90%. Large battery banks would be higher yet (more lead in one place).
It would be nice if you'd bother to check facts before posting, but I'm not sanguine.
But the data and methods used in the figures and calculations are not there. The IIER post does not even list the sources.
Do the authors only share with people of whom they approve?
WTH. I thought this was a discussion about energy... I can see posting about how much the military spends on gas, oil, etc. but not personal views on wars. Can we please get back to the energy problem? Thank you.
energy efficiency brings, as many studies show, typically 20-30% total energy savings across the entire life cycle of a product
I do not find this claim credible for a wide range of products, from efficient refrigerators and CFLs to the Swiss TransAlp tunnels.
Alan
I think 30% is the number the DOE usually gives for reductions in annual energy usage for refrigerators, following the imposition of new efficiency standards at the beginning of this century. I don't know what the differences in embodied energy look like.
CFL's may be two-thirds more efficient in energy consumption than incandescents. They also, however, contain significantly more embodied energy, decrease in intensity as they age (often resulting in early replacement), may have undesirable effects on power distribution systems, contain mercury (they are treated as hazardous waste, here in California), etc. I'd be very surprised if the net improvement is more than 30%.
US Refrigerators were routinely using 2,000 kWh/year before the first standards (late Carter from memory). My recent one was 396 kWh/year. Wharf Rat replaced a 23 year old frig (1987 makes it early standards, perhaps 800 kWh ?) and is noted substantial savings, = to a couple of solar panels.
The retail cost of decent CFLs is down to slightly over $1 ($3.97 for four Sylvania 60 watt ='s at HD). Given the lifetime energy savings, MUCH more than $1 (say $12-$15) in electricity saved. Not 30 or even 65 cents.
Alan
So, how much energy is required to build a CFL, and then safely dispose of it? And since it costs several times what an incandescent does, and lasts about the same, how is this any kind of savings?
and lasts about the same
In a house full of CFLs (and LED night lights), I have had two "infant mortality" losses (took back and got replacements) but none that have worn out.
Of course, I tend not to buy the off brand ones and I use cold cathode CFLs where they are turned off and on frequently (one can tell cold cathode by "Dimmable" and the $9 price tag).
"Regular" CFLs can only be turned off and on a couple of thousand times. Cold cathode CFLs do not care.
how is this any kind of savings?
60 watt bulb x 1,000 hours = 60 kWh to burn out. 60 kWh x $0.11/kWh = $6.60
That is the cost of electricity to burn out to burn out a smaller incandescent bulb (long life bulbs cost more, not less, because they put out less light).
13 watt CFL x 1st 1,000 hours (of 12,000) = 13 kWh x $0.11/kWh = $1.43, an energy savings of $5.17 vs. incandescent.
If the $1 Sylvania CFL is on for an average 4 hours each time, it should reach it's 12,000 hours life. If only 2 hours/time, then about 6,000 hours. 1 hour on each time, around 3,000 hours.
Still VERY significant energy savings compared to the purchase price. But why I use cold cathode CFLs for the bathroom, closets, etc. Note: cold cathode starts low and takes a minute to reach full bright. GOOD feature for bathroom in middle of the night and bedside lamp. Not as good feature in a closet.
safely dispose of it?
The mercury in a CFL is comparable to a couple of bites of tuna. I would just securely wrap a dead CFL in newspaper & cardboard and throw it in with "soft trash" in my garbage can. Too much precaution I know.
Best Hopes for energy efficiency,
Alan
PS: This is why I think IIER's "30% savings for energy efficiency" is a truly faulty "rule of thumb".
12000 hours from a CFL? Whoah... I have NEVER seen any kind of flourescent, of ANY variety reach that lifespan, much less the cheapo china stuff for sale in the store.
YOU might buy expensive ones and have found some great brand that lasts. The vast majority of sales is near-garbage quality. I have yet to use any that lasted more than 2x the life of an incandescent.
Now, if you want to achieve reliability + efficiency, let's talk LED. Now there's something proven.
On and off is the killer with most fluorescent bulbs (cold cathode are the exception).
There was a hardware store in Austin (Olinde's on N. Congress from vague memory) that kept one row of lights on 24/7 for security. That row never had a bulb burn out (several were noticeably dimmer, most were not) from after the end of WW II till the 1970s when a blackout (with surge) occurred. (Store was on same grid as State Capital & main Hospital, so quite reliable). Several did not come back on.
A few years later, the city owned utility helped replace old lights with more energy efficient ones. Site is now a multi-story office building.
In an effort to get CFLs out there in quantity, the push was for lower prices, and quality often suffered. Some real junk out there !
To quote the fine print on the back of Sylvania 4-pack I bought for $3.97 at Home Depot "Lasts 11 years when used 3 hours/day for 7 days/week". In other words, on/off on 3 hour cycles. Shorter cycles than 3 hours = shorter life.
And both infant mortality failures (<50 hours) were with these bulbs (2x4 pack 60 watt =, 1x4 pack 100 watt =), which I got replaced. But the prices are so cheap, I just deal with it.
There are mail order sources for the more expensive CFLs.
Best Hopes,
Alan
I'm going to concede these points, Alan. I don't want to fall into a pattern of arguing about details instead of dealing with the larger issues.
Yup. Replaced my 23 YO Frigidaire with the same size 2010 model. This one claims to use 383 KWH/ year. It's too soon to tell for sure, but, the first month I used it, I went from using 9KWH for the month to producing 65 KWH, a difference of 2.5/day. So far this billing period, I've already produced 64 KWH in 14 days, so it may end up saving 3 KWH/day. $560, including taxes, after a $200 Cash For Apliances rebate. I could have gotten the same net energy return with 3 more panels ($500 each) and an upgraded inverter.
2.75 kWh/day x 365.25 days/year x 20 years = 20,089 kWh
Assuming electricity costs rise a bit (and this is California if I remember correctly), so average $0.15/kWh over next 20 years.
$3,013 (roughly) in lifetime savings. Purchase price (back out rebate) $760. Time value of money not included, but payback should be about 5 years at current rates (<$0.15).
I have a VERY hard time seeing the mere "30% lifetime savings from energy efficiency" quoted, and used by IIER in their energy analysis.
GIGO.
Alan
It's even better than that. I'll be getting paid 8 cents/KWH for the surplus electricity I produce. That might go up with time, too.
Now, I have to start working on producing more.
Alan,
we're not talking about energy consumption during use, but about cradle-to-grave calculations. There, 20-30% actually are quite generous for most things, unless we have brand new, paradigm-changing technology, which is the exception, not the rule.
Refrigerators are an exception to this, as they operate 24/7, and probably have 80% of their energy consumption during operations and not in manufacturing. Here, improvements on a total life-cycle will likely be between 40-60%.
CFLs are one of those areas where we only look at use and not at the entire lifecycle (here's a link with some useful information on the problem: http://greenerlights.blogspot.com/2009/03/3f-cfl-analysis-production-ene...).
But even without that, if you start to do a full analysis of the use case, you get to very interesting results. Most of the traditional light bulbs are used at night, and inside. There, the 90-95% of the energy that gets radiated as heat doesn't get lost. During winter time (which is the time when bulbs are in use longer), so our conservative estimates tell us that, on average across the year, at least 30% of that heat actually is recovered by reducing the need for heat from from primary heating sources.
Regarding Swiss TransAlp tunnels, I don't get the argument you're making. And: Please be careful with anything that relates to Switzerland, when arguing with me, that's where I live.
For the moment, I disagree with your analysis. More later.
And I know well that you are Swiss (and a couple of Franco-phone Swiss from Vaud and Valois cantons have warned me about Zürcher :-)
The lifetime of the Trans-Alp tunnels is indeterminate. Rebuilding the tracks, signals and power supply is scheduled fro once every 100 years, but the main cost is the tunnel bore. I have worked on a hydroelectric dam with a design life of 400 years (it fills up with silt then), so a conservative 500 year life span for the tunnel bores.
That is the lifetime.
The energy saved is primarily the freight transferred from trucks grinding over the Alps (and maintaining those roads). A secondary savings is the electricity (and time) saved over using the old rail route.
I suspect that the life time savings of building the Trans-Alp tunnels exceed your 30% standard. They will be a valuable national asset for dozens of generations of Swiss.
Best Hopes for High Energy savings,
Alan
And now into the substance.
Quoth Hannes Kunz:
And you'll notice that there is one heck of a lot of fuel for 8¢/kWh nuclear energy, and many terawatts of renewable flow of wind power at a similar cost. The long-term increase is quite limited if we act soon enough.
That action is beginning. It only takes about 24 GW continuous of electricity to replace the work done (as vehicle fuel) by the USA's 1.7 mmbbl/d of offshore oil. Texas is adding 18 GW of power lines from the panhandle to get more wind energy to market; if they are run at 40% capacity factor, that's 30% of the problem solved. Now all we need are the electric cars.
That's very true, but it's also true that aluminum is a dense and non-perishable product which travels very, very well. We can ship all the bauxite in the world to Iceland for reduction to metal, and it wouldn't have any great effect outside of bailing out the banks there and turning Reykjavik into a Dubai with outdoor ski slopes and indoor palm trees.
That's simply not true. A large part of the expense of transportation is non-energy costs such as depreciation and insurance. Besides, if energy is more expensive, it pays to spend more on efficiency; amortization goes up, but operating cost goes down. Even without that, I don't derive significantly less benefit from electricity at 15¢/kWh as at 5¢. I just got my bill, and my rate for A/C is about 9¢/kWh, totalling a bit over $48. Reduce that to $27 or increase it to $80 and it wouldn't affect me much. If my expectation was for 15¢ I might invest in a unit with SEER 20 before my current one failed, but I'd still have years to think about it.
Transportation is the wildcard, as your graph notes. The USA, at least, is doing well for coal and natural gas. Wind power is growing exponentially and will help hold down prices of both electricity and the coal and gas which compete with it. So will nuclear, though nuclear is on a very slow growth curve with long lead times.
It appears that all the USA needs in the short term is to replace petroleum used for transport with either electricity or CNG/LNG. Displacing NG from electric generation to transport using wind (the Pickens plan) looks like a really good idea in this scenario.
Have you ever noticed the energy pay-back for wind turbines is 20 yrs. and the life time of a turbine is 20 yrs? Sounds like a loss to me. Pray for wind? They build them so far from cities and loss all that power in trans ha! Just like corn ethanol, when it takes more power to create it loss is all you have.
Now a Thorium muon catalyzed reactor that is change I could believe in.
The energy payback for modern wind turbines is somewhere between 1 and 2 years.
Alan
You mean with the 50 million is subsidy? In the Midwest our turbines come with subsidy otherwise they would not be built. Sorry the life time of the turbine is 20 yrs. The debate now is if they will be repaired as they fail considering the cost of op.
I wish we had started to build our new reactors, even the new pipe-fitter school has closed.
No, less than 24 months of "average" operation to produce as much energy as they took to build and install.
New nukes in the USA get MASSIVELY more subsidy than new WTs. Only Georgia Power actively plans to build two new nukes, and only because Georgia taxpayers will "pay as they build".
Alan
The figures I had for my FAQ at the Ergosphere were 0.26 years for land-based, somewhat more for sea-based. Taller towers and better siting will reduce the payback time. I could believe 7-8 months with different boundaries, but not years.
A payback time of 0.26 years with a 20-year lifetime is an EROEI of around 80, and that assumes the unit does not exceed its design lifetime. Our current crop of LWRs are getting 50% lifespan extensions.
Did you figure in the large crews of people who drive trucks around to services these things, along with the truckloads of parts transported, the international shipping, and other energy expended, such as the travel to lobby Congress for subsidy so corporate cronyism can make big bucks, etc?
http://www.stormingmedia.us/86/8625/A862514.html
Then again, putting a wind turbine in the wrong environment:
Properly implemented, wind can clearly be an asset.
"Now a Thorium muon catalyzed reactor that is change I could believe in."
So go build one!
When you try to do the numbers for alternative fuels, like wind and solar for transportation, they don't look good. It is a truly massive project, a historic undertaking to move over to electric. And that's not even counting the price of electric cars, which show up in your post as a positive thing. Last time I counted it was 1000s of wind turbines per state.
In addition, one has to consider the political environment, under which all of this transformation is supposed to be taking place.
Picture millions of old geezers, blindly voting with their guns for a savior to deliver them from all that pesky "government", so pure capitalism can finally be unleashed. Half of those people or more don't think they need a fire department (my house not on fire), police department (got a gun), school (socialistic indoctrination for Johnny) or even roads (got a truck). Too stupid to figure out where they gonna get their Bud and beef jerky if the mini-mart is looted by their brother.
Most Americans having no experience with actual large scale political calamity, simply can't even imagine this. This kind of stuff only happens if far away lands, right?
I'll side with them 10000000 times out of 10000000 times. Why? The clueless, hapless, hopeless types who think that government will save them... Will be the desperate ones. Not those of us who know how to do for ourselves what needs to be done. We've spent our whole lives being productive, solving real life problems, and will be fine. We do not need any "savior" in the form of a government. We just work out our own needs.
Just as I thought...no idea what I am talking about.
The new Glenn Beck "freedom representatives" won't be visiting your neighborhood with a new "joint venture" business proposition. They will not be coming to "solve problems" or "be productive", at least not in the way you mean. And no, just like you fantasize, they will not be constrained by the dreaded government and society, except in their case it will translate into wide spread looting and mayhem, as they realize their problem isn't educational or economic, it's purely political!
I see again and again these curious examples of the businessman, who is really the prime protected species in the capitalist civilization, imagines himself to be a "sovereign", operating purely on his mettle and knowhow, fully independent of any society, except for economic transactions.
In every example in history, that's the population that showed itself to be the most incapable of self-support and self-defense during real troubles.
Hmmm. Not a clue, have you. None.
I think it's becasue you haven't the faintest idea what I'm saying, and are just making some assumptions to fill in the gulf of "don't know".
"Projection". Look it up.
Also, "Dunning-Kruger effect".
What happens when a Dunning-Kruger "sufferer" is presented with a description of the effect? The mind boggles.
Awesome, I never knew there was an actual name for this effect. I had always just called it "being a damn fool."
This approach is like saying since the human body needs blood and needs water, if you happen to be bleeding to death, just drink more water.
This is good, I like this idea.
Hannes,
The original and this follow-up article appear to make these major errors
1)Renewables that generate electricity only need to replace 20-50%(av 30%) of the BTU content of FF because of the low conversion efficiencies of FF to work( or to kWh).
2)Renewables and nuclear use FF's now but they could be made with very minor FF inputs
3)Their will be some FF available(1-10% of present consumption) for hundreds of years, and biofuels would be able to replace most of this.
4)The EROEI of modern >1MW wind turbines is at least >20:1 and probably >40:1
5)All continents except Antarctica have access to very large pump hydro resources using existing dams or natural lakes( for example lakes Erie/Ontario, Winnipeg in N America)
6)Wind and solar can be scaled to replace > X10 todays FF use,and the growth rates are sufficient to scale up before most FF is exhausted.
7) The retail cost of wind power( or nuclear) is only slightly higher than the retail cost of FF power.
8) A consumer facing $10/gallon gasoline prices has the option of buying a much higher fuel efficient used or new vehicle( for example a used Prius for about 1-2 years savings in gasoline use). Similarly X2 0r X4 increases in electricity only have marginal increases in manufactured products even those using aluminum, and efficiency gains(and re-cycling) can easily off-set a big part of the cost increases.
9) any renewable energy is so much less expensive than human muscle power, its just not worth considering going back to a muscle powered world( except for very limited cases such as cycling) for the sake of small savings in energy use. Even if electricity was X10 more expensive( as it was 100 years ago) it would still be used for most applications except the most waste-full( resistance heating, incandescent bulbs).
Wind gen is a net loss. 20yr. pay-back with a life time of the gen at 20 yrs. Not an option. You can see the failures already here in the Midwest.
So the entire wind industry is supported by tax subsidy, including 100% cost of construction, finance charges, and profits for 20 years??
Wholly. It is nothing but a drain on the economy. Even the resources used to build them have been wasted.
Simply amazing. One of the few sectors of the economy actually growing right now, actually creating jobs, a drain on the economy. You can believe anything you want if your ideology lets two plus two equal five.
LOL, people learning nothing. It's a net loser economically. We have to take money from people who would normally NOT spend it on it, to pay for the jobs to do things nobody would do without subsidy. The fact that we're doing more of it is not "growing the economy", it's merely "wasting more".
Ever run your own business?
This is from the STEEL industry. What have you got? (Real links, Geezer.. show us where you get your notions)
http://www.worldsteel.org/climatechange/files/7/Wind%20energy%20case%20s...
The Horns Rev offshore wind farm in Denmark
See that? 20-year Equipment that returns its invested energy in 9mos. EROEI of 26.66 (returns 26+ units of power over its lifetime for each one unit of energy invested in making it.)
You can call everyone else ignorant all you want, but why not JOIN the conversation.. provide some actual information and support your points. Otherwise, you're shooting blanks, and anyone reading it sees right through you.
Bob
Two facts make that EROEI even better.
The towers & bases (on-shore at least) are expected to last through at least two WTs on top. 50+ years.
And the steel from worn out WTs' is easily and efficiently recycled. Lower energy cost if used to make the next generation of WTs.
Best Hopes for long lived, energy efficient and energy producing investments,
Alan
It's better the second time. If the towers can't be re-used as-is (due to corrosion; I doubt fatigue would be a factor) recycling steel in an electric arc furnace takes 640 kWh/ton. Recycling 28000 tons of steel would take about 18 million kWh, or about 10 days of the farm's output.
Let's see... Your venture requires you to obtain a truck to transport things. You have two choices, both do exactly the same job, in the same amount of time. One costs 118,000, the other 65,000. The government gives you a tax credit of 50,000 and the state gives you 20k to buy the more expensive one. Which one is the economical choice?
If you say the 118K truck, you're cracked. It has been proven over and over again that it costs more to generate power by wind, and that each megawatt installed decreases the return. As in, the more there are, the less impact it makes, the lower the return on investment overall. Tax credits are NOT FREE MONEY. You just robbed someone to make a "profit".
I wonder if you've ever watched the fleet of trucks that travel constantly to service and maintain these things? Have you counted that into the cost? Especially as it concerns the return on ENERGY? There's a constant energy cost to maintain them. As for them lasting 20 years, please don't insult my intelligence. I live very close to one of the largest windpower sites in the country. And on any given day, anywhere from 2 to 5 percent of the generators are not producing for one reason or another, concerning repair or maintenance. While the number that have failed catastrophically (like burning or collapsing) is still in the single digit percentages, that makes a massive dent in the marginal energy production.
Let's conveniently ignore that no energy technology has ever succeeded without subsidies.
http://arabnews.com/economy/article78006.ece
I guess the answer is to have no electricity at all, then.
By the way, a 2-5% technical failure rate is quite low. 5% is on the very high side for wind turbines.
Let's conveniently ignore that no energy technology has ever succeeded without subsidies.
Nonsense.
It is absolutely necessary, when talking about success and failure, to give the reader some idea of your scoring system.
At $60 a barrel for oil, there will be alot of technologies that can't compete. At $120 a barrel, there are fewer. And, with some duration at higher prices, many current failures might become refined to the point of success.
That, in my opinion, is what subsidies are for -- they permit development to make the technologies competitive. Besides, there are some areas better for each of the technologies that are available, and we definitely need a mix.
One percent here and one percent there is the best possible strategy. The market has plenty of dollar volume to assist develpment of a large number of diverse solutions.
Many people had very similar complaints about Michael Dittmar's series last year.
My rebuttal to the original is posted at The Ergosphere, and it's in the story queue here if the editors care to allow actual debate to besmirch the front page.
Neil, we will cover most of the electricity related things in our post #3 (on electricity), but here are a few facts that might be relevant:
Renewables, like FF, have an initial energy investment. So we don't see much of a difference there
Yes, theoretically, you can build renewable generation technology using any fuel input. But as we said above, if you don't use coal in China to produce, but instead renewables, at a price of 5 to 10 times that of FF, it won't be healthy for the price of renewable generation technology
There will be some fossil fuels for quite some time, but with decreasing benefits for us, because of growing extraction cost. Biofuels capacity (please wait for post #2 for this) are unlikely to come even close
A number of studies show EROIs close to 20, including this one: http://www.uvm.edu/giee/publications/IKub_2009_wind_EROI.pdf. But unfortunately, that is the EROI of wind that isn't matched to our human demand system yet, e.g. producing electricity when the wind blows. Thus, the effort to get it to work according to our demand, needs to be factored in, which makes things much less favorable.
There seems to be a confusion between pumped hydro, hydropower from dams and run-of river hydro. There is very little pumped storage globally (from the top of my head I think about 25GW in the U.S.). The bulk, depending on location, is run-of-river (hardly any flexibility, mostly produces base load) or dammed hydro, which has some flexibility, but no reversal capabilities
This is the case we make above. We can't afford the power that comes from those sources for what we would need to keep our models going, plus, there is no way to run a grid stably that is mostly based on those two sources. For that, please see our previous post and the one to follow, on electricity (#3).
The net generation cost of wind and nuclear is about the same as the one from natural gas combined cycle plants. But both are much less valuable to our grid. Gas is fully flexible. Nuclear is base load (can in the future in Type 3+ reactors likely be modulated, but most of the cost still is incurred, because fuels are only about 10% of total expense, thus each reduction in output increases the price per kWh if the plant's load factor goes down). Wind is stochastic capacity that needs to be adjusted to demand to provide the benefit we need.
for consumers with a fat wallet this is true. But for someone working in a regular job making 1500 dollars and commuting 50 miles a day in his/her old car, with no money to buy a new one, this means that going to work is no longer feasible
Sure, all the energy sources are still more efficient compared to DIRECT human muscle power, but often, the uses we have chosen use 3-4 orders of magnitude more energy than we need to do it by hand. That's what blows the model, as we don't have a like-for-like comparison
These are just a few short answers, more will follow in the next two posts.
The abstract shows EROI of 25.2 for all studies, and 19.8 for the operational studies... with SD of 22.3 and 13.7 respectively. There is something seriously whacked about the data, which I don't have time to look at deeply right now.
hannes,
I look forward to your #3 post on electricity. Just a few comments about EROEI
A number of studies show EROIs close to 20, including this one....
Thus study and any others are reporting on life-time CO2 released /kWh, so for example where electricity inputs are generated with FF the MJ content of the FF is measured, not the actual kWh. In contrast the wind farm is returning kWh. To make a fair comparison we should compare the kWh used in manufacturing and the kWh that could be generated from FF used in steel production, compared with the lifetime kWh output. Larger turbines(>1MW) are generally above EROEI of 25:1 ( using CO2/kWh) but would be >>50:1 using kWh in manufacturing(and kWh equivalents of FF) versus kWh output.
This seams to be a difficult concept for many to grasp. To give an example, Vestas reports a 3MW turbine uses in its lifetime; 68MJ of FF(24oil, 22 NG,23coal)per MWh produced, and 27MJ/MWh of nuclear and renewables. While the energy content of 68MJ of FF is 68/3.6=18kWh, if this FF was instead used to generate electricity it would only produce about 6kWh. SO while Vestas calculates an energy payback of 7months(EROEI 35:1) comparing directly kWh consumed versus produced would have 14kWh/MWh or an EROEI of 70:1(<3 months payback).
If we shift to a world with almost no FF(or a country that generates most power and steel from renewables ) most energy inputs will be kWh and outputs kWh,so the comparison would be much easier.
But as we said above, if you don't use coal in China to produce, but instead renewables, at a price of 5 to 10 times that of FF, it won't be healthy for the price of renewable generation technology
The actual amount of energy to produce a 3MW turbine( value >$US3,000,000 even in China) is only 4,300MW( using the MJ content of FF). If this energy costs $50/MWh from FF(total $210,500), the equivalent renewable energy use(as kWh) would be 2,000MW at say $250/MWh would be $500,000 an increase of <10% in the capital cost. High electricity prices will not discourage wind power.
But for someone working in a regular job making 1500 dollars and commuting 50 miles a day in his/her old car, with no money to buy a new one, this means that going to work is no longer feasible
This person doesnt buy a a new car anyway, fuel efficient vehicles <10 years old are affordable because they save fuel costs very quickly even at $3/gallon).
Good clear graphics, thanks.
If we can find more energy, should we?
Energy is a resource.
According to Limits to Growth, scenario 2 pp 173,where resources are doubled there are unintended consequences.
Pollution goes asymptotic. Right off the graph.
Population peaks slightly higher and drops off precipitously due to environmental degradation.
Food per capita slumps alarmingly. (If I don't get my breakfast, I am not happy.)
It seems to me that a timely feedback loop will be weakened by any attempts to continue growth by other means.
I used to be enthusiastic about alt.energy.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Arthur, thank you for raising this point.
PO is not an event which is isolated from the rest of 'whats going on'. Part and parcel of the whole situation is the population growth and subsequent environmental degradation, species loss, water depletion, etc.
Our concern over the use of fossil fuels relates to how their combustion products alter the chemistry of the biosphere. That is not the sole source of pollution from our species.
It seems to me that if we realize our dreams of a clean energy future we will only be supporting the conditions for more population growth. It also seems to me that if we are enabled to carry on for decades due to this clean energy, we may just stress the biosphere with our polluting sufficiently that the niche supporting our species is vanishingly small after the correction.
We are in population overshoot. Species in overshoot collapse. Sometimes they become extinct. The very numbers involved in a correction this magnitude are appalling. There is no guarantee that any of us will survive. But I believe there is a stronger possibility of humanity surviving as a species the sooner the correction occurs.
I appear to have awakened on the doom side of the bed this morning.
Regards, Al
I'm not so sure. It doesn't follow that if we use less energy people will have fewer children and reduced population growth. In fact, in today's world there seems to be an inverse relationship between per-capita energy use and fertility.
A successful transition to clean energy might have a better chance of seeing the 'demographic transition' in countries that have not seen it yet. Or it might not...my point is that I don't think these issues are so clear-cut.
Would really like to see a more serious discussion of externalities of fossil fuels and how to price them, and how that figures into the cost differential vs. renewables. There are BIG ONES that are completely unpaid lest we forget.
To echo Iaato's sentiments from the previous post on this topic: honestly, did we really just go through ANOTHER 200+ comments on this topic and not ONCE mention the massive and ongoing gusher in the Gulf of Mexico that has destroyed a way of life for thousands and caused irreversible damage to the ecosystem that will take years or even decades to even sort out as a cost of relying on oil? How about exempting hydraulic fracturing from water quality requirements? Shouldn't these be included in the price of fossil fuels somewhere? Is it really that easy to have a discussion that looks solely at bus-bar costs and barely even scratch the surface of the health and environmental impacts of fossil fuels?
Is anyone home???
OK here it is a reprint from my Campfire post.
my bold
Limits to Growth, the 30 year update.pp176
We occupy a body whose infrastructure has evolved to facilitate the flow of fossil fuel energies. It feasts upon fossil fuel like a hyena feasts upon a carcass. Some of us have decided that we should abandon the body, as it seems it will soon be starving and perhaps collapse. We can do that, some of us.
Renewable energy, IMO, will be like pasting leaves on a hyena’s back and a propeller on its tail and expecting it to meet the energy needs dictated by its previous structure. The hyena must be completely remade, both its structure and behavior and when nature is done, if it does not decide that extinction is more expedient, it will not resemble anything like a hyena. Perhaps for humans there are not numerous developmental options, with massive energy flow at our disposal we became what our scale and evolved behaviors dictated we become. In other words, we humans cannot, because of the nature of our brains, become energy sipping Tibetan monks, or can we?
We’re going to crash through any renewable safety net like a person jumping from a 100-story building and expecting to be caught by the firemen standing on the concrete walk below.
I’m watching the people line-up to jump and there will be no turning back, just a relentless pressure from the rear as unfortunate dreamers are forced over the edge. I’ve been to the top of that building and I’ve seen them walking backwards towards the edge. Evolution works that way sometimes, in a subtractive manner.
There are other technological solutions to our problems that do not include renewable energy at all, egalitarian methods of sudden population reduction, relatively quick, but dirty solutions.
When the message comes in that we must stop this insanity NOW or all is lost, we will employ fantastic measures of human sacrifice, as the ends will justify the means at that time.
The Chinese are transforming from an agrarian society to that of a full-scale technological scavenger because they seem to have the same appetite for power and comfort the West enjoys. I’ve heard that many Asians like to gamble and so it must be that they believe that a stable full of engineers and technological development will deliver to them a new energy source. It’s a terrible gamble, but I’m sure they are at least as delusional as the West and will throw the dice on more than a few dead-end energy projects.
I hope, like the authors, that our entire wad of Franklins are not squandered at the craps table trying to support our previous lifestyle, and we are left destitute on the curb in an energy desert.
You are putting forth some strange numbers in this post. Solar PV now costs less than 30 cents/kwh. And CSP plants now under construction are estimating 6 cents/kwh (not 15).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity
You also have $75 oil costing 4 cents/kwh. I think you'll find the states that still burn oil for electricity (R.E.Hawaii) are charging 25 cents/kwh.
The real question of energy going forward is the cost/kwh. Although PV seems expensive now, the more important factor is how that cost has consistently gone down over time. With it's current trajectory, PV will soon be the lowest cost energy technology available. Consider this article:
http://www.7gen.com/blog/david-herron/solar-power-cost-coal
I would draw an analogy to computer processing power cost/dollar. Another mass produced silicon based technology.
Have you TRIED to buy PV panels?
Some people claim to have inventory, and after seeing your baseless claims in this thread, why should we believe anything you post?
Yes I have panels from BP!
Perhaps these are a better deal.
http://www.solarworld-usa.com/solar-installers/products/sunmodule-solar-...
Oldgeezer asks: "Have you TRIED to buy PV panels?"
Yes. They are available in quantity and near historical low prices.
http://www.altestore.com/store/Solar-Panels/Solar-Panels-by-the-Pallet/c...
http://www.affordable-solar.com/solar-panels-by-the-pallet.htm
As usual Oldgeezer, you submit no research, post nothing of substance and LIE BY IMPLICATION. I rarely call a poster out, but you sir, and your like are exactly why our society will fail. You continuously divert useful energy and discourse to off-subject, poorly veiled belittlement and attacks on other participants in the discussion. I could waste my time providing numerous examples. I will instead remind the readers and the moderators of the first seven Commenter's Guildlines:
Commenters on The Oil Drum are considered guests and should behave accordingly. The staff reserves the right to delete comments and suspend accounts whenever we judge it in the best interests of our mission. Below are some guidelines that commenters are expected to follow:
1.When citing facts, provide references or links.
Oldgeezer rarely if ever does this
2.Make it clear when you are expressing an opinion. Do not assert opinions as facts.
Oldgeezer clearly feels he is above this guildline.
3.When presenting an argument, cite supporting evidence and use logical reasoning.
I have asked for supporting evidence in regards to Oldgeezer's posts. He is virtually never forthcoming.
4.Treat members of the community with civility and respect. If you see disrespectful behavior, report it to the staff rather than further inflaming the situation.
I am reporting it to the staff, in an open fashion.
5.Ad hominem attacks are not acceptable. If you disagree with someone, refute their statements rather than insulting them.
Statements continuously beginning with YOU ("you" are wrong, ""you" obviously don't know, etc) are indicative of an attack on the other poster, as are belittling LOLs, etc regarding a serious post. On a very few occations I have been called on this.
6.Humor is OK, as long as it is on-topic. We all need a little levity now and then.
I fail to ever see a sense of humor or spirit of community in Oldgeezer's submissions. Only a sense of disdain for other posters. Patronizing isn't humorous.
7.Keep all comments on non-Drumbeat stories on-topic. If you have comment that is not related to a particular story, please post it the current Drumbeat story.
Oldgeezer is very adept at diverting threads away from the main topic and keeping them there. While this often happens organically on TOD, this seems to be his MO and intension.
Note to the staff: This has nothing to do with my overall disagreement with a poster's politics, logic, worldview, or self-perception. It is entirely about a poster's desire to dominate the conversation, divert attention away from the subject, stifle useful debate, alter the formerly civil culture of the forum, and to willfully ignore the guildlines (that you created) that the majority have been held to and have generally respected. Several posters have had their accounts deleted for not doing so.
I humbly and respectfully submit the above for the record,,,,and ask you; WTF?!
The very sad part is that Oldgeezer’s view represent a large section of the American polity, one that votes with great regularity for politicians with an agenda that is contrary to concerns about resource depletion and the environment. It is not that a “soft landing” is not technically feasible, it is, but the strongly held beliefs of the patriotic, pro-growth, anti-environmentalist, anti-regulation types will prevent any implementation of any viable solutions. Persuasion is impossible with these people, and they will hold their beliefs against the face of all developing evidence that their worldview is flawed to their last dying breath. The politicians cater to these people, or back down at the risk of offending them. Paul Tsongas had it right when he stated that the group of politicians he was facing when he was running for president were just a bunch of Santa Clauses making a bunch of empty promises that could not be kept because a veil of ignorance or as I suggest more cynically, had no intention of keeping. What about our media? Fox news is the most popular source of “news” in the US. Other mainstream media sources are not much better and all are corporate owned. The internet is not much better. Most people go to sites that reinforce their views. I built and set up a computer for a friend and it took his mother two days to find NewsMax, WorldNetDaily, and FreeRepublic on her own. The young are also being indoctrinated into this mindset regardless of their uncertain future. Education and critical thinking is to be feared. The hypnotize never lies. A future politician grabbing power and pulling out all the stops to bring back the glory of our “heritage” is not out of the question. Maybe Europe will flip a coin and see who gets to put us our misery with a few well placed nukes.
So, were going to try to find solutions while fruitlessly trying to engage these people, or are we going to have to figure out a way of going it alone or (gasp!) grabbing power?
There are some of elderly men, men who fought this countries wars, men who worked long and hard in building enterprises the RIGHT way.
Men who tried to raise their children properly. Men who were faithful to their promises and agreements. Who paid their debts. Who buried their ancestors with care and concern.
Men who tried to make this country better.
And those men most times can understand simple facts of economics and business and NOTE That a sea change has taken place in our society and culture and think it has worsened.
And there are those elderly men who become angry and bitter and chose to argue beyond all reason and doubt and so those men are not worthy of discussion and dialogue.
This is what TheOldGeezer is and is about. He is far far too full of pessimism to try to deal with the truth but instead denies almost anything and everything that does NOT fit his own personal views. Damaged though they may be.
All other are labeled as fools and idiots by him.
I know many like him and just cut a circle around them when meeting. They are impossible to deal with in any manner or style.
Its not what they say so much as it is the way they say it. Their manner of repartee or debate.
Thanks, guys.
"Its not what they say so much as it is the way they say it. Their manner of repartee or debate."
This was the point of my post. I always acknowledge one's right to an opinion, view or belief. I deplore the culture of shouting down dissent that has become so prevalent in our society. This is what has set TOD apart from so many other forums,,, bullies haven't been tolerated. IMO, this bully has been around too long. No Gentleman there.
No, you're right, no bullies. Why, a bully would publicly post all kinds of stuff in a public campaign to impugn other people and make them look as bad as they can, all the while trying to get the powers that be to take thier side of things and push out the opposing. Bullies would consort with a couple of other like minded types and then coordinate a little campaign, so that it looks like many voices are being hurt by the one. No, no bullies here, at all, huh.
Oh, you might win. After all, I'm not begging the moderators to ban you in a tit-for-tat, using your dishonest and rude personal attacks and your crude previous behavior to try to bully them into taking my side.
And if you win ,I know you'll feel so justified and so righteous about having silenced yet another neanderthal conservative. Next thing you know, if you've done enough, you'll eventually get all dissent squashed here. And you'll feel so nice and so comforted, knowing the world is just as you imagine it to be :)
And I'll just go on with my life as I always have.
However, I do have a request. Explain for me how you're morally and "manners" superior to me, for having conducted this little public campaign of defamation? I mean, it's all out here for people to read, so don't try to twist stuff... Just make it plain and simple and straightforward, ok?
.
I'm not as sure. Old Geezer could as easily be a young adult. Sometimes names are not descriptive, but in a sense manipulative. His posts may be tolerated longer than they would be otherwise. because of his name choice.
I got a tip from an old buddy in OR (lurker) who lives on the Rez (Umatilla) not too far from Pendleton. He says there's a "theoldgeezer" that runs an ISP around there somewhere, blogs on Big Government and such. Is this you oldgasser?
http://intensedebate.com/people/TheOldGeezer/1
You seem like a nicer guy over there. Scout may be wrong.
BTW,,,,, Thanks, Scout! When're you gonna join us on TOD?
Frankly, you don't know squat about me, but you're sure on a campaign to make other people think certain things, aren't you? Why would that be? Is it in your interest to rid your environment of voices that disagree with you? why? What possible gain to you, is there in stifling dissent? And why would you be so dishonest about it and instead, resort to character assassination rather than just directly dealing with me?
I would note that as I am politically conservative, about 80% of the posters here post stuff which is personally offensive, slanderous, and outrageously rude constantly. You know, the "conservatives are neanderthals" line of thought, along with a wide, wide array of endless snark and insults. The kind any parent worthy of the term would immediately discipline his children for, should they behave thus.
But, ONLY conservatives must be thoughtful, considerate of others POV, and of course, must ALWAYS compromise what they believe with liberals in order to be civilized. And liberals, of course, are always, ALWAYS intellectually, morally, and in all other wise superrior human beings to those neanderthal, racist, warmongering, redneck, knuckledragging, thoughtless and ignorant conservatives.
Don't even try to deny it. you'd be lying. Every thread is full of it. And it goes uncensored, and in fact, considered "enlightened thought" around here, rather than the uncivil tripe it is.
So, if you don't want it handed back to you, try learning to use one of those "liberal" qualities you claim to be your foundation of moral superiority called "respect", instead of being endlessly uncivil.
I fully understand that you don't necessarily agree with my assumptions. I, though, happen to know what yours are, by experience, having used to have been a "political liberal" in my younger days, with all that implies about stands on the "hot topics" that your buttons sit in front of.
Just understand that "I've been there before".
Of course, if the management wishses to have the nature of this forum be that way, it can. It's a free country... and a mostly free internet. I didn't go reporting posts or campaigning to remove the juveniles who treated me with extreme rudeness and disrespect. I guess, perhaps I'm just not that fragile anymore. Besides, I'd rather leave it up there as evidence of the character of the poster - let them discredit themselves. I'm just baffled by the monumental hypocrisy of those now so engaged. Why would anyone pay attention to them?
We know you don't bother with things like facts. Lying or BSing is a gross violation of civility. Stop wasting our time with it.
As someone who leans variously conservative and libertarian (small-L), I find people like you to be an embarrassment. Fact-free rants discredit everything you claim to stand for. I wouldn't be surprised if you're just posing as a conservative to poison the well; it's nothing I haven't seen in decades of watching trolls.
If you want respect, clean up your act. Start by sticking to facts, and check them before posting. And before you ask, op-eds on political sites do not constitute facts.
I hold up this comment as one of the defining examples of liberal=think. Or, non-think, as it really turns out to be.
Please don't ban this guy, though, we need to be constantly reminded what self righteous, arrogant, foolish idiots will say and do if given the chance.
Note, that though I am a conservative, there is NO desire on my part to shut off all the liberal sites, nor silence the misbegotten twits who pretend to bring us the news, nor even nuke Europe to put it out of its liberal misery.
I can't imagine the twisted hell you must endure to have a mind filled with such narrowness, such animosity, bigotry, and defined by mindless hatred.
People, what ARE you listening to? Where does this come from? How could ANY society prevail, how could ANY society be sustainable, if this is the result of the philosophy that governs it? This is NOT what American conservatives do, it is not how they speak, and this is so far from being acceptable public discourse, I cannot imagine how any adult could say this and then... whine about anyhone else's posting.
I've been yelled at repeatedly, told to look in the mirror.
Please note, this is NOT my manner of thought, speaking, or advocacy. It is the opposite. Any of you bothered by this?
How could a nation's policy be defined by this kind of thinking and create a society 'with justice for all', with liberty of conscience and ideals and with maximum personal liberty? How could anything be guided by whatever drove this comment and end up creating anything but tyranny? A self righteous "they're not worthy of living" kind of tyranny?
Shot up solders come back from Iraq, but having seen Iraqis vote and hold up their ink stained fingers in defiance of those determined to kill them for having done so, and desperately wish to return to continue the fight. Whether the war was well or poorly run, and whether in the deep dark recesses of some mind was profit, rather than liberty, the outcome cannot be denied. No matter who fought, the roots of freedom have been sown. I watched video of people go to the polls in Iraq and leave sporting ink stained fingers, smiling, even though their neighbors paid for it with their lives for having done so with an ache and with tears streaming down my face with shame for how little I defended freedom. How easily you give up liberty, and how precious it is to those who cannot possibly know even a fraction of it's blessings and depth. Shame on you all who cannot or will not learn the lessons of "we know these truths to be self evident..."
Desperate to convince others that disagreement with you is a character flaw, you overlook the painfully obvious.
You made a claim about the cost of solar powered electricity. A claim not substantiated by reality for any stand-lone PV generation system. The question was simple, yet, you failed utterly to grasp why on earth it would be asked. As one who uses solar power, I'm intimately aquainted with the cost of using PV/storage systems and know first hand it's cost per KWH. I could just assert that the cost of PV is X, as you did, but I'd prefer you actually TRIED to build a PV/storage system and discover the truth. So, I asked. Have you tried to buy solar panels. You said you did. Great. Now, how many years have you used them, how much power have you generated, how much power did it take to make them, how much energy and cost did your storage system take to create and maintain, and after having answered that question, there's simply NO way you'd arrive at the cost you quoted.
I've probably lived off-grid far a far greater percentage of my life than almost any of the posters here. Not just off public utilities, but even off the public highway system and far from "normal" services. Alternatives to "common" forms of energy has been and remains one of my most ardent interests.
It never ceases to amaze me that people so uncritically repeat what they read, even after having had the chance to personally experience the facts that put the lie to oft-repeated propaganda.
yeah, you're right. I'm just a disruptor who hates alternative power, knows nothing of the topic, and altother just wants to destroy the conversation. AFter all, what good is practical and first hand knowledge, when propaganda is so much more convincing?
So, answer the stupidly simple question, and then tell us, did your real life experience mirror the cost you quoted, or did you never do the analysis?
Hello Geezer,
I'm not sure if your question was directed at my post or not, but since I do have a system I'll share the cost info. I paid approximately $5,000 for a 1k system. The panels themselves cost about $3,000. (6 panels @175 watts). The average peak hours factor we use is 6, so I should be getting 6kwh/day, which is what I was using before I installed solar. And yes the panels, charge controller, batteries, and inverter have been holding up fine for the past 2 years. If they last 25 years, my cost per kwh is 9 cents. Since the electric company was charging me about $100/month for the same amount of juice, the system should pay for itself in a little over 4 years. You may be thinking 6kwh/day does not add up to $100/month @ 25 cents/kwh - true, but the company also has a "base charge" of $55/month. So the electric company price is actually 53 cents/kwh. Don't believe it? call them 808-548-7311.
The installer I linked quoted a pre-credit price of 19 cents/kwh which includes labor - which sounds about right to me. I cut some corners by paying cash and installing the equipment myself. But whether you do-it-yourself or pay an installer, solar is still cheaper for us than paying the electic company rates. And I still disagree with the OP claim of 30 cents/kwh for PV.
I find myself in the same shoes, sort of. Not with the basic charge issue, but simply with the 'Overall cost" over time. While my use of solar power is standalone and must be 24/7/365, I find that the overall cost for me, in that case, is DOLLARS per KWH. Why? Well, first, we look at what's a small scale system.
To put it in simple terms, and in my case, is true, I have a steady 1 KWH/day load. I have to have 600 watts of panels installed and 9 KWH of battery storage. Fortunately for me, I live in an arid part of Oregon, and have a relatively high level of sunshine per day compared to say, coastal Oregon.
You might call it "extreme" because for the worst of winter, I have an average of just over 2 hours sunlight/day.
By adding a small wind generator, I have the CAPACITY to generate 14KWH of power per day, given 12 hours of light and 24 hours of wind. In reality, I still have to have fossil fuel backup, because even that fails at times to ensure that a single, 1KWH load remains powered.
For me, the wind generator actually doesn't do all that much, since wind coinciding with darkness is only a fraction, and the biggest headache, is that when the solar is at a minimum, so is the wind. Storage is only so effective. Storae has its own losses, and over storage results in too much static loss and the system goes BACKWARD in steady state load carrying.
So, you ask, how does this scale? It scales pretty much the same. Except that there's few areas with better wind and better solar than I have for hundreds of miles in any direction. I've got it optimal. Now, let's apply this to having our grid powered by wind and solar.
No matter how much solar and wind and storage I add, the ratios remain relatively static concerning how much power one can steadily produce. But you don't have to use it 24/7/365 to still be in the same shoes. Your use cycles can be as wide apart as a week, that is, any load you can't shift by more than 2 weeks in time still lands you in needing the same averaged power consumption, and it assumes that consumption can limited during times of limited generation.
Our city, for instance, does peak load management, and, while they give consumers a financial benefit to allowing them to shave your peak loads, the city can't demonstrate any particular load overall reduction of any signficant amount. Instead, you simply do without hot water for a few hours or your house gets cold/hot for a period of time, so that the peak demands get tweaked downward. You still tend to consume close to the same amount.
Every scheme I read about offsetting generation with FF by solar and wind comes back to the issue of having to have storage or standby generation. And since times WILL exist with NO solar or wind generation, the generation capacity must always be equal to at least the peak load, averaged over a grid segment, etc.
And here's where it hurts you. The larger percentage of your total power is generated by the intermittent systems (pv, wind) the larger your "rapid on/off" percentage of generation must be, and it's the least efficient and most costly per KWH. The only exception I know of to this rule is hydropower, and yet, even it has inefficiency issues while running infinitely variable output or load.
So, you can't scale your way out of these technical issues. Instead, they actually get more daunting as you scale upwards. As you scale upwards, in terms of generating for the grid, the first litle bit is nearly 100% useable. As you increase your percentage of dependency upon them, the greater your overcapacity must be. In my case, I have to have 14 times the load in capacity, and that's what it takes to be 100% off-grid. Now, move southward, to some place like southern Arizona or Death Valley, and obviously, you an improve that.
But, for all the Mohave Desert installs, you've got an offsetting Seattle/Helena/Dickinson/Detroit, where the ratios would be WORSE than mine.
People here seem to gloss over this like it's no problem. Or that some miracle working 'solution' is just around the corner. I'm less than impressed by such.
You say "but you have excess generation". Dang right i do. This time of year I've got far far more power than I need. But I can't shift June's generation to January or December. Even investing 50% of my total investment in storage gives me a time shift of less than 3 weeks.
Scale this up all you want, the ratios don't change a whole lot for a given site.
There's no magic bullet.
Good details, thank you.
You're right. There's no magic bullet. I've never said otherwise. So Now, as imperfect as it is, are you ready to simply get rid of your PV and your batteries, and your option to use windpower, because they're not enough, because it's not an easy fix?
The keypost suggests that Wind and Solar Advocates, under the glossed-over umbrella of 'Renewables' .. ARE promising that it IS a silver bullet.. that's the objection Alan and I and a few others keep raising, since it misrepresents my argument that these are useful, but NOT magical tools for starting to deal with energy supply. At that point, it has become a magical argument, because it paints this strawman of the promise of renewables..
Your example shows the storage and baseload demand issues very well. So what's in that 1 kwh/day? I'm sure you've gone through all this, but if you can't do it with generation or storage, when do you take on the alternative approaches to find your own DSM solutions instead? Maybe refrigeration or work tools or medical equipment are what you are using that constitute your baseload requirements.. but whether it's finding ways to move that target down, or have backup generation if there's no way at all to live without the power in question, it hardly means the RE that you do own isn't doing it's part.
As far as cost/benefit, did you set up your off-grid system because the cost of running Grid Power would have been more? That alone has been the cost justification for a great many remote RE systems, and the rule-of-thumb I hear up in New England is that 1 mile of wire and poles installed would generally justify the whole purchase, before you ever had to think about the running costs of a utility connection.
.. and finally, the idea of putting RE onto the grid would allow for generation Where the Power is.. Sun and Heat from the Deserts, Wind from the Hills and the right plains and offshore. That power wouldn't have to leave a consumer with the power they just happened to have available where their home is..
So no.. no silver bullets. But these things, while a hefty investment, push us in a better direction than we've been going so far.
No, I use them for the following reason: either the grid power is not available, or it has too much "down time" for the reliability I need. My use for and the installation of the various off grid sites has to do with reliability, not "greenness". I"m not throwing them out because they cost more, I'm using them because they give me an alternative, and the cost of 'down' is far more than the cost of the alternative.
I power communications equipment with them.
The cost per KWH isn't much of an issue for me, since my reason for using them is different from most. I've lived off=grid before, in the middle of nowhere, in fact, I grew up that way. I know how to live with low amounts of energy, but our FF consumption was much higher for the lifestyle than it is now. The compromises we used often consumed MORE of our resources than would have been used to live on-grid. The amount of gasoline used to generate power to pump water, wash clothes, and other mundane tasks was, percentage-wise, enormous. As in, our energy consumption per task was stunningly bad. We, however, used wood for heat, cooking. Gasoline to pump water, wood to heat water, propane for light, propane for refrigeration. We used a gas generator to generate electricity for a washing machine.
After all was said and done, the cleanness and efficiency of grid power is not something to scoff at when you start to understand the alternatives you start employing to NOT use it.
So nice to get down to brass tacks.
I have to note one vast difference between your applications (cell towers, I suspect) and the systems you're criticizing: you are off-grid and restricted to the energy available at the site where your system MUST be (you can't move a valley over which you need line-of-sight coverage), while large-scale applications of solar and especially wind will be networked together on a scale on the order of a thousand miles. It's like your cell tower being able to tap into a micro-hydro system on the west side of the Cascades; it's a game-changer.
You're also correct that storage is essential once the un-schedulable fraction of the energy supply gets beyond a certain level. This is being done, and the cost of large-scale energy storage is orders of magnitude less than the batteries you have to use.
There are also combination strategies. For instance, the expected energy input of a recent CAES proposal is about .75 kWh of electricity and about 1.25 kWh of gas-turbine fuel per kWh of output. This gas-turbine fuel can be natural gas, bio-methane (byproduct of landfills or feedlots), syngas from gasified MSW or bio-oil (from fast pyrolysis of almost any plant matter). Being able to store days or weeks of excess wind power and use it to turn renewable fuels into electricity at 80% fuel-to-electric efficiency is another game-changer (and this efficiency can increase if the heat of compression is stored for regeneration).
So, realize that your expensive PV/wind/battery systems are expensive because they have to be fit for a particular site. The nation as a whole has the luxury of putting its wind turbines between Texas and the Dakotas, its solar from Los Angeles to Lubbock, and other pieces wherever they work best. The nation can get discounts by "buying in bulk", and getting cheap shipping over HVDC. And at least for now, it continues to get cheaper with time and experience. Things are much simpler and easier than many people believe, or want to believe.
Thank you. These are important questions.
As for the price of solar PV and CSP, we haven't found one single real life example where solar PV cost less than 30 cents (installed and grid-connected, with a 5% interest rate and a 25 year life expectancy and linear degradation to 90% during its lifetime, and not including subsidies). I have solar myself and know the maths quite well. But obviously I would be happy to review specific projects to revise my assessment.
The same is true for CSP. Currently, no existing plant I would know of produces below 15 (US$) cents, except for those few in California that went through bankruptcy once. Again, we would be happy to review specific project data where - net of subsidies - energy cost is as low as you claim.
Then, and that refers to the "double counting" we discuss in the post. All those technologies are not some kind of electronics, where Moore's law applies, but require tangible physical equipment and construction materials. Recent history shows that these materials will only become more expensive, unless we run into some kind of economic depression. Since both technologies aren't novelties any longer, and components already now are being mass-produced, using low-cost Chinese (and other) coal and coal-based electricity, there probably isn't so much room for economies of scale. So given the price of inputs and the relative maturity of the technology, I would doubt that there is so much room for them to become cheaper.
The kWh comparison wasn't for electricity, but for the energy content in the fuel itself. 1 barrel of oil contains approximately 5.8 million BTU worth of energy, which is equivalent to 1700 kWh. Hence, 1 kWh worth of energy in oil has a price of 4.4 cents.
If that were true then our largest installer is comitting a serious case of false advertising! Go to this link and click on "The Packages", you'll see the 1kw system advertising 6.8 cents/kwh.
http://kumukit.com/
Of course this is with a 65% tax credit, but even without the credit the cost is 19.4 cents/kwh - lower than what the electric company charges for oil fired electricity.
On your point that renewables cannot be scaled to what fossil fuels provide, I would point to what's happening in Italy:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/06/italy-surpa...
At the current rate of development, Italy could be 100% renewable by 2050.
And I would disagree with your point of solar technology being "mature" with little room for innovation. New efficiency levels and production processes are always being developed. This is true of all energy producing technologies. Why this would all of a sudden change overnight is a strange concept to believe in.
CR5 - Unfortunately, the kumukit site isn't really transparent. I don't think they account for real data, and what about interest? degradation?
According to your link, Italy built 1.15 GWp of solar in 2009 (2010 is a rather early estimate), so let's stick with 2009. Now this isn't exactly comparable with for example, a coal or nuclear power plant with 1.15 GW, because the typical capacity factor for solar is between 10-20%. So compared to other generation capacity that can be utilized at 80-90%, you can - at best - count 20-25% of solar towards that. And then, you still haven't solved the problem with intermittence.
Interest - Some panel manufacturers are offering their own financing with 0% interest. Of course they must be adding this cost into their panels. If you have money in a savings account now, you would not be losing 5% interest to take it out. More like .1% interest. Of course if you have to borrow the money to pay for solar, then interest would be a real world expense. But you should also include real world monthly electrical payment savings against the principal, before you calculate the interest.
Degredation - My BP panels are supposedly guaranteed to maintain 90% of rated value for 20 years, and 80% of rated value for the next 10 years. I've only had them for 2 years, so I'll have to wait to see if that's true or not.
Capacity - The figure I used for Italy was 68 GW total capacity. I believe the capacity figure represents what the powerplants can actually produce. Real world power demand is less than capacity, and can be 50% less at night vs. daytime demand. Fossil fuel powerplants do not operate at 80-90% capacity 24 hours a day. Solar works well with the power grid because the higher demand is during the day, and distributed capacity is more efficient than sending power across long transmission lines.
Intermittence - This is not an issue now because most power grids have less than 20% solar capacity. It will become an issue when capacity levels increase beyond a certain level. The vanadium battery has already been employed as grid backup. So yes the problem has been solved.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/04/the_vanadium_ba.php
I use lead acid deep cycle batteries in my off grid system. They cost approximately 10% of the total system cost. I would estimate that by the time major grids reach 20% solar capacity, the price of the equipment will have dropped by more than 10%.
"The same is true for CSP. Currently, no existing plant I would know of produces below 15 (US$) cents, except for those few in California that went through bankruptcy once. Again, we would be happy to review specific project data where - net of subsidies - energy cost is as low as you claim."
This plant is actually CPV not CSP, but it has been completed, and is claiming 8.5 cents/kwh. Perhaps you could review it. Also, I have read opinions that CPV renders CSP obsolete. What is your opinion of CPV?
http://guntherportfolio.com/2010/04/vvc-installing-solfocus-cpv-solar-pl...
From our perspective, CPV (in theory, as long term experience is still missing) definitely is more attractive than PV. However, right now, the 8.5 cents don't make any sense even based on the promotional article you linked above. This would only be true (based on the numbers given in the link) if the plant needs no maintenance at all during the 25 years, and the investment comes at no interest. If we introduce operations and maintenance cost of 0.5% p.a. (some cleaning, insurance, and an occasional inverter replacement within the 25 years), and 5% interest (much less than usually markets would demand, both for capital and debt), the price goes up to approximately 16 cents.
What often keeps being discussed and what we consider slightly problematic is the argument that interest can be ignored. Interest is a phenomenon of nature, and prevalent with all species, not just with the one that has introduced money. This relates to the fact that future returns are subject to many risks, ranging from own life risks, to destruction risks, risk of non-availability of bound resources, etc. So calculating without some kind of interest seems unrealistic to us.
Further, if interest was to be excluded for renewable energy technologies, it would also have to be removed from the available estimates for traditional generation technology, which in turn would make them much cheaper again, relative to renewables.
We will get to all this in much more detail during our electricity post (#3)
I can understand including the cost of capital for a commercial utility scale installation. But for an individual homeowner, or business with the money to purchase a PV system for their own use, I don't think interest should be included. Whatever savings they can get over the life of the system vs. what they would have paid to the utility should be considered as a return on an investment.
I agree. Although the industry is pushing residential solar leases, and those will certainly grow, most residential solar customers still pay cash.
A stupid strawman post.
Renewables are a false fireman because today they cannot maintain the current levels of waste?
In the US today renewables supply 10% of electrical power.
Ethanol is a false fireman because it only supplies 3.4% of US current transportation fuels?
http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb29/Edition29_Chapter02.pdf
In other countries like Brazil and Switzerland renewables produce far more of their electricity or liquid fuels in a similar economies to ours.
Is it true that the Swiss or Brazilians are deceiving the world by 'double counting'? Can they really afford all that 'double counting'?
In those countries renewables already have worked, largely because their governments took steps to promote those technologies.
Of course we are doomed going along as we had in the past.
The author(s) then says that undisclosed key industries cannot survive without cheap energy and the economy will collapse without them.
Whatever can this spook economist mean?
In fact history has proven that countries can maintain themselves thru embargos and wars surprisingly well.
Why do I get the feeling that this 'author' is really just trying to help him write his book.
Perhaps it's really that idiot, Bjorn Lomborg, tired out after getting his butt kicked on CC?
Going back to comment #1 about the cost of war I am watching a documentary, The Shock Doctrine. http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=sFGQN2-oS3Q
It goes into how US contractors set up shop in Iraq. And very relevant to the topic....."disaster capitalism".
So what's up now? Will the entire Gulf of Mexico and Gulf Coast be "privatized"? Is there a Corrects-It antidote?
Thank you for your comments. I would like to answer some of them:
You use Brasil and Switzerland, which we know too well because that's where we're located, as examples of economies with high shares of renewables. It is true that both countries have a relatively large share of electricity from hydropower (approx. 80% and 60%, if I am not mistakeN9, thanks to their blessed geographical situation. In our post, we explicitly make the case that hydro is a renewable source of electricity generation, but unfortunately not one that is scalable. Our case is related to stochastic inputs into electricity systems. Thinking that those countries can be used as blueprints, is a kind of double-counting, I would say. When it comes to fossil fuels, however, both are largely dependent on oil and natural gas (Brazil 90%, Switzerland almost 100%), so in total, it's not that rosy.
Some of the "undisclosed" industries are explicitly mentioned in our post, ranging from fertilizer production to aluminum, steel, and copper. But all chemicals may equally be included. And yes, nobody says that we couldn't get by with less - but nobody making claims about investments into renewable energy systems admits the fact that we actually have to.
The amount of fossil energy used to produce non-fuel products rather than fuel is not as large as you seem to think.
Non-fuel Products(feedstocks)2008 from oil amount to 4.63 quads out of 37 quads(12.5%),.69 quads of natural gas out of 23 quads(3%) and .02 quads out of 22.4 quads of coal(almost nothing).
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0115.html
Our use of fossil fuels for non-fuel purposes overall is less than 7%.
As far as scaleability, this is clearly a matter of policy as demonstrated by Brazil in ethanol and hydroelectricity in general. In the USA, all hydroelectric dams were build by the government usually over the objections of private utilities such as the TVA. The success of the TVA caused governments around the world to build dams. I would guess that most all the dams ever built were built by public policy rather than 'markets'.
With your market bias I am sure you find this to be difficult to 'model' causing doubts of 'double-counting',etc. nevertheless ...voila!
I really get the impression that you are a kind of Lomborg or Freakeconomist here at TOD raising vague objections to non-market solutions when free markets are the real 'false firemen' in a world of resource depletion.
Surely you mean unindustrialised countries?
The only way I know of to kill a country with embargoes is to deprive them of oil.
Us Rhodesians got along just fine with all sorts of deprivations during sanctions, but fell over face first when Kissenger persuaded South Africa to turn off the tap.
And here we are again.
Groundhog day.
Rhodesia did quite well and South Africa too.
The SA UN oil embargo went from 1987 to Dec 1990 but the Arab oil embargo of SA started in 1973 followed by Iran in 1978. But there were a lot more pressures applied( Commonwealth, trade, guerilla war, US) than just oil and the white elite calculated that it was better to give in on apartheid than just get relentlessly ground down.
Their choice.
Most embargoed countries are not so 'rational' and say North Korea carries on regardless.
Hannes, you appear to be saying that non-fossil fuel energy sources are (a) capable of providing basic subsistence for at least a large fraction of today's global population, but (b) not capable of maintaining current standards of living for even a modest fraction of the population of the industrial world. Is that a fair summary of your views?
If so, it might be useful to talk more about what renewables and the like can do, and contrast that with what they can't do. The metaphor of the fire and the fire brigade is a little misleading, because there are more options here than "the fire gets put out" and "the house burns to the ground" -- that is, business as usual is not the only alternative to a Mad Max future. I'm sure you're aware of this, but the way your paper is phrased makes it easy for many readers to misunderstand this.
The alternatives are worth discussing, even in the narrowly drawn frame of your paper. If, for example, the massive deployment of locally scaled renewables, retrofitted efficiency improvements, and the like could make it possible to provide most people in the industrial world with essentials such as food, basic sanitation, and the like -- and I think a strong case could be made for this claim -- that's worth discussing, and indeed worth pursuing.
My take, for what it's worth, is that you're quite correct that the possibility of maintaining anything like today's industrial-world lifestyles has already gone by the boards; about the least traumatic future we can hope for is one in which the industrial world undergoes a ragged decline to Third World conditions, with ordinary demographic factors rather than those four guys on horseback causing most of the inevitable contraction in global population. That makes it all the more urgent to pay attention to measures that could make that troubled future less unpleasant, and make worse futures -- and of course it's not hard to imagine plenty of those -- less likely. This approach deserves much more attention than it's been given; I hope you will consider factoring it into your work.
John Michael, I agree with you, and see similar problems coming our way. The purpose of our argument is to first clear the stage regarding the need to stop dreaming about an energy future that allows us to keep our lifestyle mostly unchanged while switching to renewable sources.
In one of our projects, we work on "sustainable renewable energy sources". But I have to tell you that they all don't look even half as sexy as HVDC connections, smart grids, biofuels from algae, etc. As long as this dream of "mostly business as usual" is anchored in most people's minds as a truth, finding "the real fire brigades" will probably not work, because nobody wants to acknowledge where that leads to.
At the end of post IV, we would love to get a discussion going about what really can work, without the need to defend our research against marketing material. I hope you will join in.
hannes
Thanks for work and comments.
I tend to agree, if I have got his point, with JMG.
I presume OECD are just past our Zenith?
BAU in OECD, and in China for that matter, does look increasingly unlikely even for the very near future, but "it all depends" ... on what?
China is reputed to need 8% annual 'growth' just to cope socially. This would have not been the case, I assume, even 10 or 20 years ago, but once the path is set, such growth seems to become a necessity. In a possibly similar way in the UK our National Health budget has been given a deliberate raise in the last 10 years "to match comparable EU countries", but is now reputed to need 2.5% growth in annual income just to stand still.
Matters appear to come to a head very quickly.
JMG sets some obvious priorities - insulation, water, public health, food etc. One would hope to obtain real results more efficiently than we do at present, especially for energy saving. My hopes are for 'BAU lite', followed in continuo by 'BAU very lite', still retaining a multiplicity of mass-manufactured key goods and materials, and importantly means for maintenance of existing machinery and infra structure where these work OK just now. Then we move by substitution into distinctly other than BAU. I think there is a case for 'emergency' ('fire-brigade' if you like) projects to underpin, for a while, some 'BAU lite' for the now vast urban populations. My own country GB/UK (~61M) had an 'organic' reasonably sustainable carrying capacity of about 20M persons in mid-19thC when 22% of population just about fed the urban rest, and this was well before fossil fuels became essential for farming. (Big fossil fuel input to farming only really happened here in and after WW2). We have relied since mid-19thC on mostly imported food. In the USA, The Great Plains could not maintain what was mostly 'organic' production beyond the 1920s ('Peak Horses' in 1920s) when yields and soil C & N continually drifted down, but this was then transformed by fossil fuel inputs particularly in the form of synthetic N. I envisage fossil fuels being used for 'essentials' for a while yet, but 'renewables' on as large a scale as possible will be needed to eke out these f.f. uses. As JMG says, we can only hope for an orderly road back-the-way, without the 4 Riders chasing us too hard.
That looks awfully close to calling the people who want to see the data behind your claims "marketers". I'd consider that tantamount to slander, or "tu quoque"; if we note that you seem to be selling doom, you say "you're doing it too".
I still want to see how you got your Figure 5, Hannes.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6704/671771
The purpose of our argument is to first clear the stage regarding ... renewable energy.
The impact of your attack on the growing social support and consensus for renewable energy (if you are successful) will be
- Higher and faster depletion of coal and natural gas
- Higher CO2 emissions and faster Climate Change
- A more certain, quicker and harder die-off for humanity
- Reduced technological progress towards better renewables and complimentary technologies (HV DC, pumped storage, efficiency, etc.)
- Reduced investment in the same, with increased consumption to be the likely alternative use of resources.
And all, apparently (from your posts to date) because some renewable supporters use some half-truths to gather the social consensus together.
As noted elsewhere on this thread, irrational support is required in a democracy for a cause to succeed. Half-truths are a useful tool in gathering that "irrational support".
Best Hopes for not letting Perfection kill the Good,
Alan
Alan,
I seem to fail at making our point. We're not attacking renewable energy sources, but the way their application is seen as a possibility to keep our lifestyle when FF start to decline (and/or become more expensive), keep our energy systems working just as we're used to, and at a cost we can still bear (not just for homes, but for everything we produce, including food).
Not calling out the "fraud" (or self-deception, if you want to be nice) would get you even more of what you're saying above. Give me the benefit of the doubt for one second and assume that the "fire brigade" really fails to deliver. That might lead to very unpleasant results on energy delivery, food availability, societal context, and many other things.
As soon as that happens, we will frantically go after all the coal that's left, take down all the forests to keep us warm in winter and stop worrying about nature altogether. Is that a good option?
Hannes
Since your chosen means of presentation is to attack renewables as a "false fire brigade" and a "waste of trillions" with a more recent attack on efficiency as only "30% (maybe a bit more in specific cases) lifecycle gain" (which I find dubious) and only present some allusion about a "real fire brigade" without specificity (remember this is YOUR choice of presentation), I am unwilling to give up on our best hope(s) just because you promise something "later".
And I find your analysis of the "high % renewable & nuke + efficiency future", when we finally run out of FF (say in 2187) to be "highly improbable".
I also believe that our ability to forecast the future in detail diminishes significantly with time. Get to a 90% non-carbon grid first, then worry about the last 10% once "we" pass 65% or so and see the revised limitations of that approach.
Alan
# say 90% electricity, 80+% all
This is why I excluded Alan from the general consensus agreement. Alan appears to have an impenetrable sense of denial regarding what Arthur rephrased so well from LTG:
Alan will bob like a cork from a Bourbon Street wine bottle down the Mississippi delta, and is going to hit that big black nasty sludge pit that we still call the Gulf of Mexico. Don't make me drag out the question again, Alan. The question that shall not be named . . . .
Iaato
There is a big difference between attacking a person or attacking their deed or idea. Saying a person has a bias/rigid viewpoint on this issue and why is ok. Saying that they are a drunken fool is clearly inappropriate.
Rye, notice the use of the words "like a cork." That's a simile, not a metaphor. A simile compares aspects of two unlike things, while a metaphor imposes one on the other, becoming the same. In this case, Alan will probably admit that he is a cock-eyed optimist--thus the bob. The allusion to the wine bottle derives from and gives nod to his name, "Big Easy," and the most famous feature of New Orleans, Bourbon Street. Placing the cork in the River takes it very conveniently to the site of Alan's repeated point of resistance, the Gulf of Mexico. I thought the simile covered a lot of bases at once, and Alan should in no way consider himself flamed. I would like him to answer my question, however. My answer would be zero; his might be 6 or 7, I don't know.
You accuse Alan of being dogmatic, but you take LTG page 173 as absolute gospel (while also conflating "resources" with "energy"). Looks like projection to me.
I agree, and I think that's because you keep insisting on making your point the wrong way. You do not build a movement or gain personal credibility by calling people "frauds" when they are basically in agreement with you on the grand scheme of things, and disagree mainly on matters of rhetorical emphasis. Countless radical political and social movements have marginalized themselves by behaving as such. (see the American left) A very careful balance must be struck between telling your friends that you think they should take a stronger line, and attacking their character.
There is plenty of room both for those (like yourself) who seek to educate people about the dire situation we face, and for those who steer people towards taking helpful action, including adopting certain renewable energy sources as much as we can. You do not need to attack the latter to achieve what you claim is your goal. The fact that you do so ("fake fire brigade", and now "fraud) is a sign either of political naivete or of ulterior motives, in my experience as a political organizer. For me, giving you the benefit of the doubt means assuming your rhetorical behavior is just due to your naivete.
Really Hannes, just edit the name-calling out of the TITLE of your pieces. You're attacking people's motives, which is attacking their character. If you really claim this is not your goal, then just stop doing it!
We will certainly adapt to a much lower level of energy/economic intensity. And it's also true, in my view, that several of the horsemen will come visit — but not everywhere.
The future will be lumpy i.e. not evenly distributed.
Beyond the technological solutions we present here, the most valuable thing that we can do now, i think, is to switch the growth conversation to a conversation that includes contraction, per what the Odum's discuss in A Prosperous Way Down.
Without swapping out the growth conversation with the contraction conversation, we will make the descent much more painful than it need be. We will continue to make wrong choices and expend dwindling resources in wasteful ways. The voluntary simplicity movement is something like what ought to happen but doesn't quite capture what is possible here.
Conversations guide human actions and have different names, like memes, cultural narratives, stories, etc. I like conversations because the term seems more flowing and connecting that the atomic "meme" (to me, anyway). There is a series of TV commercials by Cisco that riffs off of "the human network" that somewhat captures how we are each nodes that propagate conversations.
Of course we shut them down, too, which is why new ideas have a tough time propagating. The interesting thing is that it is in the nature of conversations to disappear once they are uttered. Something must sustain them or they die, no different than an invasive species moving into a new ecological niche and failing to make a toehold. (Apparently most species invasions fail, or so said a biologist on Science Friday a week back.)
Physical structures reinforce conversations which is why if a car is available and gassed up it will more likely be used than a bicycle. The physical existence of the car leads to a family of conversations that include "I'll hop in the car and get more milk" or "I'll wait until the shopping list is big enough before taking the car to the store."
Take away the car and that family of conversations disappears in an instant.
While the physical world continues to support the existing conversations there isn't much hope of radically changing them (the conversations). That's why most health initiatives, like that trying to counter the current obesity epidemic, are never going to amount to much. The obesity epidemic is a direct result of our species having too much energy. Until that changes, obesity will continue to increase until some far off equilibrium point is reached.
But soon the physical world will be in flux and there will be room for a new conversation, I believe.
All that is to say that here on TOD and elsewhere we could begin that conversation and start propagating it.
If it can fit on a bumper sticker, that's always best. It must be pithy, catchy and have that special property of "clicking" for us.
This is too techie and not catchy but it's a start:
you are welcome to embrace contraction. the moment you decide it must be forced upon others... Prepare for war.
I'm advocating inviting people into the conversation, not using force.
You make my point for me: as long as we avoid embracing contraction, we will continue until the wheels fall off.