How To Create A Million Clean Energy Jobs
Posted by JoulesBurn on January 19, 2011 - 11:41am
The current economic distress has invigorated the discussion about jobs creation as a way to incubate new growth. Alternative energy advocates who previously have been singing for more government support for environmental reasons have added verses which claim that green investments will be a stimulus as opposed to a drag on the economy. In divvying out stimulus money for energy projects, the Obama administration has made their preference for alternative energy clear. Traditional energy advocates, such as the American Petroleum Institute, are not happy with this tune and are defending their turf. The argument has evolved into one of which energy industry can claim the most new jobs created and the greatest economic bang for the stimulus buck. It is true that job creation is necessary to maintain social order, and it is hard to argue that there is a downside to a lot of employment in the clean energy sector.
But I will. Everything you have read recently about energy and jobs is wrong. Until now, that is.
Grasping at False Straws
The US economy is still in bad shape, with the unemployment rate still hovering around 10%. Various stimulus measures and tax cuts are being implemented with the expectation that jobs will be created and people will commence with buying enough stuff to right the economic ship. Several articles have appeared recently touting the ability of alternative energy technologies to create jobs, with the intent of continuing the flow of stimulus money and subsidies (1-8). The prominent message is that these technologies not only provide energy with lower environmental impact, but also that subsidizing them is not a drain on the economy because they create jobs. In fact, in almost all of these publications, it is claimed that more jobs are created per unit of energy delivered than from fossil fuels.
The Worldwatch Institute has taken aim at the coal industry and its reported failure to employ enough people:
Coal Industry Hands Out Pink Slips While Green Collar Jobs Take Off
A transition to renewable energy sources promises significant global job gains at a time when the coal industry has been hemorrhaging jobs for years...
"Government officials now have yet another reason to put the full weight of their support behind renewables," said Renner. "In addition to protecting our planet and phasing out an increasingly limited resource, policies that support renewable energy also support job creation."
There are problems with this particular assessment, but the bigger issue is that the very premise is wrong. Quite simply, it is a mistake to view prodigious job creation as a beneficial side-effect; it is rather a direct result of it being a more expensive way to procure energy.
The Energy Consumer Pays For Energy Jobs
Consider the following: you heat your home by burning wood, and (since the chore is beneath you) you elect to pay somebody to bring you the firewood. One vendor asks for a certain price, saying the task will require two employees and he needs to pay each a good wage. Another vendor, though, says he needs ten well-paid employees to bring you the same amount of wood. Question: will the second vendor quote you a higher or lower price? The answer should be obvious, but perhaps a simpler form of the question is this:
Where does the money come from to pay for the salaries of all of the extra job holders?
If jobs are said to be created, then the money to pay for those jobs has to come from somewhere. If it electricity that is being delivered, than it is the consumers that are paying. If the electricity is subsidized, then everybody is paying through higher taxes. But by focusing on only one side of the coin long enough, by stressing job creation, this simple economic fact has been forgotten.
Returning to the Worldwatch release:
In the United States alone, coal industry employment has fallen by half in the last 20 years, despite a one-third increase in production.
"Renewables are poised to tackle our energy crisis and create millions of new jobs worldwide," according to Worldwatch Senior Researcher Michael Renner. "Meanwhile, fossil fuel jobs are increasingly becoming fossils themselves, as coal mining communities and others worry about their livelihoods."
Production has increased by a third, but employment is down by one half. First of all, is this true?
Some data on coal employment is available here.
Average coal power plant employment has fallen dramatically over the past few decades - both due to technological developments and to rising labor costs. In 1985, according to the EIA, the average 300 MW coal-fired power plant had 78 employees; thus, employment per megawatt declined by 32% between 1985 and 1997.
As the graph below indicates, the number of people mining coal has drastically fallen over the last 90 years while production has steadily risen. But aside from the affected communities, is the fact that fewer people have to do dangerous work underground really a bad thing? Certainly not.
 |
| U.S. Coal Mining Employment |
The document linked above also provides the following datum:
Wind industry jobs surpassed coal mining jobs in 2008, as wind employment increased by 70% from 50,000 in 2007 to 85,000 in 2008.
Taken at face value, this should really give one pause. In 2009 in the US, according to the EIA, 1719 billion kilowatt hours of electricity was generated by burning coal and 71 billion kilowatt hours was generated by wind turbines. So something which contributes 1/24th as much electricity takes more people to do it? Well, not really, because the coal doesn't magically turn to electricity when it is out of the ground. And although people aren't doing as much digging, machinery has taken up the slack. Machines are more efficient, but someone has to build them. One of the references cited seems to address this, but then it veers offtrack:
Wind and PV offer 40% more jobs per dollar than coal. And while the labor intensity for renewables may drop due to economies of scale and technological change, sharp declines in coal mining should continue, cutting the average labor requirements to fuel and operate coal power plants by 17% from 1998 to 2008 alone.
The only way to get more jobs per dollar is to have fewer dollars per job (lower salaries). But it is more likely the case that the analysis didn't follow the money far enough up the supply chain. By way of contrast, similar analyses for alternative energy strive to account for every conceivable job. For example, the American Wind Energy Association has produced a document titled 20% Wind Energy by 2030 Report. The economic impact of this plan are given in Appendix C: Wind-Related Jobs and Economic Development. They used an economic impact model derived by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory to estimate jobs created. Much depends on the assumptions, of course, but this useful extracted diagram shows how building and operating the wind turbines "ripples" through the economy:
 |
Product Costs Are Predominantly Labor Costs
The above particular model enumerates three categories of impacts: direct, indirect, and induced. There are several points I wish to make about this:
- All economic impacts are primarily expenditures on labor, since every manufactured product or service is, in the end, someone paid to perform a task -- be it digging a hole, driving a truck, or pushing a pencil.
- The remaining money flows to capitalists expecting a return on their investment. Thus, the cost of the energy must cover the salaries for all the people slaving at the "created" jobs plus the investment returns for those letting their money work for them. Otherwise, somebody in the product chain is losing money.
- Adding in the concept of "induced impacts" is unnecessary. It has nothing directly to do with what is required to create the product (energy), is especially difficult to quantify, and is not unique to any particular industry (i.e. all workers will spend their paychecks somewhere). It is useful in gauging impacts to a specific locale of locating an industry there, but not in comparing different energy technologies.
- Government can act to either increase the cost to consumers, by imposing a tax somewhere on the production side or at the sale, or to decrease the cost via subsidies or tax breaks paid to businesses or directly to consumers.
This is further illustrated with the diagram below.
 |
| Where your energy payments go |
The above shows how the money flows from the pocket of an energy consumer to those involved with delivering that energy. The amount paid must cover labor costs, pay back bankers and other capitalists, and (usually) give the government a share (directly or indirectly). Note that this represents the state of affairs after the energy is being delivered. Initially, money flows from capitalists (and sometimes government) into labor to perform tasks such as building power plants, wind turbines, or solar cells and exploring and drilling for petroleum. The capitalists expect to get that money back and more over time. As is the case currently, governments can provide capital for start-up or otherwise provide subsequent tax breaks to get the capitalists more excited about opening up their pockets.
Again, the main point is that a direct relationship exists between the amount of money that gets paid for labor (i.e. the number of jobs). If something requires a lot more labor (more jobs), somebody has to pay. If the consumer isn't paying directly, then they are paying through the government subsidy. Capitalists will only pay if there is a good chance that much more lucrative days are ahead.
Externalities = More Jobs!
Coal is burned to generate electricity because it is cheap. Some would argue that its cheapness is in part due to externalities, such as environmental degradation, which are not accounted for in the price consumers pay. In a very real sense, not having to compensate for these does give coal and other fossil fuels an unfair economic advantage over wind and solar. Political approaches such as a tax on CO2 emissions would level the field, but they would also increase costs for consumers. A more direct approach would be to force the polluters to clean up. Of course, this is done currently to some extent, as coal-fired plants have to follow increasingly stringent emissions limits and those leveling mountains to extract the coal are required to perform some remediation. Mitigating CO2 release is a logical extension of this. A while ago, I received an email announcing an upcoming conference by the Society of Petroleum Engineers: The First SPE International Conference on CO2 Capture, Storage, and Utilization.
Watch the video interview of conference cochairperson George Koperna as he discusses the commercial possibilities of CO2 sequestration and storage, which could give the economy a tremendous boost when thinking about the numbers of wells that may need to be drilled and the existing wells that may require workover.
In the video in the above link, Koperna also says "You're looking at very large capital outlays, very large development projects." Sounds expensive. Lots of jobs, most likely.
Do Jobs Matter?
I am not suggesting that job creation is unimportant. Certainly on a local level, new sources of jobs can create new communities or revitalize older ones. If the product which results from the employees' labor is exported out of the community, money is brought in in the form of wages and perhaps local taxes. The same is true at the state or national level. But the continuing mantra of job creation über alles has obscured simple arithmetic, which is that the total labor costs for a particular product (including indirect labor needed for capital equipment and other inputs) must be reflected in the price paid by the consumer.
One of the challenges in the 20th century was dealing with the disappearance of jobs as a result of increases in productivity. For example, fewer people were needed on farms to provide the same amount of food, and assembly-line production of goods enabled fewer to build more for less. So what to do with the unsettled masses? In a previous post on The Oil Drum, The Century of the Self(less)?, Nate Hagens pointed to an excellent video (The Century of the Self) explaining the creation of the consumer society in which the employment problem was solved by putting people to work making things that they didn't before know they really needed. Of course, all this was possible because energy could be obtained without needing as many workers.
So, might we be better off having to devote more of the workforce to the task of obtaining energy? Well, that would slow things down. In fact, it might be an unavoidable consequence of society running short of cheap energy. The previous century was built on readily accessible deposits of fossil fuels, and despite technological improvements, deposits yet to be exploited or discovered will require more effort for the same return. But we should at least be honest about what is happening. And in evaluating alternatives, we shouldn't be ignorant about what "more jobs" means. Making policy decisions based on which alternative creates the most jobs might be politically expedient and perhaps socially necessary, but there is a real cost to society.
Appendix A: How to Create a Million Clean Energy Jobs
Easy. Pay a million people to ride stationary bicycles connected to generators. Not a lot of power, though. And probably very expensive unless you subsidize it.
References
- American Petroleum Institute Report
- Nuclear Energy and Job Creation
- Green Jobs Through Geothermal Energy
- Jobs More Important Than Price Per Watt to Key Policy Makers
- Campus Researchers Predict Benefits of Clean Energy Bill
- Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency: Economic Drivers for the 21st Century, Roger Bezdek, American Solar Energy Society, 2007.
- Virinder Singh & Jeffrey Fehrs, The Work That Goes Into Renewable Energy, Renewable Energy Policy Project, 2001, p. 26.
- Grist: Time to move like the wind to save clean energy
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.
Brian, I had a meeting with a government official just before Christmas who told me that a local wind farm with 7 turbines had cost £27 million to build. Of that, £2 million was spent in the UK the rest went to import the hardware. After construction, the facility created 2 jobs in maintenance shared with other facilities.
So while our news is full of political rhetoric on jobs creation, I'm not sure that on shore wind in the UK will create many jobs or wealth.
Otherwise this post is spot on. Politicians promising millions of Green jobs just don't get it - that is the best energy jobs are those that have the highest EJ / man hour ratio and not vice versa.
Wrong. There are many factors other than energy per man hour. For example, in the history of energy production, we can see a long trail of boom-bust cycles, which have high societal costs.
There are numerous health and safety issues for the energy worker as well as society at large.
Sustainability is important.
I think you'll find that the fewer people working in the energy industry that there will be fewer accidents etc. Whaling may be a good example, guessing great employer of the day, produced hardly any energy, many deaths, not sustainable.
E
Whaling COULD have been sustainable, but "tragedy of the commons" lead to the near extinction of several species and 90+% reductions in populations in most species of whales.
The absence of whale feces in the Southern Ocean has supposedly lead to a reduction in krill populations as well.
Alan
Wouldn't the absence of whale mouths lead to an increase in krill?
By removing the whales you are breaking the nutrient cycle, depleting the stock of key nutrients in the Krill -> whale -> poo --> krill cycle. Not sure which nutrients would be key, but phosphates and other minerals are probably in there.
Correct. Also; top predators have a key function in balancing eco systems. For an example, see the re-introduction of wolves in the Yellowstone.
Here is another example; they wanted to increase the deer popuation on an island. So they shot all the wolves. Deers did indeed increase, ate everything, starved, and population collapsed.
Seems like humans are the only top predator that is actually bad for an eco system.
No, we are merely the newest and latest, and thus we throw things out of "equilibrium" (which is only apparent, geological-scale-short-term equilibrium -- if we really had equilibrium, we wouldn't be here to enjoy it).
Good points, but back to the jobs issue, the main post claims:
"The only way to get more jobs per dollar is to have fewer dollars per job (lower salaries)."
This, like much of the rest of the article, is pure garbage.
If you are Homer Simpson, the only person running a nuke plant that has enormous costs to build, operate and decommission, you might be getting paid squat, but the amount of money that went into keeping you employed would be enormous. (I know, I know, more than one person works at a nuke plant and they don't get minimum wage, but the principle still holds.)
This article and the "Renewables can't keep the lights on" one above prove that the "new direction" on TOD is 100% toward anti-renewable propaganda.
Sad to see a good site take this path. What a waste.
The rest of the money that goes into building, operating, and decommissioning the nuke plant eventually makes it way (minus the capitalists's take) to people doing jobs, which add into the "jobs created" by said nuke plant.
I'm certainly not anti-renewable, but it's not worth my time arguing that point with you.
Have to agree with dohboi. The article is patchy, and lacks the thorough analysis and balance that it ironically calls for. For instance, it ignores the cost of co2 effect remediation, pollution, etc of its prime example, coal.
I think however, that julesburn might apply the same kind of analysis to the armaments industry, which employs lots of people.
Another point is that higher costs through taxes are just the price of wise civilization through regulation of capitalists.
Another point is the glossing over of profit motive capitalism, which needs analysis due to its runaway tendencies.
It seems more a devil's advocate style article, illustrating the poor logic and analysis of the anti's.
The jobs issue has little to do with how many people are working in the energy industry. The energy industry is not "the economy." It's the sector that provides the juice for "the economy." The economy runs on net energy. As EROI declines, net energy declines unless there is an increase in gross energy to make up for the loss. Gross energy has not been going up (esp not here in the US). So, the economy contracts.
Correct. It's net energy that matters.
The simplest way to look at this is thinking about ancient food production. If a famer can produce twice what he eats then half of the society can be engaged in other activities. Priest, scholars, warriors are all made available through the surplus. If the farming tech gets better and the farmer is now producing ten times what he eats then 90% of the population can specilize or recreate. Of course lots of farmers go on the dole in the interum but in the long term society adapts at a higher level of specialization.
Food was the first form of energy that we tapped. The calculus is more complicated when capital goods are included but the principle is the same.
Sorry about spelling.
Tim from his phone with no spell check.
Yes, miraculously, thermodynamics holds for fire as well as food.
A while back on TOD, I walked through some math with an example for a one-person economy
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7048/735318
And yet, all that money sent to Russia and the ME for natural gas is far greater of a cash out flow each year.
When natural gas supplies tighten up on Britain (and you bet they will), the Brits will re-examine the whole energy basket again.
I think people are forgetting a domestic wind farm is a homespun source of energy.
Of course, I realize all the limits of wind and solar (intermittency and so forth), but is domestic economic activity not desired anymore? I guess average Joe will have to swallow the politics and hope the fossil fuel crowd will save him -- but so far fossil fuels are not really able to prop up the economy, are they? LOL
When will Joe realize the false promises are made by folks who want him to be poorer so they become richer?
Euan,
Didn't Vestas close a wind turbine factory of the Isle of Wight because of slack demand (much lower than anticipated) within the UK ? An order for seven WTs will not create manufacturing jobs within the UK. An order of 7,000 will.
Best Hopes for a Scottish WT factory working 2 or 3 shifts (or 4 for 24/7 production),
Alan
Alan,
It would for sure be better for UK economy if the turbines were built here. Scottish government plan is to expand wind in Scotland from 1600 to 5500 MwW by 2015 - with such expansion you'd think we should have our own manufacturing facility. But there is a growing rupture between government rhetoric and public perceptions and I suspect growing disbelief that this expansion in wind capacity will ever happen.
My position on the viability of wind is still blowing in it.
E
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-12240113
A major offshore wind turbine manufacturing plant looks set to be built in Hull, bringing up to 10,000 jobs to the city.
In about three months there will be a small 10 kilowatt radiation free nuclear reactor (Low energy neutron reaction: Lenr) that you can hook up to your hot water baseboard heating system.
Where will the manpower come from to install and service this product?
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-italian-scientists-cold-fusion-video...
The web page at this link contains a link to a PDF with a slightly more technical description of the work. Many of the words at the PDF are what I would expect to find in a report on an experiment in catalytic burning of hydrogen, i.e. chemical combining with oxygen. This can be done, and can limit the reaction temperature to very low values, even below room temperature. But catalytic combining of hydrogen and oxygen to from water is not 'fusion'.
The html page text confuses energy with power, which is the time rate of flow of energy. This marks the page as surely not being the work of physicists, chemists, or chemical engineers. There is surely some good technology in Bologna, but I don't think it will be found by following links from this web page.
Their patent application was rejected with the following comments:
The basic concept of a patent is that you must disclose how you solved the problem. You can't just state the problem and then say, "... and then, magically, we solved it." Throwing in a few invented buzzwords like "hexothermal" doesn't help.
So, I think we can say that this has a 99.999% probability of being a scam, and a 0.001% probability of being magic (which of course is indistinguishable from sufficiently advanced science).
In the USA, in order to get a patent, one must "enable" those skilled in the art to make and use the alleged invention.
More specifically, the law states:
Regarding scams:
NASA thinks that they can use this technology.
An Energetic Revolution for ALL of NASA’s Missions and A Solution to Climate Change and the Economic Meltdown
http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/media-3rd-party/2009-NASA-LENR-8-...
The DOD has this to say:
Nov. 13, 2009 Defense Intelligence Agency Technology Forecast:
Fortes fortuna adiuvat
Giuseppe Levi, a nuclear physicist from INFN (Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics), helped organize last Friday’s demonstration in Bologna. Levi confirmed that the reactor produced about 12 kW and noted that the energy was not of chemical origin since there was no measurable hydrogen consumption. Levi and other scientists plan to produce a technical report on the design and execution of their evaluation of the reactor.
In about three months there will be a small 10 kilowatt radiation free nuclear reactor
That readers here could see? Touch? Get rid of the plutonium from the local junior achivement cuz we built our own?
There are at least 3 serious technology developers (American Superconductor is probably leading)currently designing and constructing wind turbine prototypes of 10-20 MW nameplate capacity. These will not require significantly more labor than the current 2-4 MW models. In other words, wind turbines will soon be 2-8 times less labor intensive than they are today. (http://www.amsc.com/products/applications/windEnergy/seatitan.html)
It will surely propel offshore wind into the "sweet spot" of utility-scale energy projects near coastal urban centers.
Opinion pieces like the one by JoulesBourne that attempt to marginalize renewable energy will look utterly ridiculous in the very near future.
Well, better turbine tech would be a good thing. And cheaper solar panels would be a good thing.
This article was not about the futility of alternative to fossil fuels, but rather the utter ridiculousness of simultaneously providing energy at competitive cost while creating more jobs.
Your article is a battle against straw men. It has nothing to do with anything. It is pretty widely understood that fossil fuels are going away and we have to get on with alternatives. Solar and wind are the major alternatives already commercialized. It is understood it will cost a little more, especially in the early stages of transition.
The other major alternative is nuclear. However, the current light water reactors cannot replace FF. The viability of nuclear depends entirely on technology that has not yet been commercialized (e.g., breeders).
But the predilection for coupling alts with jobs is due to the angst about jobs and the apathy toward energy. The true value is domestically produced energy at reasonable (not necessarily lowest!) cost. The jobs aspect is at best an arguable additional value embedding in the "not necessarily lowest" cost. If we have cheap domestic energy and other resources, the jobs issue can be solved REGARDLESS of the employment of the energy industry.
Nice points.
But don't forget conservation. This is where we can bring down energy use drastically while employing lots of people.
It obviously won't get us all the way there, but it is 9/10ths of what we need to do now.
Not just conservation but a general lowering of consumption because it's no longer a status item, or perceived convenience or improvement to lifestyle.
It's coming. All over the media, left, right and center, serious and info-tainment, the word is creeping in that we live too high on the hog, and it doesn't help our situation. People are starting to get it, and it looks like the media has been instructed to tell us it's OK to have a small house, car and carbon footprint.
Hmm.
The key benefits of wind power is that after installation the servicing costs are quite low and the fuel costs are almost zero. So, any jobs must come from the construction phase (a bit like the housing market). As long as energy prices keep rising, it seems reasonable to keep building more wind turbines, and so sustaining a large number of people in employment. When the energy produced from wind begins to impact the efficiency of the grid, it makes sense to divert some of those jobs to upgrading the grid and introducing demand management technologies to better track electricity demand to available supply.
To some extent, that is just details. The key question is - which variable do you want to maximise (or minimise ) ? If you are interested in global GDP, then wind makes no sense. However, if you want to minimise human suffering within the geographic boundaries of your country, then wind has a lot going for it. Job creation for the sake of it (people on bicycle generators) will gain you little in reduced suffering, but if 80% of the expense of wind is spent on jobs and resources sourced in your own country, that is a better result than 80% of your costs being imported fuel. (eg. oil).
Given we are reaching resource constraint limits to economic growth, we won't solve the jobs problem by employing people to make and sell trinkets to people that are not really needed and do little to reduce suffering, other than the illusion of being useful. We are facing a declining economy - declining supply of trinkets - so we need to find an alternative way of keeping people occupied. An person without a job is major liability - they need welfare. They are liable to drift into crime. They sit around and look untidy. Using them to build turbines which will (albeit imperfectly) provide a replacement supply of a declining critical resource (energy) seems a far better way of reducing suffering.
Which would you prefer ? 1 billionaire and 1000 jobless workers, or 10 managers and 900 employed workers, and 99 jobless?
As a practical note, far more jobs are to be sustained in developing energy efficiency and retrofitting insulation, and training people not to waste energy, by doing more jobs manually. However, that needs far more planning, investment in people and steady, but lower returns. It does not fit the get rich quick model of capitalism.
If you listen to some rhetoric, this is a bad thing:
Right now in the US, wind is competing with coal and natural gas -- neither of which are imported. Many wind turbine parts are (as Euan noted for the UK), so (without the coal and gas jobs), you might have fewer jobs overall.
The dilemma is that society is geared to function along the lines of increasing GDP. It's nice to socially engineer and create anew based on a different model (steady state economy with maximum employment), but it's a bit harder to a) design something that really works, and b) get everybody to go along.
Now, this part I agree with. It's not easy, certainly. But this is exactly what must be done, no?
I can tell you what doesn't work: highly centralized, highly bureaucratized systems, far-flung empires, dog-eat-dog, instability, stop-gap measures. This is the system that is crumbling now.
Renewable energy is not only desirable for replacing energy supply, but it also fits with a better less centralized, less bureaucratized, more stable, more equitable societal design.
http://www.smallisprofitable.org/207Benefits.html
I'm watching the examples jump over to Wind Power Jobs again and again. There are a wide range of other jobs that should be included, and as with our EROEI conversations, the essential differences between wind and other energy technologies will make for some very different considerations.
First off, we have an enormous need to build out improvements to our buildings and housing stock. Whether it's retrofitting windows and insulation, or installing Solar Heating, PV and Geothermal, to mention but a few, there are many building trades that can benefit from this work in distinct ways.
Other jobs, like rebuilding grid infrastructure, railways, and urban redesigns (traffic adjustments) might not even look like 'Green Jobs', and could be work that is doubling as necessary maintenance and renewal, but would be creating incomes for working people. Then there's manufacturing of new products, assuming we're together enough to see that we can get our own country to supply some of these goods, and let the money circulate at home a bit..
But beyond these, I'm very skeptical about your premise that comes down to this energy costing more, so ultimately being less affordable by the society. For the costs that are in labor, then those laborers will be spending that money back into the society, so as with Henry Ford's Autos, they are paying for and being paid for this.. and in such straits as we're entering, one would hope they are spending a portion of it on sustainable energy and lifestyle setups, so that a circular investment in these improvements is all pushing in the same direction, to add efficient, durable and renewable sources and tools into our toolkits while we can. The truly effective items, like Solar Heating and SuperInsulation will ultimately draw down the 'non-renewable' living expenses for the people in such a system, and as the buildout of various elements of this becomes somewhat saturated, parts of this workforce will naturally move on and into other areas.. probably many into Food and Ag.
Renewable energy DOES cost a lot, but it also pays back in ways that burned fuels (even biomass) cannot.
It's funny, I hadn't noticed the Sub-Title Grasping at False Straws just under the fold before..
That rings a bell.. it strikes me as somewhat unnecessary rhetoric, after the divisive brouhaha during the 'Fake Fire Brigade' series.
What if it turns out that our choice is soon going to be 'Short Straw, or NO Straw..' Will we be disappointed at how much effort was made to convince people to ignore all those short straws that would have been so easy to collect, a few years ago?
Hay! Somebody drank my Milkshake!
Cheers,
Jerry
If you're trying to draw a parallel to the 'Peak Oil' phenomenon, then you should consider 'stopping' some of the oldest placed straws - that is how old wells / producing regions behave. Some of them stop.
Thus, there will not be ALL the straws to pull out the 'remaining half' but quite a few lesser of them remaining and perhaps there will be a last straw standing.
I didn't mean that as implied in "False Fire Brigade". In my article, the "False Straw" is the false impression that "more jobs" has no negative implications. And because of that impression, boosters are falling all over themselves exaggerating the number of jobs created.
Maybe I misunderstood your emphasis on the idea that the addition of jobs would be imperfect, and possibly even extremely difficult to balance.. but opening up with 'False Straws' suggests that this has no way of being a necessary, but tough solution. That word makes it seem quite clearly that 'This is the wrong path' ..
This is the point when Henry is supposed to be telling his 'band of brothers' to sally once more into the breach. What I keep hearing is, 'The breach is hard, let's not go that way..'
Do you have other routes in mind? I'm not too eager to bank much on these 'Affordable Fission Pocket Warmers' mentioned elsewhere in this thread, when we know very clearly how much we can accomplish with Insulation, Wind and Solar in numerous forms..
Right now in the US, wind is competing with coal and natural gas -- neither of which are imported.
Coal is entirely domestic, but the externalities of coal are so large that it really doesn't make sense to ignore them at any point. The fact is that the total labor cost of wind power is lower than coal, if all costs are included.
Let me say that again:
The total labor cost of wind power is lower than coal, if all costs are included.
How can we ever leave that out of the discussion??
Natural gas may be mostly domestic, but the US still imports about 10%, and wouldn't marginal demand mostly come from imports?
"How can we ever leave that out of the discussion??"
Because unless and until it is mandated that externalities are paid for by the consumers of coal-fired electricity, it is only on the sideline of the discussion.
????????
Surely on TOD we're interested in the reality of actual costs, and not just the fiction of current market pricing??
External costs may not be reflected in market pricing, but you'd agree they're real costs, right?
Yeah, I'm interested. But how are you going to quantify them? And in the meantime, we live in a market-driven society -- with a lot of caveats and flaws, but what else are you going to do? Form a government committee to calculate actual costs and then decide what people should pay for which supplies of energy?
I think it's a great idea to get off coal, but I'm not sure of the best way to do that. Right now, the defacto approach is to discourage any investment in new coal-fired plants while increasing regulation of existing ones. Political sparks are flying. Even with alternatives, which ones should be favored -- if any in particular?
Things are going to get very ugly before they get presentable again.
how are you going to quantify them?
Are you suggesting that this is impossible? It's not. We may disagree on the exact amounts (in which case political considerations might require using the low end of the range of estimates from disinterested parties), but cost estimation and allocation are time-tested corporate tools.
A lot of people have produced data on this question. The data and resulting estimates are out there. Right?
in the meantime, we live in a market-driven society
Not on TOD. What's the point of doing energy analysis on TOD if we're just going to accept the destructive, short-sighted whims and unrealities of the marketplace???
The Original Post is about comparing the costs of different energy sources. You did the right thing by acknowledging externalities, but my point is this: you can't just mention it once, and forget about it. It's basic: wind is cheaper than coal, if we include all costs. The fact that society doesn't factor external costs in is a separate problem - it shouldn't affect the subject of this post.
Heck, the point of this post is "what should public policy be?". If we bow to the market place, we've abdicated our purpose in doing the analysis!!
I think it's a great idea to get off coal
OK, so basically we agree that the real, long-term costs of coal (including pollution, occupational costs, rising production costs due to depletion, etc) are higher than for renewables?
Even with alternatives, which ones should be favored -- if any in particular?
Wind mostly, then solar. Probably nuclear - it wouldn't be my personal choice, but it would work. Other much smaller things, like ethanol, gasified biomass for electrical generation, geothermal, wave and tidal.
The straightforward approach: a combination of carbon taxes and efficiency standards (e.g., auto CAFE, appliance standards, construction code). Simple. The only problem: resistance from legacy industries.
"The only problem: resistance from legacy industries."
Another problem: voters who don't want to pay more for electricity.
"what should public policy be?"
Evaluate alternatives based on merits, and not on "alternative x creates more jobs".
Another problem: voters who don't want to pay more for electricity.
They won't be excited about it, but if you rebate the revenues they'll be ok. The bigger obstacle is the industries that will be put out of business (coal...).
Further, that's not a policy analysis problem, it's an implementation problem. The easy alternative is exactly what we're doing: extend subsidies to new forms of energy, rather than taxing (or reducing subsidies) for fossil fuels.
Evaluate alternatives based on merits, and not on "alternative x creates more jobs".
I agree. Let me say it again: I agree.
On the other hand, that's really not a very important problem if alternative x actually is less costly, overall. Right?
And, if alternative x actually is less costly, overall, than we really ought to say that loudly, rather than accepting a false premise, right?
But how are you going to quantify them?
Given the future that we likely face, one way to favor investment over consumption is by lowering the discount rate (i.e. interest rate).
Allow wind, solar, geothermal, bio-mass, hydro and nuke developers to borrow money at 1%, straight line amortized for 20 years, and fund this subsidy with a carbon tax. Repeal all other subsidies if you will.
Tax consumption AND "externalities" while reducing the discount rate for future energy over "today's energy". Most here on TOD expect "tomorrow's kWH" to be more valuable than today's kWh, but the discount rate says otherwise. So reduce the discount between today's kWh (coal) and tomorrow's (wind, solar, geothermal, nuke).
Best Hopes for Investing and not Consuming,
Alan
Worthy of the bold print.
"Right now in the US, wind is competing with coal and natural gas -- neither of which are imported."
Apples? Oranges?
The proper comparison here is the fuel source, wind, which is obviously not imported either (unless you count winds blowing down from Canada as imported).
We do desperately need to be looking closely at what the consequences of various paths forward are. But illogical propaganda, faulty premises, and polemics do not shed any light--just the opposite.
I am an electrical engineer, but the EE could also mean economist engineer. While in university going from class to class, never was there a greater disconnect than transiting between engineering and economics. I sat through two years listening (and writing) to some interesting economic abstract theories that appeared to have little applicability in the real world, and this is a case in point.
Talking about moving labour around to fit the market needs is the folly of fungibility. We're not serfs that can be harvesting oats one day and rye the next. These are specialized, highly trained jobs. And what of the inverse? Someone spends at least one quarter of their life getting educated and trained and the job market goes away? Sorry, you're an oat guy and we're doing rye and barley, you're dismissed.
What is the total economic impact of staying on a fossil fuel diet when a significant share of the monies are exported out of the country because the oil is imported?
Finally, I believe the construct of the argument is set on a false premise with an apples and oranges comparison. Renewable energy isn't just a substitute, its a transition. And, we need the available cheap energy sources for the investment in higher cost energy sources.
Exactly right. It is worth looking at fossil fuels as a reference for where we are going, but a comparison of sticking with FF v. renewables is simply not valid.
Nicely said.
Thanks for that perspective.
"The key benefits of wind power is that after installation the servicing costs are quite low"
Has that actually been proven? Last I heard, and this is old data, was that maintenance was considerably more intense and exacting than expected. As time goes on you fix the weak spots, but I haven't heard anything that wasn't blatant propaganda on this for long time.
A simple summary of work done by the Millennium Institute (a non-profit that models policy alternatives for nations and regional economies).
Divert several % of GDP from consumption to investment in long lasting energy producing (preferably renewable) and energy efficient assets and infrastructure and the long term results are quite positive.
Higher GDP than BAU, less CO2, less oil use, more employment and a larger middle class/more even income distribution.
Really, it is that simple at the heart of it all.
I did have to drop out of lurking for this important point.
Best Hopes for Less Consumption and more Investment,
Alan
Well, thanks for sticking around. I wrote this just to get you to speak up.
If more people are employed procuring energy, less people are employed making things that use energy. I contend this would result in lower GDP (which might not be bad), but expecting this to also make everybody "above average" is really hopeful thinking.
No. At the most basic level, the economy looks like this:
EA=EP-EC
Where EA is the Energy Available, EP is Energy Produced and EC is the Energy Cost of producing EP.
GDP correlates to EP, not EA. EA is the energy available to do things other than produce energy. (BTW, EP could also be thought of as Energy Procured, especially since some of it is imported. EP is practically the same as energy consumed or, roughly, "gross energy").
Average EROI for a system, over some period of time, is EP/EC.
GDP can stay high or even increase while EA (or "net energy") decreases with falling average EROI. As G. Mobus, Dave Murphy, and others have pointed out, net energy is declining faster (and peaked sooner) than gross energy.
Wrong.
But you'll have to read my next article for an explanation.
um, what part of what I wrote is wrong?
Patience, grasshopper...
Okay, Brian, I am waiting [drumming fingers]. I read your article, btw. You kick off with a grandiose claim,
Then you talk about jobs in the energy sector. The real unemployment problem is seen in the non-energy sector, which is powered by net energy from the energy sector. You don't discuss that... just the energy sector.
You end with this gem, which is merely silly:
Then you claim what I wrote is wrong. So, I am waiting to hear your explanation.
BTW, what I wrote is a restatement of the first law of thermodynamics. You don't agree with that?
EA=EP-EC
Where EP/EC = EROI
Also, it is mathematically the same as what others have written here. I'm just used to writing it this way for some years now. David Murphy (presumably Charlie Hall too, since David is Charlie's student) wrote,
Net Energy = Gross Energy * ((EROI – 1)/ EROI)
http://netenergy.theoildrum.com/node/5500
Your article misses the main point about renewable energy and jobs, namely, EROI stabilization. Declining EROI means available energy decreases (unless gross energy increases). This means contraction of the non-energy sector, and unemployment.
Clean energy jobs and EROI stabilization need much larger investment to be effective.
"<snark>Pay a million people to ride stationary bicycles connected to generators. Not a lot of power, though. And probably very expensive unless you subsidize it.</snark>"
(Markers added to assist with broken snarkometers.) What was silly about that? In essence the whole "makes jobs" meme - wherever and whenever it occurs - is little more than a close relative of the Broken Window Fallacy. The remark merely illustrates how: anything that "makes jobs" is a burden to be borne. If the benefit doesn't offset the burden, then bearing the burden is simply a waste. And as a practical matter, show me somebody who's hyping some scheme in the name of the "makes jobs" meme, and most likely I can show you a rent-seeker looking to live off the sweat of someone else's brow.
However, I do await JoulesBurn's explanation, since his assertion just above does seem (in some loose sense) to contradict his remark about the bicycle-generators...
<snark>In case you haven't been paying attention</snark>, unemployment is an extremely serious problem in the US. Governments face huge revenue shortfalls because huge numbers of people aren't working.
<hypothesis>The non-energy sector is contracting because of EROI decline. Less energy available means unemployment. Massive deployment of renewable energy technology is the only way to stabilize EROI within the next decade or two</hypothesis>.
As you can see, I am very high on California taking a leadership role with this renewable energy movement. We've seen costs go down for renewable technologies as they become commercialized. If we can drive down costs here, it will be easier for adoption elsewhere (like what happened with wind first in CA, then working in mid-west).
Unfortunately, Joules Burn's snark included a cycling image, which put PaulS into a reactionary mode that obstructs real critical thinking.
What is so misapplied about the fine Keystone Kops image of millions of Sweating, Bike-Generator-Laborers hanging onto society's loving teats is that Green Energy jobs would be far more akin to having these people building Magical Generator Bikes that can pedal themselves, leaving these people freed up to go build another, then another.. as you say, to restabilize (as much as possible) net energy available to the society.
Missing so far in the keypost is a summing up of the value being generated by scads upon scads of Solar hot water collectors and PV and Wind, or the further value being preserved with the installation of similar amounts of insulation and energy-sipping lights and appliances, passiv-hauses (sorry for the non-German plural), and efficiently lit industrial and commercial spaces.. Such as 'Paul, There in Halifax' and his crew of Green Workers demonstrates to us on a wonderfully continuing basis.
Who pays for these expensive tasks? They are green because ultimately, they pay for themselves. The fear of spending money, except on Luxury Industries that are there it seems solely to convince us that we've 'succeeded in improving our lifestyles'.. it's a huge mental block.. it's that Chest of Gold we found on a beach and we're furtively trying to figure out how to bring it back into our bedroom when we wake up this morning.. but the dream wall insists that we don't get to keep our props or costumes.
Good points.
The people really breaking the globally important "windows" are those engaged busily in UN-sequestering as much safely sequestered carbon as possible, thereby breaking the windows of the world that have kept the globe in a relatively stable state since the beginnings of human civilization.
The better analogy is that we have based our economy on busting holes in the bottom of the ship we are all on.
It is almost impossible for most to imagine an economy based on anything other than busting more holes in the hull.
Doing anything else seems like silly, pointless work to those enmeshed in the status quo.
"After all," they say, "nothing else creates quite such a nice gush of water as bashing a hole at the very bottom of the ship! All other activity is just un-economical!"
Meanwhile the lower decks are filling fast, and an occasional swell even washes away some on the top decks.
(And chorus of denialists keep yelling, "The ocean isn't getting closer and closer to the gunwale, and we are not listing more and more every year--that's just part of natural variation...")
"Pay a million people to ride stationary bicycles connected to generators. Not a lot of power, though. And probably very expensive unless you subsidize it."
Do people not pay a monthly subscription to the gym already to do just that?
For about 1000 USD, you can buy a stationary cycle coupled to a generator. If you use this instead of paying to "spin" on a stationary cycle at a fitness gym, and use the electricity generated, clearly this will eventually pay back. A fitness gym membership costs about 50 USD/month. That 1000-dollar stationary bike with a generator will get paid back in a MAXIMUM of 20 months. Now if we assume that the user is in good shape after daily use for 1 month, then we can assume he/she can sustain 150 watt power output for about 1 hour. The value of this will vary by region, time of day, time of year, temp, etc. But let us assume a high retail price of 0.25 USD/kilowatt-hour. The value of the daily spin will be 0.15*1*0.25 USD/ = 0.0375 USD/day. After 20 months of this the generated electricity is worth (undiscounted) 20*30.4*0.0375= 22.80 USD. Now, if you would have driven your car to the fitness gym to spin, assuming 10 miles round trip, and you do this just to go to the gym, then the savings and payback time are much more interesting, especially when gasoline is 4-5 USD/gallon.....
Or, you could spend less on a real bike and do something even more useful like riding it to work.
And save the gym fee! :-)
PaulS, I am not specifically replying to you but I wanted to try and make this point.
At least a team of bicycle generating folks makes a useful product. Would we rather have people sit on their duffs, live off of the government, watch t.v. and east corn syrup filled food, go to the emergency room with eating-related/low exercise complications or diseases, and otherwise drag on the economy that way?
I can name a hundred industries that make waste in our economy.
The whole idea behind many industries is to make things that cannot last beyond 1-3 years. The idea is to make things cheaply so you buy them again--LOL--when they wear out. I could say that those industries are exactly analogous to people riding bikes to make electricity except actually the bicycle people are not nearly as wasteful, since they are producing electricity.
Look at children's toys today. Long ago toys were wind-up and they did fun things. Today all toys have batteries, which waste energy -- the motion could have been produced by a SIMPLE COIL SPRING. This is our current economy in a nutshell.
My personal experiences have told me this is the new way industry is moving. I rake the leaves and my aluminum rake handle bends in half because the tube is too thin. I then replace it with wood. My hose sprayer fails after one season -- I buy a solid brass one from a retired guy on my block from circa 1960s and it works fine for 4 years longer -probably still good after 50 years of service - it will last 50 years more. A facet put in by a house flipper fails in my kitchen and requires replacement due to a failed plastic part. And so on. Plastic crap that lasts how long. Aluminum thinned further and further. Hose sprayers that fail. Good Lord. This is the master plan to make money -- via waste. But we Americas are all blind to that master plan and we all nod our heads and rail against the price of a kilowatt from wind versus that from a natural gas plant.
So the whole argument is full of it to me. Industry geared for many consumer goods is purely designed around waste. They are the waste masters.
Show me how efficient half the items in a Walmart or Target or Home Depot store are not similarly wasteful.
“Hose sprayers that fail. Good Lord. This is the master plan to make money”
My recollection is that Wal-Mart has brass nozzles next to the plastic ones, at a higher price. Same with fixtures at Home Depot.
You choose to buy a house with cheap fxtures. A high quality house built with high quality materials and fixtures would cost more. They are around, but few people want to pay for them.
'They are around..'
Sometimes.. but at the 'Good' Hardware store near me, I can't buy a really decent Doorbell Button or Storm Door Latch Mechanism to save my life. They're all the same stamped crap, with slight design and plating variations.
To get the good Household hardware, I have to go to the 'Architectural Salvage' store, which has buckets of fine, cast and machined bits from days gone by.. pulled out of older homes.
But very little of what's available to consumers is all that good.
Provided they are not brass coloured aluminium.
NAOM
So THAT is what the funky colored metal is.
But you'll have to read my next article for an explanation.
Why ? Does it include an offer of free steak knives ?
or is this an admission this 'article' lacks 'an explanation' ?
It's just a discussion that will take more time than I am able to devote now. The point made in the present article is not dependent on it. If you want the steak knives, you'll have to make four easy payments of $19.95.
OTOH, it MAY be possible to increase the ESOEI (Energy saved on energy invested) faster than EROEI declines.
To use my favorite example, "trade" 20 BTUs of refined diesel for 1 BTU of electricity by switching freight from trucks to electrified double stack rail. Generate the electricity by negawatts i.e. conservation & efficiency such as thicker insulation, more efficient appliances, etc.
This is a step function gain in long term efficiency for a fraction of the economy (and about 11% of our oil use).
Increase the % of trips made by bicycle & walking, replacing auto VMT. Same thing.
Build LOTS of urban rail, and related Transit Orientated Development, same thing.
And build solar hot water heaters + conserve, conserve, conserve. Yes, it takes natural gas to spin fiberglass insulation, but properly applied, that fiberglass will save far more energy over it's effective lifespan. ESOEI of 1,000 ?
These are the 4 areas where I can see large gains in ESOEI, POTENTIALLY large enough to offset declining EROEI. At the very least, they can soften the impact and disruption significantly.
Best Hopes for taking the best available road,
Alan
PS: I am inclined to believe (hypothesis trending towards conviction) that our best option is reduced income combined with increasing wealth. Income > Consumption, Investment > Wealth.
One simplistic model of production is resources in (including energy), capital plus waste out. I think our consumption model has back to back engines, with one (our economy) producing low-grade capital and creating junk plus waste, and another engine (our lives) consuming junk and energy and creating only waste. What we've built is akin to digging holes only to fill them in, only with more glitz. We have Joules' cycles already, so increasing efficiency should be easy.
The trouble is there is not much else for most people to do. Apparently we need better TV, cheaper drugs, and more jails, so that more people can do nothing with less consumption? Or, we could use more musicians, artists, and labor-intensive high-efficiency public infrastructure creations, which brings us back to "wealth".
And then we need fewer people.
Best hopes for each of us to create enduring value which outlives us, so the latter generations can enjoy wealth.
GDP as a metric only loosely correlates with individual & social well being.
None the less, consumption, per se, leaves no positive benefits for the future. Investment can, if invested wisely.
OK, wind turbines employ more people immediately but, over the life of WTs. is that true ?
Although their is some initial investment in a coal mine, the vast bulk of the labor goes into this month's production. NOT TRUE FOR WIND TURBINES !
Coal mining is for consumption, with no future benefit (but lots of future negatives).
Wind turbines are an investment, with 20 to 25 years of returns (part of the investment to 50 & 60 years, towers, transformers, transmission). As noted in the UK example by Euan, 2 men tending a wind farm generate a lot more power than 2 coal miners.
Best Hopes for Oil Drum Addicts,
Alan
Thats true, but we have a third category, people that could be employed but aren't, which is a dead loss for society. Currently a big drag on the economy is lack of demand for end products, corps are accumulating profits, but not using them to hire more workers, bacause they don't think more products will sell. What we need is more investment. That is what renewables do, most of the expense is upfront. So it could be a way to get the accumulating cash reserves flowing. GDP is the volume of money times its average speed. Cash sitting in corporate vaults is not circulating, so is a net drag on the economy. [Note nuclear is also very capital intensive (much more is spend building than operating, and could play a similar economic role.] If we were capital constrained, this would not apply, but at least at the corporate level, we are not capital constrained, we are constrained by the willingness to spend.
I can evaluate the net energy versus jobs, in a non steady state sense. Compared to conventional energy, the unconventional sources bring the jobs (along with the spending) forward in time. If we think the economic donturn is a temporary phenomena, then bring spneding=jobs forward in time smooths out the business cycle. Your argument needs to consider the temporal impact as well as buildng a quasi-steady state case.
Yes, economic stimulus by job creation. Of course, we could also put those people to work doing something else, such as insulating houses (as Jonathan suggests below). How about hiring more scientists to research alternative energies? I would contend that this might be preferable to paying people to manufacture and install the less competitive technologies of today.
Observing the reality of the last few decades (as long as I have been observing), "learn by doing" works and R & D (especially gov't funded R & D) does not.
Gov't R & D has contributed basically NOTHING# to the wind turbines being erected today. All gov't R & D funding on new wind turbine designs has been a complete and utter waste of money.
What gov't actions that have worked are:
- The California Wind Rush (late 1970s, early 1980s from memory)
- The Danish law that made is easy for a group of city folk and a farmer to buy, install and operate one to a half dozen WTs as an investment
- The quarterly Danish Gov't survey of wind turbines by model, noting generation and maintenance (this sorted good models from not so good)
- Feed in tariffs and subsidies
- I am uncertain how valuable wind density maps have been. In all cases I am aware of, site specific surveys were done by developers in addition to the more general gov't maps.
I am less certain of the impact of gov't R&D on solar and geothermal.
Best Hopes for "Learning by Doing",
Alan
# 1930s research by NACA (precursor to NASA) provided invaluable aerodynamic knowledge. But NACA's focus was aviation.
I think US federal gov work on solar thermal-elec was important -- especially solar trough (beginning in mid 1970s) and a little later with solar power tower designs. I don't know if they did much with Stirling engine design.
Generally, I agree that learning by doing is best, especially at this point. There is enough solar-elec being installed with enough money involved that no gov R&D is needed. The gov can do a lot to facilitate the solar transition -- especially, removing regulatory barriers, permitting, coordination between different levels (fed, state, local) that are often involved. And, as you say, feed-in tariffs and subsidies help a lot.
Sorry Alan, but generally you can track 80-90% of developments back to Govt. R&D - if you look hard enough. The problem is such dependence tends to be hidden and not talked about. Even if it's someone from a company chatting with a govt expert for 30mins, the importance of the continuity of knowledge it often key to making progress.
Wind turbines are something of a unique case in that the basic research is do far in the past, but its still there. Solar is more obvious.
If you think it's not still going one, try this one:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/21/wind_turbines_too_close_together/
As I stated, gov't research should focus on basic research. No commercial interest and it is quite valuable to society to know "how things work".
However, "directed goal" research by the gov't simply does not work from all that I have observed. And I have heard
dozenshundreds of times politicians pointing towards this or that.I am trying to remember the "magic bullets" GWB invoked in his various State of the Union speeches. I keep coming back to switchgrass saving us but he had a new one every year.
Alan
Still nope I'm afraid.
The loss rate of innovations from 'a good idea' to 'a profitable product' is 3000 to 1. Some of these are ideas that would never fly, but a larger number are due to 'gaps' that allow ideas that would provide real utility to die. That's particularly true in the gap between the basic research, usually done in universities, and business commercialisation. The not-invented-here, short-term-business led 'gaps' kill vast numbers of viable products every year. You can basically guarantee they there are practical, cost-effective advances that would cut US energy use by 30% lying around, unfunded, unknown and unused.
So nope, there should be a clear line through from 'basic' research to marketplace, with the MBAs locked out as far as possible. Keep that value chain simple and gap free, and keep the shysters out.
Directed goal research works all the time - just look at wartime for the lionised examples you will have heard of. However it's much more the norm than the exception - its just you won't hear of it, because the commercial concern will always claim 'it was all our work'. That's a joke if you know where to look.
Basically every pharmaceutical came out of government research.
And as for politicians - you should know well that they are only concerned with the appearance of concern.
GWB is a terrible example. His backers really, really didn't want to change the fossil fuel status quo. His proposals were chosen for their impracticality.
Have a look at this presentation:
http://files.harc.edu/Projects/CultivateGreen/Events/20070212/SolarTower...
The R&D was done, very methodically by very competent scientists and engineers over a period of 25 years. This design is ready for commercialization and construction is starting now.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/ricesolar/index.html
Brian, you are uninformed. Solar and wind are already commercialized. Cost per kw installed is dropping as more gets installed.
It's a real weakness I see on TOD. None of the staff -- as in 0.00 percent -- have any experience in the solar or wind industry. You guys blather on about stuff you have no experience and very little knowledge. A guy can learn a lot about FF here. I guess that's why it's called The Oil Drum. But you ought to recruit someone that knows what's going on with wind and direct solar.
The real weakness of TOD is commenters who make rash judgements about people because they say something that rubs them the wrong way. I was probably working on solar energy before you were born. Probably even in grad school. But TOD does have people who work directly in renewables.
If solar and wind technologies are to the point where they can produce energy more cheaply than from burning fossil fuels, I will be a happy guy. End the subsidies right now. No more tax breaks (yeah, yeah, FF get theirs too...). But I have been hearing that for decades. Europe has built lots of solar and wind, not because it is "commercial", but because they decided to do it. A few problems, though:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-19/edf-s-solar-time-bomb-will-tick...
But again, my article is not about how unpromising alternative energy is (because I don't think that is the case), or that it is technologically impossible for it to become competitive. If you think it is now, fine; we'll see. But don't tell me that it is competitive while at the same time telling me that it will create 2-10 times as many jobs as energy from FF.
Oh, I doubt that. I was studying and writing about solar energy in 1974, and an active advocate since that time. I took Engineering 161, Solar Energy Engineering at UC Berkeley in 1975. I worked full time in the solar industry from 1982 through 1986 for a contractor in California... started as sales engineer and then became manager of the solar dept, and eventually VP of the company. Mainly, this was for solar hot water systems for multi-unit dwellings. We also branched out to cogeneration, and I designed and sold some of the first PV systems in CA -- for remote billboard illumination.
This is commercial experience, where you survey a site, do an estimate, sit down with the customer and explain the proposal. Then get them to sign a contract. After that, you have to make sure the installation happens as you said. Did you ever do that? A lot of these systems have been in continuous operation for over 25 years. They would have been good investments even with out the tax credits and other incentives.
If you have solar experience, you should update your bio here because it is not indicated:
http://www.theoildrum.com/special/about
Again, there is no indication that you or anyone else on TOD has any commercial experience with wind or direct solar. I know RR has experience with biomass. But the major renewable alternatives are wind and direct solar (actually, it's all solar).
That really is not the point. FF is going away and we have to move to alternatives. Solar and nuclear are the only alternatives that have been commercialized. Nuclear is not an option at this point because the current generation of commercial reactors are limited by uranium fuel. Breeders have not been proven commercially. Read up on Clinch River. The next generation of nuclear reactors may become commercially successful, but it is decades away, if ever. Solar is happening now.
Solar does not have to be cheaper than FF. It needs to be good enough to power a modern economy. It is already good enough to do that. Stability of price and supply is more important than cheap.
So what? These are relatively trivial issues. In the US, we spent over $1.43 trillion on energy in 2008 ... up from $1.3 trillion in 2007. This is non-trivial. The one-year increase of $130 billion wasn't because we were spending money on solar. It was due to increased cost of fossil fuels.
You wasted many keystrokes on a straw man. Your complaint has nothing to do with the real issues.
Although he's a 'contributor' rather than 'staff', Jérôme à Paris does work in financing wind.
Okay, well, that's something. It appears his last comment was over 6 months ago.
But don't tell me that it is competitive while at the same time telling me that it will create 2-10 times as many jobs as energy from FF.
{sigh}
You apparently did not read/think about what I wrote.
Wind may actually, over it's life cycle, destroy jobs.
*LOTS* of jobs in the beginning, but then they just evaporate and only a couple of maintenance jobs are left, doing the work of a dozen coal miners.
Like a Ponzi scheme, wind jobs can only be sustained and grow if we build ever more wind turbines !
Which is exactly what many want to do.
Best Hopes for ever growing #s of wind turbines,
Alan
"this might be preferable to ..."
Something like this has been true for a long time in the computer business. One has almost always been able to get something cheaper and better by waiting until next year. The hazard, of course, is that this sort of horizon can keep on receding for longer than it is optimal for you to keep on waiting.
I've said it elsewhere, but it's worth saying again:
If all costs are included, wind power has lower labor costs than coal.
Don't we want to include all costs?
Alan,
Nice to see you are still around. I've always appreciated your comments.
Best Hopes for more participation from Alan,
Ray
Actually, he came back earlier in some earlier threads but I didn't realize it. I'm glad he's back too and hope he stays back.
I am going to comment only on an exception basis. Articles by Heading Out and an occasional rebuttal when I have the time, energy and feel strongly enough.
TOD has evolved into an organization that is hostile to me personally and more generally to my approach. So I am striving to move on.
Best Hopes for Results Elsewhere (today was a good day :-)
Alan
Let us know what you find~!
Bob
Not websites, but private contacts.
Three intriguing projects to get rail electrification going PLUS a pending effort to develop a detailed master plan to resolve our energy, environmental, economic, employment and national security problems.
I find that I do need a "fix" of TOD to help the creative juices flow :-)
Best Hopes,
Alan
Kind of like 'Democracy'.
The worst system of government we've ever had, except for all the others..
Alan, check out the http://AzimuthProject.org. You would certainly be welcomed and it has a bunch of dedicated people working on it. I am starting to hang out more and more there, because it is actually doing what TOD may be intending to move toward.
AzimuthProject "plan to create a focal point for scientists and engineers interested in saving the planet, and make clearly presented, accurate information on the relevant issues easy to find."
Thanks !
I will take a look :-)
Best Hopes for Productive Sites,
Alan
WHT,
As George Carlin would say, it's not the planet that is in trouble: it's the people.
Interesting that you changed completely the content of this comment since you originally wrote it. I take it you think the azimuth project might be a little misguided, or perhaps hopeless?
I guess I am missing something. Did I say we need to "save the planet?"
"Save the planet" is an ironic phrase. Did you ever see the George Carlin piece?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c
They say,
http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Azimuth+Project
I agree that these are things we need to address. So, to the extent they are trying to help do these things, I'm all for it.
It's just a language issue: we should do these things to keep from spoiling our nest. We want to ensure that the planet and human culture work together. Since we're not going to be training the planet to be human compatible, we need to figure out how we can build sustainable cultures within the cycles of nature.
The earth has been around for billions of years and will continue for billions more regardless of what humans do.
Let me put it this way: Which of these statements is most likely to be true one million years from now:
1) Planet Earth will continue to be teaming with life
2) Human culture will continue to thrive
I think the probability that statement (1) will hold is very near 100.00% The probability that statement (2) will hold is something less than 100 percent. I think it is probably less than 50% -- just a guess based on, oh, I don't know... just some trends I've noticed.
So, there is just a little bit of irony saying we need to "save the planet."
OTOH, any group that is based on the realization that our survival is in jeopardy is a hopeful sign. I don't know if the Azimuth Project more hopeful than TOD. I guess the main question is, "is this reaching people?" The more people start thinking about these things, the better.
ok, I just thought you actually had a change of mind after delving into it.
The Azimuth Project goes way deep in the physics, bordering on abstract math.
Sounds good. I am more into the political end of things. I was inspired by the 1973 oil embargo, and became a Jerry Brown supporter in 1974 (he won and became governor Jan 1975). Later, I formed the Green Democrats political club.
Check this out... a letter from Jerry 22 years ago:
http://www.safeenergyassociation.org/ad/jerry489.pdf
Jerry is now governor again... took office just this month. I haven't done much with Green Democrats lately, but I spoke at the Sacramento group's meeting last month. The next meeting is tomorrow (http://green-democrats.org/ ), and I will be talking about initiatives we can start or promote. I have ideas for several bills to introduce in the CA state legislature.
Alan,
That Master Plan has zero chance of achieving its goals for one very simple reason: the wrong kind of engineering.
Let's chat.
I am getting some modest traction in both the political/advocate side and business side. Some chance of implementation.
I am trying to keep my ideas realistic and practical although very aggressive.
Alan
There is nothing more practical than what I do. I'd like to have a significant conversation exploring some limited aspect and how certain principles can lead to better solutions than you have already come up with. It's all about the how. You are far more knowledgeable than I in pretty much everything, but we are talking about overarching principles.
There are ways, imo, to get very close to what you have alluded to, but I am doubtful it can be done with the base assumptions that gird what most want to call sustainability. It's easy enough to blow me off if I can't help or make my case, but I believe I can because you have one advantage most do not: you understand the thermodynamics. We've got pretty much one shot at this...
You still have my number, I assume.
I agrre on this. Sometimes when we talk about domestic PV, we conclude that there is no way you will get your money back. BUT; if you didn't by PV for the cash, you would up your cellphone replacement cycle from 18 to 9 months,or someother consumption. Wich gives you how much back on your investment? PV may have a low EROEI, but it has one. Consumption has an EROEI of 0, oreven possibly negative since you have to spend energy cleaning up the dirt after you too.
The point should be to divert the GDP as efficiently as possible, which would mean maximizing the renewables while minimizing costs (and employment!) in the industry. Certainly you add marginal value by spending money locally at a discount versus exporting the work, but once you move from transitioning energy into social engineering for job creation we've blurred the goals. I think I see Joules' point, which isn't to say wind is bad.
Add tariffs for imported oil and for imported wind equipment and you'll have the jobs and local investment, but with upfront pain. Lots of solutions; few politically viable it seems.
Unless you find a way to reduce the inequalities of wealth distribution inherent to the system you are heading for major social unrest. I've taken the liberty to add a few feebacks into your graphic...
The problem is an economic system that sees employment as a prerequisite to a decent standard of living. Even if there is enough wealth to go around that we could guarantee everyone a hot meal and a roof over their heads (and there is good reason to believe that is already the case), we see this as less of a moral imperative than seeing that "everyone gets his due." In fact, the status quo moral imperative is the reverse: we see it as morally wrong to support those who aren't working and view them as parasites on the "productive" classes. Imagine, as a thought experiment, an economy where labor was entirely automated. All energy production, farming, construction, etc. is done by machines. If we retained our present methods of income distribution, then, the entirety of the wealth generated by such a system would go to the owners/financiers of the machines. Everyone else, i.e. the vast majority of persons, would be cast into abject poverty. The irony here is that even though the "work" needed to maintain wealth is becoming much easier, the median living standard nevertheless takes a nosedive, unless you happen to be among the oligarchs at the top.
The world described above increasingly resembles the real one in which we live. Hence, why Jay Hanson proposed, years ago now, that the only way to avoid the social strife you describe (and wars for dwindling resources required to operate such an automated world) is to guarantee as a first principle the right of people to live decently without work . Perhaps the laser focus of the current politalk on "jobs" is merely a distraction, an artifact of a capitalist system that no longer serves to raise living standards on the whole, or even acts as a parasite on the whole as Hanson argued. Though, it is hard to see how to get from Point A (the seeming embrace, at least within the current political zeitgeist, of not just capitalism, but a hands-off, minimal-interventionist Randian style of capitalism and sacrosanct view of accumulated wealth as deserved) to Point B (largely automated, quasi-utopian system that guarantees everyone the right to a decent life without work).
What is perhaps most interesting is that Hanson's idea was predated by some 30 years, when none other than Richard Nixon proposed the idea of a guaranteed minimum income in the U.S.
Yes, it's hard to see how... and for good reason. In the "utopian" system you describe, people would take on the role of house pets. I'm not sure about dogs and cats, but I think people want to have a little more interaction with their environment and a little more control of their destiny. Probably, they want to think what they say and do matters.
Ah - I see you've read Edward Bellamy's book "Looking Backwards"
I support your idea with the proviso that people still be given the opportunity to contribute, even if entails riding bicycles to produce energy. Anyway, there is plenty to be done if only we had the will to do it. Efficiency is not necessarily something we need more of unless it comes to cutting our energy and resource usage.
We have communities in Canada where this is done.
They're called Reservations. Everyone gets a fairly considerable amount of money for doing nothing. There is no possibility of work for most people, no advancement, no purpose, no power.
You should really examine the social reality this model produces.
Needless to say, I really don't think we should apply this model to everyone.
You are right, and so is the parent post.
The robots are coming, and we have no concept of what to do with the large fraction of the labor force that will be surplus. The US economy is back to precrash GDP, but 9% of the workforce (or 17%, depending on which number you believe) is unemployed.
Some people will be able to adapt, and find an outlet for their talents, most will not, and the reservation system is good model of what can go wrong there. Or you get Pournelle's Welfare Islands.
"no purpose"
So what is it for you, exactly, that gives life purpose?
Working at a job pushing papers that no one really wants to see to make enough money to buy stuff you don't really want to impress people you don't really like...?
Shouldn't that be failing to impress people you don't really like... :-)
Most people find purpose in being needed. Providing for their families. "Building a future". etc. However transient and unreal those experiences are, they're what make us tick.
So can't we get that from growing things locally, providing care for each other, restoring damaged living communties...?
We have to figure out how to redirect the economy to promote these kinds of real valuable work, rather than making junk, shipping junk, selling junk, and trashing junk.
And our sources much match our sinks in some kind of human-scale time.
We have gone a long, long way from this.
Changing activities in light of changing economic motivation is certainly possible.
Voluntarily doing all those things while being fed from a welfare trough, however, appears to be unlikely.
If it were really true that we had a system where machines did all the work that humans needed to get the goods and services we need (including fueling and maintaining the machines), then I’d agree that there would be no reason to view laziness as an immoral act. But the reality is quite different.
While it’s true that today’s economy makes use of much machinery that replaces some types of human labor, we are nowhere near any kind of utopia where everything, or even most things, can be done without human labor. If we just look at one example – the US – which has a high degree of automation and mechanized labor, I could argue that the 90% of the population that does still have employment is being asked to work as hard as ever. Mechanization, or more generally technology and automation, can actually make this worse. For example, electronic tools for multi-tasking (a form of “mechanized” labor) are a way of extracting more productivity out of workers, not a way of freeing up time for them to relax in a utopian paradise. Electronic schedule planners are there to make sure that not one minute of a worker’s day goes unutilized. Anyone in corporate America is likely to participate in multiple seminars every year, learning the latest new business strategy for squeezing more productivity out of their employees or themselves. And the complexity of a highly mechanized system certainly doesn’t mean an easier time for those who have to keep the system going.
So the reality is that we have a system where it’s still necessary for the vast majority of people to work (90% at the moment), and that majority is being driven as hard as ever. And the labor of that 90% is what funds the sustenance of the 10% who have fallen out of the workforce for whatever reason. If the working majority does not perceive that their standard of living is better than the unemployed minority by a non-negligible extent, then the whole system will quit working. There will be no robots to step in and restore prosperity, because all the (human) robot repair technicians will be home waiting for their welfare checks to come in.
Although we have (in "developed" countries) an economy in which almost nothing can be done with a human, it is the machines which provide the muscle. The human is a control unit for the machine, but the machine is doing work that used to be done by humans or animals. This is particularly true for transportation, a lot of construction (anything involving a bulldozer, for example), and manufacturing.
True enough, but very much beside the point for the issue being discussed. The point isn't the extent to which human labor constitutes MANUAL work; the point is whether or not it's possible for humanity to get the goods and services it needs while a major portion of humanity contributes no effort at all. The farmer who drives a mechanized harvester to gather the grain is not doing as much manual "work" as the machine, but his efforts are nonetherless necessary for the rest of us to eat. The engineer who sits at a desk designing beneficial new technolgy behind a computer screen is making a valuable contribution that has nothing to do with manual work. The main consideration is that they are both providing effort that contributes to the creation of the things that allow any of us to have a good life.
And the point I was making in my post is that those folks who are out there spending 40 or 60 hours a week toiling at some endeavor that isn't fun or at least not what they'd be doing if they could spend their time in any manner they wanted, but doing things that are necessary for society to function, they'd better be able to look around and believe that they are materially better off than the ones who contribute no effort at all. Elevating the chronically unemployed to a status equal to the employed is a recepie for disaster. The post that I responded to seemed to be proposing an extremely bad idea.
Another rational option would be to reduce hours of those employed to reach closer to full employment. But we don't live in a rational society.
I would argue that there's still a lot of unmet needs that need work to be done in the world.
Big ones: healthcare, childcare, eldercare, education, environmental remediation.
No argument there. (Note that I said an-other option--not "the only option.")
I have worked in all of those fields, and they are all underpaid compared to the value the give society. In my rational world, money managers would be paid what childcare workers are paid now, and the latter be much better compensated. Few jobs are so important.
FYI if people want to read a (very good, IMO) book about just this situation, I recommend Player Piano by Kurt Vonnegut.
Available on Amazon for $10. 4 out of 5 stars with 84 reviews.
Even George Jetson had a manual labor job. Someone had to go in and push the button to start the Spacely Sprockets factory.
I'm surprised this hasn't come up in this thread. Ironically, the only character that was overweight was Rosie the Robot who did all the work around the house.
I beleive Mr. Spacely and Mr. Cogswell of Cogswell Cogs were overweight.
(and don't worry - if the "doom to food crops" people got it right this year, much of humanity will get a forced diet. Flooding and lack of rain isn't gonna help the crops. I believe a "local TOD corn farmer" was making a plea to the Government to create some kind of price or volume mandate so the corn->flesh market could continue)
Even George Jetson had a manual labor job. Someone had to go in and push the button to start the Spacely Sprockets factory.
I'm reminded of a network specialist who got called in by a legal firm whose system had gone down. They insulted him, told him he was their "backup computer geek" because their "regular computer geek" was on vacation, and laughed at him. The job consisted of pushing the reset button on the back of their network server and watching it go through its recovery cycle.
They were somewhat less amused when he charged them $400 for doing it.
He could have explained that his normal rate was $200/hour, and that his minimum charge time was two hours. He could have complained that he had to drive halfway across Los Angeles to get there, and he was leaving critical projects on hold just to reboot their stupid server. He could have told them he didn't want their business because he had better things to do.
But, instead he just itemized it as:
Pushing Button: $1.00
Knowing Which Button to Push: $399.00
Well it's a variant of a common joke. But it might be true, lawyers are definitely the worst people to work for.
... until you need one on your side.
Best bet - understand the law and feel like you can represent yourself.
Then remember the power of judicial complaints, bar greviences and make darn sure you have a court reporter or a notary if they have the power to act as a notary in court.
He (or she) who represents themselves often has an emotionally involved fool as their advocate.
And emotions BTW, do block clear thinking.
Moreover, amateur knowledge of the law is a cheap excuse for explaining why you lost.
____________
Next up: Do It Yourself brain surgery and how to build a low cost nuclear reactor in your backyard (preferably a LENR reactor)
p.p.s.: Do you even know what a "notary" is (definition) and what they do and can't do? Making sound-good noises is not the same as knowing what you are talking about.
He (or she) who represents themselves often has an emotionally involved fool as their advocate.
That is true, which is why the best advice is you draw up your paperwork ahead of time, make sure the black letter law stands on your paperwork, move the court to grant you the relief you seek and then state:
I stand on my paperwork your honor.
Do you even know what a "notary" is
Yes I do. In some states they can serve the same function as the court reporter - provide an 'exact' record of what happened.
Tis best to have that exact record for the appeal because you will need to show how the judge failed to do what the judge was supposed to do.
Well then they're working for you.
Hi Wasted Energy,
I think you make a very good point - I've always found it useful to consider the boundaries of a problem. One assumes that these extremes will most likely never actually happen - but, like you said, a good thought experiment.
The other extreme, in this thought experiment, is an economy where absolutely everyone spends all waking hours engaged in back breaking, menial, manual labor - a bare bones subsistence economy.
In this latter extreme, the word "work" may not even be in the vocabulary of these folks as there is not a concept of not working. Concepts like wealth distribution would never exist. Perhaps something almost this extreme was the dominant culture for the bulk of homo sapien's time - maybe for 40,000 years or so. Around 12,000 years ago we developed agriculture and we have struggled ever since with how to interact with each other - including dealing with this idea of "work". It also seems that this is the second time that humans have faced the issue of a relatively work-free paradigm for some folks - the first being when ruling classes had huge numbers of slaves to do all the heavy lifting.
The avoidance of this problem brings two thoughts to mind (we are doing a "thought experiment"):
- The solutions are relatively straight forward - TOD folks are brimming with solutions. Personally, I would start with the book "Plan C" for many strategies and then add my own ideas about humane ways to reduce global population. However, my preferences aside, a purely technical team (totally free of ideology, no BAU bias, etc) like the folks who put a man on the moon could conceive of a comprehensive plan to save the planet and "guarantees everyone the right to a decent life". I was even inspired by the way James Cameron orchestrated his team to produce Avatar. It is not beyond the ability humans to have the vision and manage a project to meet these goals.
- The obstacle is the manner in which human nature has evolved. Carl Sagan warned against politicians appealing to the "reptilian" portions of our brain and inciting aggression, territoriality and fear of strangers. He pondered our chances of surviving long enough to communicate with other intelligence in the universe. He wondered if we could overcome these very traits that allowed us to become the dominant animal on the planet and evolve to a new level of rationality and cooperation. I see little evidence of his hopes being realized.
Hard indeed! Things like PO/GW/etc are just symptoms of a much larger problem. IMO, the real problem is the collective block in the minds of nearly all people to see some very obvious aspects of our existence. There is the story (true or not) of the indigenous people who could not "see" Columbus' sailing ships anchored a short distance out in the Caribbean because they had no frame of reference for a sailing ship - they just appeared as clouds until a shaman began to understand this was something different. We are generally just as dysfunctional because we are crippled in our earliest childhood with a nonsensical worldview that blends our (real) natural world with an unreal (false) concept of a supernatural world. We can do brilliant mathematical equations and yet not understand the simple notion of "limits to growth". We are, afterall, creatures with an immortal soul that will transcend any earthly problems.
My parents always said not to discuss religion or politics with strangers. I understand that some on TOD feel the same way. I don't think PO "has a prayer of a chance" of being mitigated until these subjects are front and center.
+5
Well said.
But alas buried within many offshore clouds [ i.mage.+]
yes, capitalists loaning (and governments "giving") money to the consumers so they can keep on spending. And the financiers making money both in the transactions but also in securitizing said debt and selling it to the pensions funds for the consumers.
Too many arrows.
And too few employed laborers to shoot them at >;^)
I can't remember who it was that posted this graphic a while back. I flipped it upside down but kept the relationships intact and then reposted it. Yeah, lot's of arrows.
OIL PRODUCTION PER CAPITA AND TOTAL UNEMPLOYED PEOPLE IN UNITED KINGDOM
Maybe a relation oil produced and jobs?
Barrels of oil produced per day and per million people in the United Kingdom ; number of monthly average people claiming unemployment benefit :
YEAR ......... bbl/day (2001 change)..... unempl.
2001 ......... 42,70 (===) ............. 1,2 mln
2003 ......... 40,16 (-6%) ............. 1,5 mln
2005 ......... 30,90 (-28%) ............. 1,7 mln
2007 ......... 27,81 (-35%) ............. 1,9 mln
2009 (ext.) 23,25 (-46%) ............. 2,5 mln
2011 (ext.) 20,50 (-52%) .... (ext.) 3,0 mln
unempl data, graph :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/interactive/2009/jun/22/unemployment-...
oil per capita data :
CIA World Factbooks 18 December 2003 to 18 December 2008
If that's a valid proposition, it should hold at all locations, not only the UK. I think you'll find the eg. Canada with continually rising oil production in that period had an employment graph of very similar shape. And Sweden, with minimal-to-no oil production? Finland? Denmark? Germany?
Maybe UK abused to link oil production, economics and labor policies as no other countries did. I don't know. I do not live in the UK and I do not know their decisions from 1990 to 2010... But I se these numbers and I think that a strong link exist.
There is a soft argument concerning oil production, balance of payments and unemployment for the UK, which while I give some credence its a stretch to make this some universal relationship as lengould suggests
UK policy has a great deal to do with it.
I think it has been commented on that the fate of countries with oil export capacity is not always good .. numerous examples. The status of oil exporter is probably a better place to look for relationships
Part of the problem is "What's your definition of a job?" Is it a 2000 workhour year, eg. 50 weeks at 40 hrs/week which earns say $60,000? Why not a 1,000 workhour year which earns $60,000? Or should it be a 1,000 workhour year which earns $30,000?
This stuff should be clarified I think.
exactly.
If someone stays home and cooks, cleans and looks after the kids is that person classified as not having a job? I don't want to get into the whole feminist debate but it is arguable that even though both husband and wife now work their standard of living as measured by spare £/$ at the end of each month and their structural security are actually much less than back in the days when wife would wave the husband good bye in the morning and then set to keeping the house. There is a very good lecture by Elizabeth Warren on this topic here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A
HA - I understand your point. Perhaps the key isn't so much how we define a job as how that job impacts the economy. Take one extreme example: both mom and dad stay at home and raise the kids with the help of income off of a nice inheritance. The money they have invested while working their "job" adds to the liquidity market...a good thing. And they consume what they consume. A little tax revenue for the gov't but not much if their CPA knows what he's doing. But they really have no direct impact on the economy. Go to the other extreme: Bill gates. he has a job but his "job" has led to tens of thousands of jobs directly by Microsoft and millions indirectly. And billions of $'s of income and 100's of millions of tax revenue into the system.
But none of those points change the fact that the "non-working" couple are doing a serious job: raising a child to be a smart contributor to our economy is the basis of our real strength. Consider the good Gates' mom and dad did for society. So collectively many seemingly inconsequential jobs appear unimportant compared to the efforts of some industry leader. But collectively they make great societies just that...great. Thus, IMHO, debating who has a important job is pretty much a dead end conversation. A janitor can't make the money a CEO makes. He doesn't have the same impact. OTOH he does his job and however small that contribution might be measured he is doing a job. In the end the cumulative effect is what counts IMHO.
Consider the good Gates' mom and dad did for society.
Two lawyers who bred a child who used child labor laws VS a local professor to get the rights to the BASIC computer language?
Who used contract law and cutting off the cash flow of Seattle Micro to get QD-DOS?
Who used copyright to stop the cloning of the Apple ][?
Who used the contracts with Digital to stop the far better Digital email system over the Microsoft offering?
The historically lax security and buggy software has provided legions of staffers jobs and gallows humor trying to keep their software running however. Oh the howls of laughter when Microsoft tells its users to place FreeBSD machines running Sendmail in front of a Microsoft mail server for protection. The employment of staffers who knew FreeBSD to keep hotmail running while Microsoft got their software good enough to do what old FreeBSD/Sendmail was doing. Oh the dancing round the bonfires every 2nd Tue of the month.
Lets look at the flip side - what is the "job" of writing open source software "worth"? FreeBSD, Apache, Drupal, PHP, PostgreSQL all are part of what makes TOD run. Most of what can be done with Microsoft branded software can be done with open source - so is the value to society the task or the name brand on the tool?
(did you know that one State in the Union uses PostgreSQL for their court tracking system? Saves 1/4 of a million a year in software licencing fees VS what they had. The high ball estimate is 2.5 million when the expanded the system and would have had to bought new software/licences Yet the State legislature has lobbyists whispering in thier ears about how untrustworthy and expensive Open Source is.)
10+
the business model: "deliver crappy product - promise next (paid!) upgrade will fix it" was a stroke of genius. But was it moral? Sorry, forgot, morality and business are not compatible.
Thus this ring a bell? Phantom data
If you have used Win 98 you will know what I am talking about!
Best
Umberto
Was Phantom Data on those so-called "smart phones" a planned bug or a bug that results from poor R & D?
The phones were sending 50 MB of data without the user's permission eating up 2GB in 20 days! Wow. Microsloth is getting lazier and lazier.
LOL. You never can tell, but when the error is in favor of the big guy -- you bet they milk it -- when will the lawsuits kick in? And then in Congress they will cap liabilities for bugs in cell phones that bilk the consumer in millions of dollars a month. LMAO.
Waste is the master plan of industry. Perfect example.
a child who used child labor laws VS a local professor to get the rights to the BASIC computer language? Who used contract law and cutting off the cash flow of Seattle Micro to get QD-DOS? Who used copyright to stop the cloning of the Apple ][? Who used the contracts with Digital to stop the far better Digital email system over the Microsoft offering?
Do you have sources? I'm curious for more info.
one State in the Union uses PostgreSQL for their court tracking system?
Which state? My local court system might benefit.....
a child who used child labor laws VS a local professor to get the rights to the BASIC computer language?
Track down the professor/court documents.
Who used contract law and cutting off the cash flow of Seattle Micro to get QD-DOS?
Book - don't remember which one.
Who used copyright to stop the cloning of the Apple ][?
Lawsuit Franklin/Apple.
Who used the contracts with Digital to stop the far better Digital email system over the Microsoft offering?
Infoworld
My local court system might benefit
Get on the postgreSQL mailing list. Ask there.
Yep! Especially if the person happens to be a man... BTW in the US if the man is divorced and unemployed he's still expected to pay his child support.
To me the TED talk I link below is disturbing because the talk is built on what seems to me, to be the false premise of the continuing expansion of a service based economy. It pays lip service to equality between the sexes and pretends to be concerned about the fate of men in our society but comes across as being stridently clueless.
I think Peak Oil puts a lot of sand into the gears of the base assumptions. Good luck to all men who actually do 'real' work. You are now dispensable because all the women now have the law degrees are MBAs and work in sales, advertising, marketing and financial services, which exist in a world that no longer needs, engineers, farmers, construction workers etc.
Hanna Rosin: New data on the rise of women
http://www.ted.com/talks/hanna_rosin_new_data_on_the_rise_of_women.html
You and Lengould are making germane comments, imo. Looking at this from an economic analysis perspective ignores two things outright: economics is voodoo and the future must be steady-state; growth is no longer an option. If growth is no longer an option, then, by extension, neither are profit and jobs. A society based on exchange and gifting is the only real alternative. Any solution not moving in that direction is likely a waste of time because it wastes time, energy and resources. Some transitional processes and structures might exist between here and there, but to help us get there they will likely need to be designed as, and acknowledged to be transitional at inception.
Some assumptions:
Jobs do not create community, work can.
The size of community we can have meaningful relations with is likely in the range of 150 and a few thousand, as per Dunbar.
Profit is inherently inflationary. Exchanges in the future must seek fair and equal exchange.
Usury is inherently inflationary and must be eliminated or countered by Jubilee.
Jubilee is likely a necessary step in transitioning to a non-growth society. Eliminating all debt makes it possible to live in a non-monetized system where free exchange of goods or services for what is needed is possible.
Monetized exchange creates the need for jobs. A non-monetized system makes all exchanges possible.
The Commons must be claimed. The ecological services provided by nature must be understood to belong to all so that the exchange of work, goods and services is non-monetized and seen as a right, not a hand-out.
We are at or have passed tipping points in climate requiring the immediate draw down of at least 90 ppm of CO2 requiring not only a carbon neutral economy, but a carbon negative society until we reach a level of CO2 that allows the ice caps to not only stop melting, but regrow and stabilize.
The legal system has to be changed to deal with the exception rather than imposing abstract limits on the whole; the social contract must be the primary source of structure rather than law, per se. By abdicating our judgment and right to free action in favor of a massively complex legal structure, we have eliminated the social contract from our lives.
I have probably forgotten a few things, but this will suffice for now.
In earlier eras when fractional banking and usury were controlled, prices remained stable over generations. This provided a kind of certainty and security because a given economic process could be expected to yield a given gain and provide a given amount of support to a family over a very long period of time. Planning was possible. However, in this era economic uncertainty is the norm, and getting worse all the time. We balanced this for a time by using taxes to support the average family and moderate the flow of wealth to the wealthy. The end of a viable tax regime over the last few decades (among other things) spelled the end of the economically stable middle class family. As Elizabeth Warren pointed out, costs became more inflexible and real wages dropped so precipitously that two working adults cannot provide the economic security of one working adult a generation ago.
Obviously, debt has played a large role as all aspects of human activity have become monetized and communities in any real sense have ceased to exist. Child care is not provided by family and neighbors, but by professional providers with licenses, e.g. In fact, it is illegal to provide day care for friends and neighbors. We have legislated the obsolescence of community. Unless we de-monetize the various social contracts, community cannot rebuild for fear of fines and incarceration. Dunbar's Number becomes a gerrymandered abstraction of community as we are forced to engage "professionals" for services family, friends and neighbors used to provide. (The role of social media in creating these gerrymandered social structures is something to be considered, but not here.)
In order to create communities that are non-monetized, they have to be allowed to function as complete communities and be free to determine mediums of exchange amongst themselves, as well as determine and administer consequences to ensure healthy relationships among themselves. This cannot happen as long as abstract legal boundaries exist and all behaviors and services are monetized.
The ability to regenerate community makes transition possible via vastly reduced energy consumption. To the extent daily economic and social activity can occur within a given community of a few thousand or less, the exchange of goods, services and people between communities and across various boundaries can be greatly reduced, thus reducing consumption considerably. Re-skilling would enhance the localization of activity and provide a broader range of service for exchange via time banks, e.g.
A means of encouraging this is for the government to fund neighborhood-level energy infrastructure to be planned and implemented within the community. Installation of energy generation means and retrofitting to reduce consumption would provide a significant boost to the economy at all levels, but particularly the local level if small-scale, DIY solutions are supported. If communities are allowed to find their own solutions and scale them as they see appropriate, they should seek to maximize the effectiveness of the solutions, which would encourage reducing consumption as part of the process. Small DIY systems cannot provide the energy needed in a home heated to 75F in the winter, cooled to 72 in the summer, with a TV blasting in every room and lights on all over the house. They can do so for a home with a well-sealed and insulated envelope maximizing solar gain in winter and minimizing it in summer in which the family gathers in one room for a board game, study, discussion, what have you.
Still, none of this works if there is no Commons, if debts are requiring the constant pursuit of more money than actually required to live, if profit is our motive for providing services and goods and if all we do is regulated so that we cannot have a free flow of economic activity. A community with access to the commons can use broken down cars as sources for generators for windmills, micro-hydro, bicycle generators, etc. They can use abandoned buildings for activities and functions or as source materials for work needing to be done, repairs made. They can choose to use empty lots to feed the community, or even grow food for exchange of other goods and services with other communities. They can cut each others hair, repair their own clothes, manage trees for fuel or lumber or food. They cannot do these things without licenses, insurances, taxes paid, fees paid and elaborate regulations to ensure safety against the rare event at present.
In aboriginal communities, the lines between work and play can be quite ambiguous, even non-existent. Those activities necessary to the functioning of the community simply get done as a matter of course, a natural part of the rhythm of the village, and even without work schedules and assignments. People can flow in and out of activities. Of course, this assumes a buy-in, sense of oneself as being of the community rather than a being focused on the individual. For us, there is a need to build this process, to recreate it, but work as play, as social contract, as community-building rather than profit and income driven, particularly in terms of servicing debt is a necessary condition of an energetically viable system. At the end of the day, any system must be based in the thermodynamic realities of constrained energy production and climatic limits to emissions.
This not a world in which ores are not mined, communications not maintained, economies deconstructed, but it is a world in which consumption has purpose and meaning that directly impacts the health of the community, in all facets. It is a world in which excess does not exist because we mimic nature and make sure we have an input in the system for that output. It is a system where production is not monetized and engaged in for profit, but meets a social need.
Think in terms of a permanent summer on the farm with grandpa and grandma with more leisure time, much greater economic equality and a hi-tech backbone. The internet - reduced in scale - can provide communication and information and the means to learn and experience beyond our shrunken world. Hopefully, in time we will harness the sun so well we might all be living in straw bale homes, growing our own food, but be able to take the maglev to Paris for a nice meal and some local theater in the park and return home for the barn raising on Monday.
For now, let's just get to the point where our survival isn't legitimately in question.
I like this idea a lot. However, when you say, "for the government to fund" I wonder what level of government you are talking about. In the US, local governments are even more starved than state governments. I can't think of a single city or county that would have the money to fund such an undertaking on their own.
Perhaps some state(s) could fund some local governments, but most state governments are facing large deficits. The federal gov controls a lot of money but is also facing huge deficits.
Here is something I proposed some years ago here in Sacramento -- obviously with no success, but I thought I'd mention it:
Grant a monopoly on retail energy sales to local gov. So, for example, all the gas stations would belong to local gov. The local gov could then take some of the profits and grow local energy. I suppose you could imagine there might be just a little opposition from energy captains so I guess that's why no politician wanted to take it up. I've thought about making it a ballot initiative.
Anyway, you have a lot of good thoughts there. I can't say I agree with every bit of it, but it helps illustrate how deep the faults run in our system. A good result does not seem likely, but who knows?
Ban Ki-Moon recently voiced the more and more common call for a massive plan to deal with this. It's gaining traction. This would be a Fed level think, I'd think; about half a trillion or 5k per household.
We spent far and away more on the bailouts and stimulus and got far less for it.
pri-de:
Nice post. I'm agnostic though, on whether we'll realize this vision or have Mad Max instead. Obviously peak oil has so many interesting political and financial angles which few really thought about before 2008, but now many are catching on pretty quickly.
George W. Bush: "...this sucker is going to go down."
Was he smarter than we thought? Or just the village idiot who pointed out the obvious?
Thanks.
I wasn't talking about what will happen, but what must. Seven billion all moving in the same direction seems a bit of a stretch to me, too, and is why many thinking these sorts of thoughts figure it's a coming-out-the-other-side scenario. My problems with that is being a father and not wanting that to be the case, and that I see essentially a zero percent chance of there being a "the other side" in any sense that would be worth being around for.
Three choices, imo: managed decline, end of civilization/massive die off/extinction (distinctions without a difference) or a miracle.
I loved the joke my daughter sent me. At his first inauguration, W. asks Bill Clinton if he can use his private washroom. Bill says "sure, go ahead, its via the oval office there". George goes in, and when he comes out hes all excited. He's gushing to a large group "I can't believe it. There's a gold-plated urinal in there and everything!!!! I can't wait 'till its mine!" Later that night the Clintons are going to bed. Hillary leans over to Bill and says "By the way, I found out who pee'd in your Saxaphone". ;0)
pri-de
this is the most concise summary of the situation we are in today I have read in a long time. I would argue on a few points only.
What are the chances we will be able to implement most of what you say? ===> 0%, actually less than that, IMHO!
Because most all of your points require the removal of the power structures which are controlling our lives today.
A decentralized society is one which cannot be governed and controlled as easy - and most importantly: cannot be manipulated as easy to maximize profits for big business and their backers. And you are probably aware how they would react to such a proposal!
But I am not saying it will not be done in the end. I am thoroughly convinced it will. Just not the way most people visualize.
Your post goes definitely into my collection of comments worth keeping (not that this is meaning anything to you - LOL)! Well done. May I ask what your background is?
Best
Umberto
Thanks for your overly kind words.
Yup, will be tough, but what's the point of giving up? Hey, nobody had to die on the Titanic; all they needed was the proper number of lifeboats.
That's sort of like the company that wants to sell you the plan on "How to be a Billionaire" -
Step One: Get a billion dollars
Step Two: ...
Describing the end state is the easy part. The plan on how to get from here to there is the next easiest. But convincing people to buy lifeboats for an unsinkable ship? Now that's the hard part.
Actually, it's not. You really have to understand a lot of different aspects of the system to design something that is reasonable. Harder, though, is getting people with no sense of the whole to see what you see.
Really? I see that as the hardest part. As for the lifeboats, that's likely to take the equivalent of hitting the ice berg, which I believe we have already done. Thankfully, unlike the folks on the Titanic, we know how to re-purpose the Titanic itself. We don't want them to buy lifeboats, we want them to build them.
Step 2= make a small fortune
(by quickly depleting that big one)
pri-de
LOL
Who was asking the passengers how many they wanted? Or, more to the point, who among the passengers was able even to contemplate the consequences of not having the right amount of lifeboats?
Which questions - transfered into our current or coming predicament - opens a whole lot of other questions.
Giving up is an active decision you are making - sort of throwing your hands in the air and saying "what's the use?". Also running around like a chicken with no head is an activity. If one or the other - or none - is useful is open for discussion!
What it comes down to - IMHO of course - is making a informed decision how "you" will react. Emphasis on "informed"! And this is the really tricky part! How to you distinguish what is useful and what is not?
Take the Internet, e.g.. With over 400 million pages - and growing - how can the individual know where to turn? And then most people don't even want to open their eyes and the PTB know that all to well.
Critical thinking was not something encouraged through the ages. Why to you think Stalin eradicated ~30 million people (mostly intellectuals) after WWII?
"Bread and Circus" worked for a long time and will for a while longer.
Best
Umberto
Not really. We need for output to be useful. Each source of output should have one or more inputs it feeds, and vice-versa. Running around with your head cut off doesn't meet this criteria, nor does giving up. Both are, then, pollutants to the system.
While the sentiment is right-headed, one must very, very carefully scrutinize the structure and the assumptions of NREL's modeling procedures for wind energy, solar, and biomass job growth. My review of their methods and the findings produced by their JEDI modeling structure finds they exaggerate net new job creation severely.
In analyzing this topic, whether we are moving from petroleum to biomass-based liquid fuels or to other energy sources, one must look at all of the jobs at one point in time producing all major forms of energy, to include "multiplied-through" relationships. Then one must evaluate on a unit-of-energy-produced basis the shifts that occur in the nation's economy as we move from one form of energy production to another.
When that is done, the number of net new jobs produced invariably embarrasses the early proponents.
If we look at this thing from a hard headed practical viewpoint, certain things become obvious immediately.
One is that the world is full of useful idiots running around loose and fools who will swallow almost anything hook , line, and sinker.Such people are more than ignorant enought to believe that cleaning up after hurricanes creates WEALTH-which it does not, although it does create some temporary employment.
The typical man on the street is willing to believe that paying one guy to dig a hole and another to fill it up again is good business, so long as it is done at somebody else's (read taxpayer) expense, and done locally.Lots of my liberal buddies seem to think that we actually gain something useful by paying big money to operate a city orchestra or modern art museum.
A very large portion of the people who know better are ready, willing, and able to lie convincingly to the same effect-as they see doing so as being to their personal advantage for various reasons-the biggest one being group solidarity.
Govt workers always seem to believe there are never enough people on the govt payroll, ditto unionized workers, editors of newspapers with subsidized industries within their circulation area, and so forth.The hospital industry will never believe there are enough hospitals, although the owners of any individual hospital always believe
there is not enough business for a competitor to open up nearby.
So called conservatives always seem to believe that there is never any justification for subsidizing any industry-unless of course it operates in their district, or pours big money into their coffers-witness corn,real cane sugar, and moonshine-er, excuse me,defense contractors, e10 and e15.Most of my conservative acquaintances fall into this camp.
The truth, if there is such a thing in this sort of discussion, falls somewhere in the middle.
If we accept it as givens that we are facing an imminent collapse in the supply of readily available fossil fuels, not to mention an ominious climate clange problem;and that subsidizing a small capital intensive industries will probably enable them to grow at vastly accelerated rates, then such subsisies are justifiable, on the basis of the general welfare.
Personally I find this line of reasoning reasonable, if not entirely convincing;the question turns on which industries to subsidize, and by what means.Personally I think we could get a lot more bang for our subsidy buck by subsidizing conservation and efficiency today, and renewables a few years down the road.As a practical matter, this would probably result in more money being retained in the local and national economy, as opposed to being spent on imported goods.
As a matter of theory and personal philosophy, I don't believe any andustry should be subsisized, unless the national security depends on our doing so; the market should and usually does care of such problems as subsidies might cure.
Unfortunately, there is not a lot of "free market" remaining in our economy, especially in the energy business;furthermore, the market does not necessarily work fast enough to solve a problem that is comming at us so fast, and requires so much change, as the coming energy crunch; and worst of all, perhaps, is the fact that the market cannot be expected to protect the environmental commons which keeps us , and the rest of living creation, alive and well.
The only reasonable conclusion I can come to as a realist is that we are certainly going to keep on passing out subsidies, and that therefore there is no question that renewables should be high on the priorities list; otherwise the money will just be spent on bankers bonuses, or some other such foolishness.
One of my most conservative relatives was able to buy and write off a fully tricked out new pickup truck a few months before he retired-this truck being a fifty percent defacto gift to him as , courtesy of congress allowing him to write it off on extremely favorable terms as an independent businessman;the remainder of the gift going to the auto workers who built it and the stockholders of Ford Motor Company.
and
OFM gave a pretty tortured argument saying, "I don't like subsidies but, given imminent collapse, I guess it's alright to give a little for renewables."
Did it have to come to "imminent collapse" to give a little? Let's hope it's not too little too late.
Fossil fuels and nuclear have benefited hugely from subsidies. It is safe to say the energy infrastructure we have is the product of close collaboration between energy industry captains and public policy makers, with a revolving door that makes it tough to distinguish one from the other. Didn't we just have oil men at Pres at VP level for 8 years? Did that really happen, or did I just wake up from a nighmare?
Dechert,
You are pretty close to the ten ring;actually my intent in part was and is to convince readers that are unconvinced of the justification for renewables subsidies to come around to supporting them by devious means. ;)
Sometimes the only way to win such an argument is to phrase it in terms of the lesser of two evils-as I posed it, bankers versus renewables, or autoworkers, paving contractors and the stockholders of Ford Motor versus renewables.Any political cynic(read realist) must admit that somebody is going to collect subsidies at the expense of the rest of us.
But we must never forget that subsidies can be extremely dangerous things-possibly one of the single most dangerous things in the economics tool box or medicine kit;let's not forget the subsidies that have been put into effect in the past that resulted in major harm to our society;you mentioned fossil fuels and nuclear-I will add tobacco, sugar, ethanol, etc, in the ag sector.Then there is the ego and gunpowder sector, aka the military industrial complex.We now have "big education" which is arguably one of the major problems with our schools.We have the so called University of Phoenix which sucks up tens of millions of tax dollars in federal student loans, which spends more on marketing its online services than it does on faculty.
We subsidized law schools until lawyers are as thick as flies around a pig pen in any two traffic light town.
Subsidies as medicines are addictive and as dangerous as tobacco or alcohol or heroin.They should be administered sparingly-I did put renewables subsidies "high" up on the list of things that are justifiably subsidized..
But we really should be spending our money on conservation and efficiency, because that is where the potential payoff is greatest, by a wide margin.This will probably remain true for some time, perhaps a decade or more.In the meantime, the real cost of renewables will be falling rapidly.
I have not bought any pv panels yet for this reason-I can save more money, and energy, by waiting as the prices keep on falling.A thousand bucks spent on a better refrigerator will save more energy over the next five years than the same thousand spent on panels will generate-but five years from now, the refrigerator will almost certainly cost more, in constant dollars, whereas the panels will almost certainly cost a lot less-possibly as much as one half less, in constant dollars.
OFM,
The continued price decline requires ever increasing sales, which require subsidies.
In your case, buy them before the 2016 end of 30% subsidies.
Alan
OFM,
Subtleties sometime escape me, especially in venues where I am not expecting them.
Thanks for the clue.
"subsidizing conservation and efficiency today, and renewables a few years down the road"
I hope there could be broad agreement on this.
But perhaps with a slight modification--
1)immediately large but then gradually diminishing subsidies for conservation and efficiency
2)initially modest but then gradually growing (but still limited) subsidies for renewables
3)immediate end to subsidies of all sorts and tax breaks for ffs (or at least very rapid reduction)
"Diminishing" in number one for conservation because once a house, for example, is super-insulated, it shouldn't need to be super-insulated again for a good long time.
Much of this could be done TARP like, with up front loans that are paid back gradually with no or very low interest as the savings are realized.
The main problem (besides the intractable political one) is training sufficient numbers to do high quality work.
OFM
a few years back there was a study done (sorry no link, was in Europe) which showed very clearly, that any Government structure above a certain size creates a yearly growth of, IIRC ~6.5% just by it's existence. The reason given was, that the last in the chain always wants to prove it's importance by having somebody below him in the food chain/seniority.
Their must be research of similar nature done in NA as well. No?
Best
Umberto
I agree, and that is why I suggest turning the argument around: given that more jobs equals higher energy cost, how many jobs will you claim now?
Jobs creation, investment in future energy production (i.e. food energy) that really makes sense in light of what the future will more likely bring. There is actually some serious talk of this kind of program among those in leadership roles. Can we solve two problems at once? Don't forget, you heard it here first! Or not.
George
Missed that post the first time, George. Great proposal,that PEC, with, as you say, no prospect of being implemented any time soon. Thanks for re-linking to it.
GeorgeM
from your post in Aug 2010 (with which I totally agree by the way):
And little above those words you hit on the root of the matter:
But this kind of attitude is not restricted to the US!
Why to you think the "American way of Live" has such an appeal world wide? It is the Holy Grail for most all people on this planet!
This leaves us with the question: does Humanity in its existing form even has a chance to survive? Not without a major change in its world view, IMHO.
Next question would be: Who - or what for that matter - would be able to accomplish such a change?
Politicians? - of any color? Yeah, right!
Best
Umberto
This is very interesting. Perhaps there is something inherently wrong with our system of infinite growth capitalism? Or at the very least, in the way that we value aspects of it. After all some of the mantras we live by are growth (more GDP at all costs) productivity (more GDP per unit of labor), and full employment. Clearly there's a problem there, as this essay (inadvertently?) illustrates. We cannot grow infinitely, and even if we could, we could not infinitely get more GDP per unit of labor whilst maintaining full employment. And - just asking - perhaps some portion of society should not be able to 'let their money' work for them, while everyone else labors in the pits? And clearly (to me at least), the economic lens through which this is viewed (not casting stones at your analysis, Joules, but rather at the whole capitalist-industrial-consume-the-planet system in which we are all ensnared) leaves out critical factors. Population growth, for one. That we need more jobs for more people, lest we have civil unrest, is driven ultimately by population growth. Again, not good on a finite sphere. Then there are the externalities. Clearly, clean, renewable energy is better for the planet (and hence us, since it's our home) than is burning fossil fuels. And we'll have to give up the FF eventually, anyway, right? I don't have answers, except for advocating the general message of powering down, reversing growth by choice rather than having it imposed on us, and moving to renewables, etc... Just positing that I think our system has been doomed from the start, and this analysis of one small (but critical) aspect of it serves to illustrate its failings. Now what to do about that?
Emphasis mine.
So how do you change paradigms? Thomas Kuhn, who wrote the seminal book about the great paradigm shifts of science, has a lot to say about that. In a nutshell, you keep pointing at the anomalies and failures in the old paradigm, you come yourself, loudly, with assurance, from the new one, you insert people with the new paradigm in places of public visibility and power. You don't waste time with reactionaries; rather you work with active change agents and with the vast middle ground of people who are open-minded.
Donella Meadows: Leverage Points - Places To Intervene In A System
I agree with the need to rethink the problem. People expect to hold onto the old model while grasping the new. But expectations are being set that renewables, after initially needing subsidies, will eventually deliver energy at lower cost. After awhile, somebody looks under the covers and sees something different. Euan Mearns will post something soon about the recent European experience.
This characterization is a bit off -- beginning a strawman argument. What is meant by "at lower cost?" Lower than what?
There is no reason to believe renewables need to be cheaper that fossil fuels. If you had a lot of money in the bank, would it be easier to just go to the bank and pull some out to spend, or would it be easier to earn it doing some work? It is certainly easier to take money from the bank, but eventually you should think about living on income, not capital.
Renewables don't need to be especially cheap. They need to have a decent EROI -- maybe 8 to 10 would be good. This has already been demonstrated to be achievable. Stable energy costs (EROI) and stable energy supply are more important than cheap. We can adjust to whatever EROI they provide. We can't easily adjust to falling EROI with an infrastructure that depends on high EROI to function.
I meant cheaper than they are now, the idea being that eventually people will pay (for renewables) what they are currently used to.
I don't think that's the primary motive. The general argument for renewables is that fossil fuels are going away, and we need to invest in alternatives. For the most part, people accept that we may have to pay more in the short run to develop the alternatives.
The basic argument is correct... I don't see any problem with it.
As for eventually paying less for energy, renewables may turn out to be cheaper as well. This depends largely on the time frame and other assumptions one makes in the analysis.
There is already some precedent for cheap renewable energy, namely hydro: High capital cost with low O&M and low overall energy cost considering the time frame over which the capital cost was amortized.
While the capital cost is higher, solar thermal-electric plants may turn out to be cheaper than hydro in the long run. Consider some of the plants under construction now in California: http://www.energy.ca.gov/siting/solar/index.html
Unlike hydro dams, these facilities could be in operation a thousand years from now. A hydro dam will eventually have to be decommissioned due to siltation among other things. There is no such limitation on the solar plants. They could see continuous operation (in aggregate) for centuries with downtime for repair and replacement of heliostats, receivers, storage tanks, piping, and whatever else. Assuming consistent public policy to keep these systems going, what do you think the electricity from one of these plants will cost, say, in the last decade of this century? I think it will be quite low, involving only O&M.
clifman
As an example what can go wrong with government incentives (told to me from people involved, no link, sorry):
In Germany the Government wanted to help Transport Comp which were in a slump. At the same time in Italy the Government wanted to lower the unemployment in the southern part of the country and offered subsidies for work brought there. In North Germany the potato growers needed bigger storage facilities, but did not want to invest the money.
Solution: The Transport Comp offered to transport the potatoes - which needed washing to bring them to market - for more than 4000km (down to Sicily and return) for next to nothing (because of Gov subsidies!), the washing in Sicily was costing next to nothing (because of Gov subsidies!), the potato growers did not need bigger store houses - therefore enhanced there profits (because the trucks on the road acted as store houses).
The taxpayers got stuck with the bill and people living beside the roads with the diesel fumes!
This kind of thinking is absolutely not sustainable, IMHO!
Best
Umberto
Yes. The insanities engendered and encouraged by cheap fossil fuels are... well, insane. Your example reminds me of one I learned right here on TOD a few days ago:
A better alternative to raise a steer to, say, 800 to 900 lbs and then add 75 or 100 lbs on imported corn plus some local ag waste (ground pineapple leftovers ? Ground fish waste ?)
Sold as "baby beef" and without the grass taste Americans are unused to. Perhaps a bit less fat/marbling but youth overcomes some of that.
Alan
Hmm, I thought the same thing. Can fish meal be made palatable to cattle and is the EROEI of fish meal better and is it less ecologically problematic than grain?
Anyways, I think the Hawaiians would do way better raising fish or insects for food. Flying cattle to the mainland for fattening is just plain insane.
While the Peruvians were vastly overfishing their anchovy fish stocks (Peru was #1 fishing nation by tons landed for several years), they sold them as animal i.e mainly cattle feed. Good protein supplement.
I wonder if breadfruit could compete with imported corn ? Fairly high production/acre but manual harvesting.
Tourists often are uninterested in seafood. Add retired, military, etc. I suspect that the Hawaii-born are not the big steak eaters.
Alan
Fish meal is probably better for them than corn. Corn is missing a number of essential proteins. They will eat it, but they will not be happy, contented cattle if that's all they get. Hay is what they are built to eat, and it helps if it has a lot of alfalfa or other legumes in it.
What the cattle themselves prefer is wild onions. This used to annoy my mother (an old cowgirl who had herded many a cow in her day) because they will travel miles to find wild onions, and then the milk and steak will taste of onions. Steak that tastes of onions is not too bad if you like onions, but milk that tastes of onions is just awful.
The EROEI of fish meal is definitely better than that of corn, assuming that you can get it. That's not guaranteed because the world's oceans are being fished out and wild fish will soon become a rare commodity.
I come from Alberta, where we don't grow corn, at least not for cattle consumption. We feed them on grass and fatten them on barley. I remember my first taste of corn-fed American steak. I was just disgusted, it was like eating carpet. However, if you put enough Hot Chipotle Sauce on it to kill the taste, it's survivable.
a lot of alfalfa or other legumes in it.
Is that the legumes or the deep root system of alfalfa thus allowing the plant to get the sub-soil minerals to the topsoil?
The EROEI of fish meal is definitely better than that of corn
At what cost to the ocean?
What's the value of turning the sea into a haven for jellyfish?
Ahhh, but you do have tourists from another island nation who find steak and whisky even more expensive in their homeland so that helps push up demand.
Isn't somewhat irrelevant how many jobs you can create in fossil fuel extraction if you're fundamentally limited in what you can extract? Whatever the immediate results, the end-game is the same: decline of the industry due to domestic scarcity, and increasing reliance on imports.
Renewables may not employ as many as promised, but this is because of the nature of renewable energy: all the costs are front-loaded in the initial capital investment. I can build a photovoltaic plant and not have to touch it for 30 years, whereas a turbine or steam boiler will require constant maintenance. What renewables really deliver that isn't talked about is long-term price stability: I would argue that a consistently expensive energy supply is preferable to a volatile market. People can plan investments accordingly around the expectation that energy prices will stay high, but it's much harder to make an appropriate decision in a volatile market.
I think you've got a valid approach to determine economic impact versus dollars invested/spent, but I think there are a that needs to be factored into this calculus that, in my opinion, sways the economic argument in favor of renewables when you factor in long-term direct costs and the intangible, perhaps unquantifiable, weight of a volatile energy market in terms of jittery investors.
I suppose you mean a PV unit installed somewhere, as opposed to a plant that makes them (which would seem to require a lot of touching). But photovoltaics do a) get dirty, b) break when hit by hailstones, and c) degrade over time.
As for my model, it's easier to follow the money that gets paid for jobs back to the consumer. But the economy overall is hopelessly complex, and I don't think anybody understands it (certainly not most winners of the Economic Prize in Honor of Nobel, or whatever it's called)
The technology is improving steadily. Look at this article for instance:
http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4212256/Startup-develops-printab...
Also, as the industry becomes more accustomed to handling nanotech, surprising results may be forthcoming. On the other hand, I've been promised for years batteries that can hold thousands of times more electrons in their nano-valleys (surface area), etc., so who knows ... ?
Actually, I think you can buy that quote online for $9.99 from the Used Technological Breakthrough Announcement Store. Just insert your company name, and you're good to go.
Have their people call my people. We'll do lunch.
JB, manufacturing costs of both thin film and conventional PVs have come down about 80% in the last 6 years. Just saying.
(certainly not most winners of the Economic Prize in Honor of Nobel, or whatever it's called)
*smile*
The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel
Excellent point. And we need consistent public policy driving us to a renewable energy based economy. In California, in 1991, Governor Deukmejian put the largest solar power plant (LUZ) into bankruptcy with the stroke of a pen. What investors would be interested in making large investments where the plug can be pulled at any moment on the whim of a governor? It froze the industry for many years.
It may seem obvious that stability in terms of price and availability of energy would be highly desirable, but we have to keep in mind that some people profit on volatility and instability. I think most people want stability and they want control over their lives. Part of the problem is that stability and control look different to the industrialist.
I'm convinced we can create millions of clean energy jobs. Just look to the lessons of Hollywood.
Conan the Barbarian pushes the Wheel of Pain nonstop for ten years. And don't forget Judah Ben-Hur rowing the galley. Here we're not just talking about jobs, but also job security. A little elbow grease is all it will take to make America strong again.
This article does bring up some interesting points about job creation in general
and building a sustainable future.
However the premise that "labor" and "capital" are the only variables of economics
is a throwback to the "Labor Theory of Value" of Karl Marx derived from David Ricardo. The other key input which is the major theme of "Peak Oil"/
"Peak Everything" is supply of resources.
If iPods grew on trees then what would be the labor involved?
Actually Wind Energy in the long term probably does not create net jobs - there
will be jobs created building the wind turbines but hopefully with some continuing
costs of maintenance they will continue to produce electricity for many years without mining coal, shipping it,etc etc.. The same goes for Solar Energy.
Green Transit as far as passengers not only creates jobs in building new
Light Rail systems, High-speed Rail or restoring Rail but also creates new
permanent jobs in terms of conductors, engineers, bus drivers, shuttle drivers
to operate public transit. (Replacing unpaid car drivers)
However freight moved by Rail instead of trucks after the initial buildout
will undoubtedly cut a lot of truck-driver jobs.
Take for example the "Crescent Corridor" being built by Norfolk Southern RR:
http://www.thefutureneedsus.com/crescent-corridor/
As they note in the sidebar:
A million trucks a year taken off these Interstates also means all those
truckdrivers out of work. It will take a lot less crew to run the trains.
Furthermore rails take a lot less maintenance than highways which means
less jobs in the long run for all those highway repaving contractors.
But then we need to ask the question: is this such a bad thing?
We should be reducing the amount of work hours and instead spreading out
the necessary work amongst a greater pool of people.
The Labor movement successfully did that for years cutting workweeks from
60-70 hours per week including weekends to 40 hours per week with weekends
off and paid vacation time.
But since Reagan and the neo-conservative/liberal reactions the push has
been to make people work more, frequently for salaried workers without paid
overtime, and overall unemployment goes up.
This is where Marxist analysis DOES come in - basically capitalists running
the system want to maintain unemployment and a labor surplus while also
generating new consumer desires or other expenditures like the military
to maintain demand for their products and maintain their profits.
In a post-peak world that sort of waste of resources to enrich 1% at the
top will be difficult to maintain.
While there was a growing pie due to cheap energy and resources, it was
easier to argue that everyone gets a bigger slice.
But as resources dwindle then it becomes increasingly obvious that the shrinking
pie should be divided more equally.
This is leading to huge political upheavals as the bankers and neoliberal governments attempt to impose austerity regimes on Greece, Iceland, Ireland, UK
etc and the people push back.
A million transits and not one million of trucks with one million of different truck drivers.
Anyway, may the futur bring us more small farmers and less truck drivers. Our kids will be thinking us.
One does need resources of course, but the value of these depends on what you do with them. Oil had a lot more value after the ICE was invented. And we don't pay anybody for them (except perhaps tossing virgins into volcanoes in various eras).
All economic theories work until they don't.
A million trucks a year taken off these Interstates also means all those truckdrivers out of work. It will take a lot less crew to run the trains.
Furthermore rails take a lot less maintenance than highways which means
less jobs in the long run for all those highway repaving contractors.
I think they meant a million truck trips, NOT a Million trucks.
(see the mention of "170 million gallons of fuel saved annually" - no truck is going to use only 170 gallons a year !!
170 gallons per trip, perhaps.
and I see they avoid mention that TWO truck drivers will be needed, one at each end to connect the Rail to the actual customer. (and someone else to schedule/track/invoice this triple handling...)
This article leaves out oil. How is oil relevant? Electric cars will need to replace oil cars
if we want to keep the money in the domestic economy that now goes overseas to pay for oil.
Not only do we lose that money, but it goes to fund Iranian nuclear weapons and many other
unsavory activities. We don't buy oil directly from Iran, but US consumption keeps the price
high, Iran can then sell its oil at high prices as a result.
When we replace oil with electricity do we want to produce that electricity in a sustainable
manner, or just kick the can down the road?
If it is cheaper to kick the can, what do you think will be the prevailing answer?
Electric cars are always floated as the panacea that will resolve
our problems maintaining a transit system monopolized by private cars.
Electric cars are not the answer...
Although electric cars themselves are not directly polluting, to provide
the electrical energy for electric cars is prodigious and, if it comes
from fossil fuels, polluting.
The following article shows the enormous amounts of energy
required for electric cars:
http://www.ajc.com/business/utilities-thrilled-and-worried-750328.html
So much for electric cars solving our energy problems without fossil fuels!
The average American families 2 cars would mean providing enough
electricity for 2 more American houses!
That is not to mention the enormous externalities of our overbuilt road
system in terms of constant repaving required with asphalt (another oil derivative), 30,000 auto deaths, ambulances for car accidents, traffic cops,
traffic courts, 10 times land wasted for 8 lane highways, multi football
field sized parking lots etc, etc etc.
On top of that electric cars are very expensive ($40K for the Volt) and
themselves rely on rare earths and elements themselves of limited supply.
We already have electric transit - i.e. TRAINS and Light Rail!
In cities and regions such as NYC and New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore,
Boston, Washington DC, Chicago these systems are already up and running but
underutilized as "commuter only" transit instead of fully utilized to
just get around.
In almost all of these cities rail service is minimal to none for off-peak
hours and weekends even though the variable costs to just operate more
train service is minimal.
For example NJ Transit provided 320 million transit trips for operating
costs of only $300 Million i.e. less than $1 per trip.
There is nothing wrong with promoting electric vehicles.
But if we seriously want to save the 70% of US oil used for transit then
the FIRST step should be to run the public transit we already have.
Instead of $3 Billion for "Cash for Clunkers" we would have been better off
spending $3 Billion on maintaining transit services in the 150 communities
where it has been cut since the Great Recession.
Next is to get fleets of electric shuttles to provide the last
mile of access to efficient rail transit.
And then revive rail services on the 233,000 miles of Rail we already have
which is largely sitting and doing nothing.
Any of you readers who live in the US will probably find that you already
live within a few miles of train tracks most of them doing almost nothing.
We need truly Green Transit not electric cars...
Electric cars are PART of the solution, not THE solution. Of course public transport needs to grow.
But we are stuck with the buildings where they now exist . . . we can't push them closer together. So we will still need personalized transport in the form of cars.
we are stuck with the buildings where they now exist
Not really.
Most commercial buildings have a design life in the 30 to 40 year range.
In the last dozen plus years, unless specifically required by code, all components are designed to last 20 years (down from 30 years) before major repairs are required.
Modern buildings are *NOT* made to last !
An "under water" home owner cannot borrow for a new roof, failing siding, cabinets falling apart, plumbing issues, etc. etc. And how many will put large sums of their own money in ?
Add to this that McMansions were a fad, which may be passing. "Last years fad" is never appealing. And the number of bedrooms and bathrooms often exceed what most households of tomorrow need, or will want.
As gas prices climb, the more remote suburbs and exurbs will shrink. Public services will decline while tax rates climb.
So we may NOT be "stuck with the buildings where they now exist".
Best Hopes for Transit Orientated Development,
Alan
"We need truly Green Transit not electric cars..."
False Choice. We need a balanced mix of all workable tools.. and a balanced discussion.
You keep putting many of the most extreme numbers and details into your arguments..
$40k/EV .. This for the first models, in fairly modest runs.. but there are people who are converting existing ICEs into EVs for $9-12k.. and 'EV' means Vehicles, and there are many folks creating much smaller and lighter wheels, like Electric Velomobiles, Scooters and Motorbikes, offering a growing range of options.
"..who live in the US will probably find that you already live within a few miles of train tracks most of them doing almost nothing." We also often live within a few miles of most of what we need on a daily basis.. and EV's will help a great many people handle their daily local travel. I'm all for rebuilding transit, trolleys and Interurbans, but we have a transition to get through.. and roads are how we get around today.
Brian,
Nice piece with an appropriate level of skepticism towards some of the claims made in the renewables industry. From my perspective I don't think we should pursue renewables simply because they might create more jobs than other forms of energy production. There are plenty of other reasons why we need to switch from fossil fuels to renewables whether more jobs are created or not. The jobs issue is just necessary pandering to the currently jobless electorate.
I would like to point out, however, that this piece, like almost all TOD posts, focuses entirely on energy production. What about energy conservation?
If a national goal is to create lots of jobs then one of the best ways to achieve this would be to embark on a major energy conservation retrofit of existing infrastructure. This would undoubtedly create hundreds of thousands if not millions of working class jobs in the US. Those jobs would also develop a workforce skilled in thinking about how to use less energy - a desirable mindset going forward. Almost a year after its introduction, the US Senate has yet to pass the Cash for Caulkers bill which the House passed last year and for which it allocated $6 Billion. (For comparison, the US Military budget in 2010 was $685 Billion.)
I see a couple of main reasons why the United States is not currently pursuing energy conservation in any meaningful way.
Efficiency isn't sexy.
Fusion is sexy. Wind power is attractive. Tidal is challenging. Installing insulation is simply too blue collar for most engineering and policy types to get excited about.
Consuming less is un-American
Americans invented the consumer society and they like it! Dick Cheney was channeling some deeply rooted attitudes when he said: "The American way of life is non-negotiable." Conservation is for limp-wristed socialists like Scandinavians or Jimmy Carter. ;-)
Americans want a short term payback
In a society where the average length of home ownership is under ten years it is difficult to get people excited about something with a longer payback.
Energy in the US is still too cheap
The US consumer has never gone through a protracted period where electricity and natural gas were expensive by world standards. Until that happens, conservation will be a hard sell.
Despite these hurdles, conservation seems to me to be the best way forward for various reasons:
Best Hopes for a renewed focus on Conservation!
Jon
No! No! No! We can do this..., there's lots of renewables job creation down the road...
Solar-powered 'smart' roads could zap snow, ice
http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/innovation/01/19/smart.roads/index.html?hpt...
By Thom Patterson, CNN
January 19, 2011 10:59 a.m. EST | Filed under: Innovation
"How much would the solar highway cost? Brusaw calculates an estimated cost -- in great detail -- on his website. Short answer: each mile would cost $4.4 million. Payoff? A cleaner, self-sustaining highway that would eventually pay for itself in energy production and in other ways, he said."
Ok, there are about 26 million miles of paved road in the US and if that cost estimate is correct, which I highly doubt, I'll bet it would be more... and say we divide that number by half to account for roads in the south that don't have snow and ice then multiply that number by the $ 4 million per mile, Voila!
That means this little joy ride into the future would cost a mere 52 trillion dollars, just for our new roads... I'm sure the Chinese will be happy to lend us that money.
And think of all the street sweepers you'd need to hire to keep the snow off the solar road during a blizzard so that it could soak up all that sunshine, which isn't there when you need it most. Win! Win!
Absolutely!
Conservation has to come first.
And if we want to conserve oil and greenhouse emissions the most
the place to start is with Green Transit as noted in my post above.
US Transportation accounts for 70% of our oil usage and 38% of our
greenhouse emissions. The US uses 2-3 times the energy per capita of
Europe or Japan primarily due to our auto addiction.
Not really. Conservation and development of alternatives are happening in parallel. Conservation alone solves nothing. It does not improve EROI from existing sources. If we were to focus on conservation and ignore production, we would, at best, delay the time when the SHTF.
I agree we should work toward "Green Transit," for example. But this implies large-scale investment in new infrastructure and would actually increase demand for energy in the near term. So, depending on how conservation is approached, it could actually shorten the time for SHTF.
"Conservation alone solves nothing"
I guess that depends on how you are defining your terms.
If we, as a country or as a world, conserved down to the level that we could get all our energy from existing non-ff sources, then wouldn't it be solving something? This, to me, should be the main goal. (But perhaps you meant that this would have to be linked with incentives or mandates to reduce ff use to avoid Jevons Paradox effects. In that case, I would have to agree.)
Same thing in any household considering solar PV. The first through twentieth thing you do is figure out how to live comfortably on MUCH less electricity. Then and only then do you consider a modest PV system to supply what you consider you absolutely can't do otherwise.
"Green Transit" is development, not what I would put in the category of conservation.
I like the term efficiency, instead of conservation. Efficiency suggests better use of resources, while conservation suggests sacrifice.
If we insulate, and get a good $ROI combined with greater comfort, there's no sacrifice at all.
The thing about efficiency: it's the fastest way to reduce CO2, and it also pays off cost-wise.
The only ones hurt: legacy FF industries...
It would be quite literally impossible to do that and maintain any sense of order. We have massive unemployment and massive government deficits.
Long before we could reach the level of reduction you are suggesting, we'd be facing unemployment > 50% and the collapse of any ability of the government to meet its obligations, let alone provide a safety net to 10s of millions that would go broke and have no income. The have-nots would riot. The system would be ripped to shreds in no time.
This is a faulty analogy. Our infrastructure changed over a period of decades very significantly based on having cheap oil. Population has grown rapidly. We can't go back quickly in an orderly way. Sure, urban sprawl has been a disaster from an energy efficiency perspective. But how are we going to build millions of homes closer to work while at the same time cutting energy 80%? This implies a huge increase in energy expenditures, not a decrease.
Conservation-only would amount to BAU for as long as possible ... perhaps pushing the time before collapse out a few years.
Renewable energy production should receive the highest priority. Here is why: converting to renewables will automatically change the shape of society, just as oil shaped what we have now.
With a conservation-first approach, for example, you may be spending a lot of effort making a building energy-efficient that will be abandoned soon.
Here is an example to illustrate. In California, we are building thousands of megawatts of solar-thermal electric plants in the Mojave desert. The people doing the work, are going to be commuting from some distance. Once the plants are finished, some of them are going to stay on to keep the plants running. The permanent workers are not going to continue a long commute. They will move to areas closer to the plants. Those communities will start to flourish, with an economic base different from what they had. People there will look at the world differently.
Repeat this many times over -- with wind parks and solar plants -- and the whole shape of society changes.
In other words, a renewable energy economy is going to change everything. You can't just preserve what we have but use less 80% less energy.
"Long before we could reach the level of reduction you are suggesting, we'd be facing unemployment > 50% and the collapse of any ability of the government to meet its obligations, let alone provide a safety net to 10s of millions that would go broke and have no income. The have-nots would riot. The system would be ripped to shreds in no time."
That you claim this doesn't mean that it is necessarily true. This is not what happened when Britain reduced its domestic petrol use by over 90% during WWII.
"But how are we going to build millions of homes closer to work while at the same time cutting energy 80%?"
Who said anything about building millions of homes? Most American homes are huge by world standards and could house multiple families. And did you notice that there are many foreclosed homes and abandoned office spaces standing empty in all cities?
"Conservation-only would amount to BAU for as long as possible ... perhaps pushing the time before collapse out a few years."
Again, you just state this without any support. It oddly echoes exactly what some here say about renewables--that they are just energy extenders, pushing collapse out a few more decades.
Perhaps you are financially invested in renewables?
The bigger point is--What will we be doing with all that energy? If it's anything like the past, we will be using it to complete our total and utter raping and pillaging of the planet, creating, shipping, selling and trashing billions of tons of poorly made crap.
Good points !
And this whole technotopian thread is quite amazing ....
Another point is that all the described green jobs are based on some form of subsidies or tax rebate for solutions (most of the time energy production oriented as you state) that are labeled "good" by definition (wind , solar, biofuels ...), but it is very easy to be wrong in this "good" labeling business (like for instance if EROEI of corn ethanol is less than one)
I think subsidies should be limited to funding research and development but should not touch production and OPEX
Tax on fossile fuels should be used to favor alternatives, be they on the production or conservation side, and leaving the responsibility to compute the benefit or not to the ones investing in them.
Tax on fossile fuels are "solution agnostic", but still favor any alternative solution, that's a key reason why they should be the main tool used to drive the transition.
And at the same time you increase tax on fossile fuel, you can decrease tax on work
Production tax credits for renewable energy don't really cost the taxpayer anything, though, since the cost is what would otherwise be paid in taxes by the project. I don't really see what the objection is to that kind of subsidy, other than "it isn't fair to competing energy sources" - but considering all the unpaid externalities of fossil fuels...
Yes maybe, however the important point is to put some of the externalities of fossil fuels in their cost (as well as them being some capital being depleted), and favor alternatives on both production and conservation side, that is tax them, and not a little
As Jonathan points out energy conservation, although not being as "sexy", is as much, if not a lot more important than alternative energy production, and for that taxes push as well towards conservation.
If the US had the slightest intention to do something about its energy strategy, it would of course increase its ridiculous gas tax level, and this out of pure selfish US Economic interests. But apparently the US level of committment towards total economic suicide forbids doing such a thing.
Sure, green energy creates jobs...at a cost. But I'd like to explore WHERE those jobs are created. It seems clear that most of those jobs are going overseas.
I understand Evergreen Solar is closing their US factory and moving their solar panel production to China. 800 US jobs gone. It's not a level playing field and it's not going to be for a long time. So no matter how much our politicians talk about green energy creating jobs, it's still clear that they are just BSing us. They refuse to address our real economic problems.
800 new small farmers are really as precious as gold for a country in the 21st century! I personally switched from financial consulting to resiliance farming, before the market kicked me out. And now I see how smaller could be the problem these 800 unemployed people are having...
That's MFG jobs. There could be a lot of work for Plumbers, Carpenters and Electricians with not too much additional training..
"But I'd like to explore WHERE those jobs are created."
Another example of the advantage of conservation and efficiency.
Someone in China can't put extra insulation in your attic, install an energy efficient boiler, or install new windows.
Yes, many of these could also be DIY, but many folks do not feel that confidence in their handy-person skills.
If you want to create lots of jobs, a great way to go about doing it would be something like this:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/revamped-wpa-to-create-50000-new-jobs-b...
I mean, it would actually work! Think about what that says about just how fantastically inefficient capitalism really is!
Looking at Net Energy it is very likely that the US passed a peak in net energy production in the 2000 - 2005 period. The latest run up in natural gas production has come at much higher cost. In Canada the extra drilling consumed the extra energy. As new US production is about as expensive, it is likely the US crossed the net energy peak as well.
That means that the API cannot deliver on a promise to create jobs. What they can do is move jobs. They can increase the cost of gasoline and natural gas and increase the drilling work force, but at a cost of jobs in the rest of the country. And you can see that in the state GDP data in 2008. The recession was already starting in most of the country before it started in Texas, etc. http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2010/12%20December/1210_gdp_state-text.pdf
Green energy sources cannot do much better. They have fairly low EROeI value and they must expend a large sum growing facilities, training people, etc (which pushes effective EROeI downward). The big difference is that green energy sources are increasing in EROI, while petroleum, nat gas, and coal are all falling in EROeI. So investments in fossil energy should be scaled back (And this is what the industry is doing. The industry is cutting investment, liquidating assets, and allowing the work force to age out).
Nate had a post covering one of Charles Hall's papers that illustrated graphically what will happen as the EROeI of energy sources declines here: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3412
This image shows how discretionary spending will get crushed as the EROeI of fossil fuels (or trying to rapidly grow green energy) falls from 20:1 toward 5:1
So our energy sources, green or otherwise, are going to be a contracting force on our economy going forward. They cannot create jobs, they can only steal them. There is only one way to increase the number of jobs, and that is to increase the efficiency of using energy.
What we need is 1 million workers insulating houses. 1 million workers rebuilding our cities to be walkable and Transit Oriented where people can live a very short distance from where they work and shop. 1 million workers putting in new rail lines. 1 million workers retooling car plants into bus building factories.
The physics has spoken. The OECD must become more efficient, or whither to a husk as our energy sources fall in EROeI.
Cheers,
Jerry
Hi Jon.
"green energy sources are increasing in EROI, while petroleum, nat gas, and coal are all falling in EROeI"
This is an excellent point, much overlooked. Your final point is also quite cogent. We have to stay ahead of the depletion curve, and the only way to do so is through conservation and efficiency.
I don't see our economic or political system as being up to the task of allocating resources in this logical way, though, unfortunately.
Good article followed by a thread full of dubious nonsense (OFM excepted as always - what an asset to TOD!).
Wealth is not money - wealth is things, ideas, sounds. Creating wealth is no more or less than rearranging our environment to make it better. Clearing up after the hurricane creates wealth, though probably less than was destroyed by the event itself.
A world in which a thousand people are employed in turning FFs into available energy leaves the rest of us free to create wealth. If it takes a million green energy workers to bring the same energy to market, ATBE it will cost a thousand times more and there will be 999,000 fewer people to create the wealth. We get poorer, or richer more slowly.
BUT:
1) the externalities matter - what if it takes 10 million people to clean up the mess in scenario 1?
2) if you're a politician, or a nationalist, or a racist, then local jobs pedalling generators might be preferred over jobs somewhere else digging coal
3) Opportunity costs are hard to quantify - the green energy workers will associate their employment with green energy whereas the people who can't afford an iPod will not
4) FFs are finite, humans are inventive - next year the comparison might be 10,000 vs 100,000.
An alternative way of looking at the problem would be to ask --
Given a population of N and natural resources of R, what is the optimal way to utilize the approximately 20 * N labor hours each week to maximize social goals?
I think it's important to recognise a fundamental fact in renewables et al:
The more jobs > the less cost efficient > the smaller the market > the less jobs.
If you really want to improve the situation of western countries the aim must be NOT to require lots of new jobs. What you are looking for is the route that doesn't need them, because then its possibly viable to do on a large scale.
Fundamental rule from manager/director level: people are a bad idea.
Not only do you have to pay them lots of money in wages, you need to pay even more in pensions, health, etc. AND you need to pay for others to look after them HR, admin, etc. AND you need to pay fixed facilities costs, building, heat, etc. AND you only get ~40 hours out of them a week vs 168 hours in a week. AND, finally, they give you hassle with problems, complaints, time-off, and finally leaving at inopportune moments.
And if that little list wasn't bad enough, it's difficult to scale if demand changes quickly - either you can't get the right people, or you can't get rid of them, quickly.
If you can do it without lots of people, it's well worth it. It's part of the reason companies outsource - it's not only that it can make it cheaper - it's also the reduction in hassle.
The renewables that will work, that will scale and affect the uses of resources/production of waste, are the ones that DON'T create lots of jobs, and are therefore cheap enough to make affordable and still make a profit for the company pushing them.
And if more people are needed to run the business, for all the reasons above they are hired very carefully, and one at a time.
While people are fired in large batches that make all the headlines.
Wow! Who needs people? Good point!!
OTOH, unemployment is approaching lethal levels. Here in the US, state and federal gov are facing massive deficits. If people aren't working, they don't spend much money and they don't pay much in taxes. We have 40+ million on food stamps. 15 million unemployed (really probably closer to 20 million depending on how you count) -- 2 million unemployed in California alone. What happens to the social safety net? The feds narrowly extended unemployment benefits recently, and this is only a stop-gap measure. 10s of millions are going broke. What happens when 10s of millions have lost everything, have no job, and their benefits are cut off because the gov can not deal with the deficits?
Have you thought about what SHTF will look like? Will all the have-nots just lie down and die? Do you think they will say the system is fair and they are getting what comes to them?
We may need to re-think how we approach the unemployment issue.
This is precisely why my thoughts each day turn towards the best route to leaving the U.S.
People are hyperpatriotic here (even on this supposedly more liberal site). Mention personal emigration and you will bet met with snark.
Never forget that this country was built by people fleeing Britain, and later by people fleeing all manner of mayhem in countries across Europe and now the globe.
It's only natural that the process works in reverse, when the time is right.
The problem is that the world is a pretty full place now, and nowhere is safe really from peak oil or AGW. My opinion, though, is that the U.S. has the farthest to fall.
Where is there to go? Parts of Eastern Europe are rather nice, however language can be an issue.
Iceland might be a good bet. They're not going to be hurt too bad by peak oil. Electricity is 100% renewable (hydro and geothermal), and 80% of all energy is renewable. Of course, you might have to get over the fact you're living on an active volcano.
Google "Iceland soil erosion"
Forestry in a Treeless Land
http://www.skogur.is/english/forestry-in-a-treeless-land/
Þrostur is a friend of mine.
Although Sweden, Norway and Denmark may be better candidates.
Alan
Reality time, most renewable/sustainability actions are marginal at best. If the manpower aspect doubles the cost, it more than doubles the payback period. That means it doesn't happen, so no jobs AND no renewables.
You seem to be saying there should be make-work for people to give them jobs, but as Joules says - in the end, someone has to pay.
In the end root-and-branch change is required to fashion a sustainable society. The change reaches EVERYWHERE, which is why its almost certainly never going to happen this side of TEOTWAWKI.
The only thing you can say is, if you opt for an affordable, minimal-jobs option, at least it can scale and you can roll a lot of it out, so there's a lot of renewables around after SHTF.
Despite your claim on reality time, this is a pure strawman. It has nothing to do with anything. Renewable energy technology -- especially over the past 3 decades or so -- has matured substantially. It is technically feasible for renewable energy to take a major role in the economy, stabilizing EROI, in the relatively near future (next decade or two). Whether this will happen or not depends on the level of support from policy makers, technocrats, and the general public.
Not quite. Here are three points about renewable energy and jobs:
Oh, I don't know. TEOTWAWKI happened several times in the last few decades. "Root-and-branch change" might happen barely noticed. Look around. Lots of things (good and bad) are ubiquitous that people barely dreamed about a few decades ago.
It depends on how bad the SHTF.
Exam question isn't 'technically' it's 'economically'. And I'd suggest the claim of a 'major role' is itself the strawman, unless you have a citation?
And how big is 'renewables' at the moment*?
*Clue, its the lines that are so thin, they are basically not there.
As I keep banging on, it's no good to talk about sexy tech or what the future might hold. The name of the game is SCALE. If you can't credibly scale to single digit percentages in 1 year, or double digit in 5, it's not part of the solution, it's part of the problem.
Being a 'job creator' is a red flag which side of the fence your solution will fall.
First of all, I emphasize that I am pushing for California to play a leadership role -- especially as a high-cost state a technology leader -- that could catalyze a larger movement. Texas has potential in this way, too, but I don't live there, and I don't know as much about what's planned there.
CA already has around 5 GW renewables ... mostly hydro, some geothermal, biomass, wind, and a small amount of direct solar. Around 5 GW of direct solar is planned for installation within in the next year or two. Here is a list of the larger plants approved by the CEC http://www.energy.ca.gov/siting/solar/index.html There are many other plants under 50 MW planned.
Let's say we get to 10 GW renewables over the next two years. A 20 percent per year increase after that gets us to 300 GW in 20 years.
10.00
12.00
14.40
17.28
20.74
24.88
29.86
35.83
43.00
51.60
61.92
74.30
89.16
106.99
128.39
154.07
184.88
221.86
266.23
319.48
That would amount to 100% of what California needs, considering 30 percent capacity factor for various renewable systems. Projecting what we've spent on energy, and taking a modest 3% escalation rate, CA would expect to spend $4 trillion on energy over 20 years (2010 dollars) anyway. Instead of blowing the $4 trillion on mostly fossil fuel, this plan would use a trillion of it for the 300 GW in energy plants.
Storage is a consideration, but it doesn't have to be addressed immediately because we still have natural gas. We also have 4000 megawatts of pumped hydro. Other storage systems can come on line as needed.
BS argument, Gary.
'We have ten thousand passengers and just one lifeboat.. Clearly, 'lifeboats' are part of the problem, not the solution. Now will somebody get all this spare lumber off the deck, it's in my way!'
Opportunity cost.
You didn't mention that even though the ship is already listing heavily to port the, passengers are refusing to get into the lifeboats because there are no bathrooms on the lifeboat with ceiling high mirrors, gilded faucets, marble floors and crystal chandeliers. The fact that the life boat might help them survive on the surface of a frigid, heaving ocean isn't good enough and they are convinced it costs more to build a seaworthy lifeboat than they are willing to spend, even though there are many skilled boat builders who are unemployed... I say let 9000 of those passengers drown!
A little girl goes down to the beach, and sees that it is completely covered in starfish that have been washed ashore, and are baking in the sun. She realizes that they will die, being out of the water, in the hot sun.
She begins picking them up one by one and tossing them back in the ocean. A man walks by, and sees what she is doing, and says "why are you bothering to do that? There are hundreds of thousands of them on the beach, you can't possibly make a difference."
She reaches down, picks up a starfish, and flings it into the ocean, then looks the man in the eye and says "I made a difference for that one, didn't I?"
If you can't credibly scale to single digit percentages in 1 year, or double digit in 5, it's not part of the solution, it's part of the problem.
The only resource that can respond that quickly in the USA is natural gas combined cycle and negawatts. Conservation and efficiency. The second is the overlooked option.
Let wind expand quicker (say key subsidy to natural gas prices) and it can reach those goals in a few years. Say 1% of US generation MWh from 1/1/2016 to 1/1/2017 and 10% from 1/1/2017 to 1/1/2022 are certainly realistic with feed-in tariffs set high enough. (Note: Conservation & efficiency can shrink the size of 1% and 10%)
However, our looming crisis is not focused on electrical generation, so I wonder where your goals came from.
Alan
Scale-up WOW-factor coming to the wind turbine industry soon:
American Superconductor will be licensing its 10 MW turbine design to wind turbine manufacturers in the near future. Rumor has it that a 20-MW turbine design will follow soon.
http://www.amsc.com/products/applications/windEnergy/seatitan.html
For those who are not familiar with wind turbines, a single turbine is rated typically for 2-4 MW. A few 5 MW designs have been delivered that do not work very well. The next generation turbine promises to reduce the cost of offshore wind farms by a very significant amount.
Yep Alan, kind of the conclusion I've ended up at over the years of thought - the primary thrust needs to be to stop doing things - since that can scale faster than virtually anything else. Doing so gives the double whammy of freeing money/attention/resources for further renewables implementation AND shrinking the amount of FF to be replaced.
And as far as the focus is concerned, could I suggest that NOT commuting, one per car, over 10+ mile distances, would have a sizeable conservation effect - it's not just homes/electricity that can benefit.
In the end it has to be an integrated, strategic, SYSTEM level plan - which is why I say it impacts ALL aspects of society - which is why it won't get done.
Collectively we are small scale thinkers who can't see the big picture
Exactly, the scale factor is essential, and that is also why the emphasis should be on conservation if not as much as on alternative production, gaining 1 or 2 digits percentage efficiency is possible in many domains, and especially in the US. gaining negawatt is both easier, result in bigger energy numbers, and more important in the transition considering current starting point.
But as Jonathan points above, it is for sure less "sexy", than new production technologies.
I think there are two concepts missing here:
1) "rent", and
2) aggregate consumer demand.
What is rent? It's what the Saudi's are getting when they lift oil with 15 minutes of labor per barrel, and sell it for the equivalent of 4 hours of labor. Is it better to produce energy for the equivalent of 2.5 labor hours per barrel in the US instead of importing it for the price of 4 labor hours per barrel? Well, from the perspective of a US consumer, you bet!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
What is "aggregate demand"? It's the collective buying power in the economy. When people get scared, they try to "save" money, but they give it to a bank which is suddenly scared to lend it to a productive company, because scared consumers are no longer buying! So, all those savings are destructive. If government borrows or taxes those savings, and spends them on productive renewable energy/EVs1 it puts people to work who would otherwise be sitting idle.
1 productive is better than non-productive, but it doesn't matter so much to the question of ending a recession.
Rent falls into the "capitalist" category, someone getting an excessive return on their investment (i.e. the Saudis "invested" their land -- which is the capital)
You can think of it that way. I wouldn't, because it's not proportionately related to their level of investment. It's just a windfall.
The larger problem: most of Middle East oil prices consist of Rent. The discussion titled "Product Costs Are Predominantly Labor Costs" doesn't apply to to ME oil.
I disagree. The Saudi rent is spread around the royal family to compensate them for having to throw lavish parties, drive expensive cars, etc.
Nice work, if you can get it.
Nice job Joules. Two thought experiments.
1… Someone invents a small energy cell that can be easily mass produced from common materials that puts out 1000 watts of power continuously for twenty years and costs less than 50 dollars to make.
2… The government decides to solve the unemployment problem by banning the use of robotics in manufacturing and the use of heavy equipment in agriculture.
Which of these would improve our quality of life?
We are locked in the age of fossil fuel until they become more expensive and less convenient than alternate energy sources. That could be several more decades with current renewable technology.
To minimize human suffering it is imperative that we develop new energy technology that is cheaper than coal as soon as possible. We need a massive Manhattan Project to develop new energy sources that are cheaper than coal.
The world spends about $4 trillion per year on energy. I think the project would cost $0.1 trillion per year for 10-15 years, I believe it could be saving the world $2 trillion per year in 20 years. The country that does it will have a lot of high paying jobs for its people. I wish it was the U.S., but our leadership seems to have no clue at the moment.
Your time scale is short by over a decade (25-35 years if Mr. Murphy is not in a particularly bad mood) and costs are too low.
Lets do Step 1 - Build 6 to 8 new nukes by 2020 and rebuild the supply chain and train a new generation of nuke-rated weld inspectors, electricians, engineers and all the rest. And around 2017/2018 see how that is going and decide on Step 2 with an eye on Step 3.
You ignore the reality that the USA can build, at most, eight new AP-1000s and EPRs in a decade with the "Leibeg Minimum" being experienced people and supply chain issues being the secondary limitation.
Finland could not even pour a proper nuke concrete foundation due to a lack of living experience.
While we are doing a safe, economic build-out of new nukes, lets have a Rush for Wind, HV DC and pumped storage (pumped storage is also nukes best friend) followed by Rush for Solar and lastly, a large scale Nuke build-out combined with CONSERVATION NOW !
Perhaps, in 2045, we can have something like a 55% nuke#, 20% wind, 12% solar, 12% hydro, 1.5% geothermal, 1% biomass and 4% FF grid with pumped storage and HV DC transmission "losing" -5.5%.
#All but a handful of existing nukes should be retired by 2045. Say 35% to 40% from designs that are commercially available in 2011/2015 and 15% to 20% from some new design nuke. All post 2045 nukes built to new design. THAT is the optimistic time-line for commercially acceptable new nuke designs.
Beat Hopes for not waiting on nukes and not gambling everything on new nuke designs,
Alan
The French are building 5 GW of wind as Phase I. Why ?
EdF is a winter peaking utility, they have 4 GW of French pumped storage, 1 GW Luxembourg, and 12 GW Swiss (plus Swiss & French hydro that can be scheduled as needed).
EdF already shuts down it's older reactors every spring & fall (not required for refueling) because they cannot even give away the power at night to the Swiss and generation exceeds demand during weekend daylight without shut downs.
The new EPRs are being built to export power (EdF said so. Obviously mainly the UK, see map of where the French EPRs are being built).
To reduce FF use, France is building winter peaking wind to match their winter peaking demand. More than enough transmission & pumped storage to accept 5 GW, or 8 GW of wind without problems
Alan.
Alan, you have a BAU recommendation that is designed to fail. My recommendation is designed to produce the best solution, whatever that is, in the shortest possible time.
You have numerous references to the nuclear option, I have none. Obviously you have copied your standard anti-nuclear rant. It has no relevance to the comment it is attached to. That is pure laziness.
My recommendation maximizes the probability of developing technology better than fission, yours keeps us locked in the fossil age and makes the ultimate dependence on fission more likely.
If you had been running the Manhattan Project, the Soviet Union would have had nuclear weapons long before the U.S., and they may well have used them on us, and we would not be having this conversation.
You want to put all your money on the "Just-in-Time" Technology fairy showing up. I want to zero out technological risk.
The odds were that the Manhattan Project would fail (as it's counterparts in Germany and Japan did, and the Soviets would have without spies). It was war and the basic plan was Operation Olympic - invade Japan.
The Manhattan Project was an option that just happened to work out. The USA was devoting over half our GDP to the war effort, which allowed the resources to do "crazy options" like the Manhattan Project (with two different type bombs no less)
*IF* we are doing the things we know will work with the same effort as goes into boiling more tar out of more sand in Alberta, and we still have resources left over, then lets blow some money on R & D on some crazy options. But *NOT* before we do what we know works !
The solution is *NOT* in R&D searching for magic solutions ! A endless moneypit in most cases.
Alan
The solution is *NOT* in R&D searching for magic solutions ! A endless moneypit in most cases.
1) it takes years from R&D discovery to commericalization. (and the TOD POV is we don't have years)
2) Such a call should not shut down R&D. Your phrasing could lead to an R&D shutdown.
There is a deep, abiding and unjustified faith by Americans that "new technology can fix our problems".
I am unsure just what major problem iPhones and iPods resolved, but the appearance of such technology reinforces this belief.
I agree that technology will advance, but I also believe that the advance will be unpredictable, erratic and there will be a profound mis-match between our energy and environmental problems and new technological developments. Segways appear, but they do NOT deliver "as promised" in the original hype.
I do NOT believe that political decisions, "we need this groundbreaking technology" (cheap, durable fuel cells, economic cellulosic ethanol. oil from algae, super batteries, hydrogen economy, etc.) backed by gov't grants will result in commercial technology.
We certainly need the industrial development of emerging technologies. I am impressed by the gearless, variable speed wind turbines of Enercon. The economies of scale in wind turbines have not yet reached their peak. Feedback from operations in the field are essential in maturing an emerging industry.
Industrial development is essential and should be encouraged.
Likewise, for the benefit of later developments, gov't should engage in basic research to better understand physical processes. Example: wind turbines needed the 1930's aerodynamics research of NACA.
There is a chance that gov't funded R&D, despite it's spotty record, will result in a major breakthrough. But this should be viewed as a lottery ticket. One does not "invest" in lottery tickets to pay next month's, or even next year's, rent.
That said, there is one area, overlooked so far, that commerce has ignored and gov't R&D could fill the void. A greater understanding of energy use patterns, conservation and efficiency in residential and commercial structures, which should lead to more easily implemented economic solutions. "Basic" research in one sense. Not sexy, but quite useful.
IMO, we should plan for the future using existing, mature (or established emerging) technology. As new technology emerges and we understand what it can realistically do, we should adjust our plans mid-course to incorporate them.
Best Hopes for Realism,
Alan
It can truly be said that the Haber-Bosch process was JIT Technology. The Imperial German and Austro-Hungarian Armies would have run out of ammunition and WW I would have ended within a year were it not for the rapid commercialization of a recently discovered process to fix nitrogen from air. No other significant examples that I can think of.
Alan,
I appreciate that you want to avoid unreasonable risks. I do too. but...I think it's important to point out that some of your examples don't really fit.
Segways appear, but they do NOT deliver "as promised" in the original hype.
Sure, they did. They just didn't take off due to cultural resistance.
cheap, durable fuel cells...hydrogen economy
This was a red herring to kill CARB requirements for EVs, not a real, sincere plan.
Cellulosic ethanol and algae oil are good examples of the hazards of wishful thinking (given the predictable physical difficulties involved), not of relying on new tech.
Counter examples: the inexorable decline in wind and solar costs over the last several decades. I still have the 1980 Scientific American article which predicted that PV, then $30/Wp, would decline to $3/Wp in roughly 25 years. Some of that decline has come from field experience, but much of it has come from lab research.
Can we force tech advances? Of course not. On the other hand, it's 99.9% certain that any reasonable* engineering challenge can be at least partially met with innovation.
For instance, the vast variety of possible PV and battery chemistries essentially guarantees that enormous improvements are possible. Any one specific chemistry is likely to not survive the darwinian competition, but the end result is pretty predictable.
*That weasel word is intended to head off things that are just wishful thinking (at least in the short term), like cellulosic ethanol, algae oil and satellite-based PV.
Perhaps it is a matter of definition.
I see the "Moore's Law" in wind & solar as being part & parcel of industrial development; the learn by doing process driven by orders and that includes new solar PV chemistries.
There are price decline curves set already in several emerging technologies. And I am unaware of any significant positive contribution to going down these curves coming from research funded by gov't grants.
If General Electric or Dupont makes a significant investment in some potential breakthrough, I would hold my breath, hoping that is works out. But when the Dept. of Energy gives a $100 million grant to Los Alamos, I think "waste of money" as a reflex (and I am not wrong yet).
BTW, the Segway was designed and built without gov't grants.
Best Hopes for "Industrial Development" :-)
Alan
Curse you Alan.
I was just about to wave my magic wand and convert the pumpkin patch into a fully scaled up power plant.
But as we all know, if you say it out loud, your wish doesn't come true.
Why did you have to say that out loud? Now you ruined it for all of us.
______________________
edit: more links re JIT Tech:
The Promise of Just-in-time Technology
Global, Virtual JIT Tech
Actually Alan, you've probably got that about 180deg from the necessary direction.
The total number of people with the base skills to do the type of ground shaking research needed to change the game is small. It's more an art than anything, directed innovation. Such people are a limited resource.
What's needed is for ALL of them to be funded to do base research, with the stated aim of shaking the ground. No mucking about with grant proposals etc. Total money needed is in the noise relative to the other costs around - really, its peanuts.
Then, if they can show a good possibility of their new idea really cutting it, a much smaller number get money to develop AND money to make sure it can be commercialised. It's actually quite frightening the number of ideas that fail not because they couldn't commercially deliver, but because the process has huge gaps in it that ANYTHING can fall down. Even if the money went to funding a baseball bat to hit around the head anyone with a 'not-invented-here' chip on their shoulder, it would help.
Frankly, directed innovation by the right people, without interference, should be fully funded. The expected RoI for society trumps virtually any other course.
I can think of no examples of such politically directed innovation being successful and significant.
Alan
*coff*
Internet
*coff*
aka DARPANET
The intent, as I understand it, was to create a military communication network that could function, at least partially, after a nuclear war or other devastating attack.
Not yet proven in the field for it's intended purpose !
But like a mutant virus, it escaped and multiplied in environments far beyond the original design :-)
Alan
Alan , failures are the stones that pave the road of progress. The scientists and engineers in the Manhattan Project did not know if they would succeed. With the knowledge we have now, we know that failure was not an option.
Their methodology was to brainstorm every possible path to their goal and pursue each possibility until they achieved success or hit a dead end. There were many more failures in the Manhattan Project than there were successes.
We know now that it is relatively easy to design and build a simple uranium bomb like the one used at Hiroshima. The only difficult step is concentrating uranium 235, enrichment. Scientists tried numerous techniques to enrich uranium. Most failed, but two worked, and success was assured.
The Germans did not have the resources to pursue every option. They tried to cherry pick a path to nuclear weapons, and failed, because they choose badly, just a we will fail, because our law school graduates in Washington have chosen the wind and solar path.
What things would that be? Which nation went to 78% wind and/or solar in 25 years?
Your “just in time” straw man is a hoot. If someone invented the transistor or jet engine 20 years earlier would they have put them on the shelf for 20 years? If they were invented 20 years later due to a lack of R&D would they be worthless? No, but a delay of 20 years would mean a 20 year delay in the improved quality of life enabled by improved technology.
Getting back to the original question which you never answered;
The transistor certainly improved life (the jet engine is more debatable, IMO, not a big deal except to the military. More civilian travel, but how much value in that ?).
Neither addressed a major problem or threat to the American way-of-life in the 1930s. Sure, cheaper radios would be nice but hardly essential. They fall under my earlier statement:
Which of these {thought experiments} would improve our quality of life
The question was:
1… Someone invents a small energy cell that can be easily mass produced from common materials that puts out 1000 watts of power continuously for twenty years and costs less than 50 dollars to make.
2… The government decides to solve the unemployment problem by banning the use of robotics in manufacturing and the use of heavy equipment in agriculture.
-------
Your question is nonsensical because it makes assumptions contrary to reality. Hence I did not answer it.
Alan
there will be a profound mis-match between our energy and environmental problems and new technological developments.
I think we need to be clear: we have all of the technology we need to deal with our energy problems: wind power is already cheaper than coal and oil, if we take all the costs into account.
Improved tech is needed only because we need energy tech that is much cheaper than fossil fuels, in order to have a chance of reducing CO2 emissions quickly enough to head off climate change.
That is the beauty of thought experiments. It allows the testing of basic principles. You do not want to answer the question because the correct answer contradicts your faith based belief system. You avoid any question that exposes the errors in your logic.
Which nation went to 78% wind and/or solar in 25 years?
If someone invented the transistor or jet engine 20 years earlier would they have put them on the shelf for 20 years? Yes or no?
If they were invented 20 years later due to a lack of R&D would they be worthless? Yes or no?
Which of these {thought experiments} would improve our quality of life?
Give me three examples of just in time technologies, that is technology that would be useless if discovered earlier of later.
Your choice of thought experiments I personally find unproductive.
JIT technology almost never exists in reality. You appear to agree with my point there.
Yet Americans have, as I said, "a deep, abiding and unjustified faith" that it does exist. More specifically, that some new energy source or energy solution will appear before our society is plunged into crisis. Such faith is, I believe, based on observations of history, simply wrong.
New technology will appear, but it will do almost nothing towards resolving our problems, just as jet engines and transistors solved no major problems.
Alan
Just as a thought exercise of inventions too early - Leonardo da Vinci's notebooks are full of them.
As for inventions too late, bubble memory and Zeppelins.
"a deep, abiding and unjustified faith" ...that some new energy source or energy solution will appear before our society is plunged into crisis.
You and I agree that wind, solar, nuclear, etc powering electric transportation will work just fine.
We have all the energy solutions we need, right now.
And we should be investing VERY heavily in them before buying lottery tickets.
Once we are pursuing viable, workable solutions with they same vigor that we use to boil more tar out of more sand in Alberta, then I can support devoting resources to massive R&D (diverted from consumption, not investments in the economy).
More R&D is sexy and is an "easy" decision. Actually building solutions is harder and not as glamorous. But it works !
Best Hopes for Building Solutions ASAP,
Alan
I agree.
R&D is often used as a red herring, intended to protect fossil fuel BAU. Fuel cells for personal vehicles is the big example: it was never a serious proposal (though the car companies do regard it as something that has theoretical potential in addition to the PR/red herring value, so they keep it alive just in case a competitor makes a real breakthrough).
OTOH, I do think more R&D, in addition to development of proven tech, is a good idea. ARPA-E looks very useful.
It clarifies the issue of whether “labor intensive” is a good quality in a technology.
So why did you make the JIT comment in the first place?
A massive R&D project would improve the probability of that happening.
Hey, I just created anti gravity technology; I’ll get a patent tomorrow. Actually, brainstorming does not constitute technology creation.
Which nation went to 78% wind and/or solar in 25 years?
If someone invented the transistor or jet engine 20 years earlier would they have put them on the shelf for 20 years? Yes or no?
Which of these {thought experiments} would improve our quality of life?
Give me three examples of just in time technologies, that is technology that would be useless if discovered earlier.
Bill,
I don't speak for Alan, but I believe he uses "JIT Technology" to suppose that we as a society have an epiphany (i.e. Hello Houston, I thing we have a problem --Apollo 13) and that just as we recognize we have this problem (i.e. PO= a clear and serious danger to our non-negotiable way of life), a Tooth Fairy inventor magically pops up at that time and announces the invention of the century (i.e. Cold Fusion) that, just like in the movies, pulls victory out from the jaws of civilizational collapse and defeat. [ i.mage.+]
So your solution is: Let's have a massive R&D project that would improve the probability of the miracle happening.
Mathematically speaking, yes, buying 100 lottery tickets to raise the cash for paying your electric bill does increase the odds (100 x P(almost 0)= P(still almost 0)), but that is not a mature way to try and keep the lights on.
You would think that we, as humans more intelligent than yeast, have a better way of dealing with our Petri dish nourishment running out.
But we don't.
Yes.
Let me explain the *ONE* example of JIT Technology that I am aware of.
In the first decade of the 20th Century, the General Staff of the Imperial German Army made their war plans. Stalling and retreating slowly on the Eastern front before Russia while making a decisive blow through neutral Belgium towards Paris and winning the war on that front. Then confronting Russia with all of the Army.
All to be done before the nitrates required for ammunition were depleted (the Royal Navy would blockade resupply from Chile, the only source of nitrates, once hostilities started).
In 1909, Fritz Haber devised a process that produced a half cup/hour of ammonia from air (explosives and gunpowder could be made from ammonia). This was scaled up, with great difficulty and expense, to the first small scale commercial plant in 1913, a year before WW I started.
The plans of the Imperial Germany Army remained unchanged, and history is unclear if the generals were aware that they need not worry about running out of ammo as more ammonia plants were being rushed into production.
None-the-less the crushing blow through Belgium stalled before Paris and soon developed into trench warfare. And, by the miracle of technology, developed just a year before, the Germany Army (and their allies, the Austro-Hungarians) did *NOT* run out of ammunition.
They did not need to surrender in 1915, but could continue fighting towards victory !
The JIT Technology Fairy delivered just the right technology, at the very last moment to be effective. Haber and Bosch were truly national heroes !
Had that prototype commercial plant gone into production just 18 months later, Germany and Austro-Hungary would have lost WW I (in 1915).
Alan
An argument can be made that synthetic rubber during WW II had a similar history, but some rubber could be gotten from Brazil (for the Allies), temperate plants could supply rubber and rubber is not as critical as ammunition to an army.
------
Many Americans expect something similar to occur with respect to oil and/or energy if things get too bad. Lately, I have heard several expressions of impatience ("Why don't they do something ? It is about time to fix this !").
This belief system appears again and again with almost everyone I talk to from the general population.
Lately, I have heard several expressions of impatience ("Why don't they do something ? It is about time to fix this !").
Oddly, enough, "they" did. Carter kick started wind/solar; Clinton kick started hybrids with the PNGV program; CARB & GM kick started EVs and EREVs. And trains have been here all along.
The solutions just don't look quite the way people expect, that's all.
Which nation went to 78% wind and/or solar in 25 years?
What nation tried?
Like Alan suggested with da Vinci, just about all of computationally-assisted innovations fall into this category. Throughout history mathematicians have come up with interesting formula or theories that were considered useless until the introduction of computers, i.e. the cybernetics revolution. So in essence, it wouldn't have mattered if the technology was found right now (JIT) or much earlier. All sorts of computational approaches fall into this category: quaternions, numerical Fourier transforms, Bayesian-related methods, etc. That's three and there are many more, which I won't rack my brain over this because you have created a straw-man to argue over in the first place.
Bill,
I like your proposal for more R&D, in addition to building out current tech. I'm sure that there would be a high $ROI. For examples of this kind effort, look at E-DARPA.
I'm not really clear why we're arguing about whether tech can arrive before it's time, but as it happens, I can think of an example: the Babbage mechanical computer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_engine
A proper analysis would separate out Infrastructure buildup, from Maintenance and Production.
Failure to do that, will give skewed results, and it is comparing apples with oranges.
Clearly, building anything NEW will consume more man-hours, than running-out something old.
Right now, the market says that the most economic thing to do is to build Combined Cycle Gas Turbines, since they can be built on a rather modest scale with a rather short payback time. Plus, gas prices are relatively low right now.
Actually conservation is the most economic choice. However, a lack of knowledge (and motivation) is holding back very economic investments in conservation.
HereinHalifax is much cheaper than CCGT.
Alan
Hi Alan; great to have you back amongst us.
If I may offer an example to illustrate this point. Earlier today, we completed the retrofit of a maintenance garage. In the service bays we replaced 1,000-watt metal halide steelers with two 6-lamp T8 high bay fluorescents. Fixture load falls from 1,100-watts (with ballast) to 444-watts, a 60 per cent reduction. Our cost per kW saved is less than $400.00, and operated 24/7 each fixture will save some 5,747 kWh/year which translates to a cost per kWh saved of less than half a cent when amortized over ten years.
This is a picture of the original lighting system (note the colour shift of the metal halides as they age):
And this is the picture I took this afternoon:
A nice, even distribution of light, a noticeable bump in light levels and no harsh shadows/glare which makes for a more comfortable work environment.
There are always opportunities to do better; let's not choose to ignore them.
Cheers,
Paul
Thanks Paul. I always enjoy your real-life success stories.
Do you believe your business exists only because of incentives, or would your customers have an acceptable ROI and do the upgrades anyway?
How big is your market opportunity -- what fraction of industrial lighting is poor enough to justify an upgrade?
You're in Halifax, NS, right? Ever think of expanding into the US?
Thanks, Paleo. I'm biased, of course, but I see tremendous opportunities to reduce energy demand right across the board, and not just in terms of lighting. I've read that there are some 500 million T12 fluorescent lamps still operational in the US alone. For roughly $50.00, you can swap out a 4-lamp T12 fluorescent troffer that draws 160-watts with a new, 3-lamp T8 fixture that operates at 63-watts; this new fixture will supply as much or more light than the one it replaces and consume 70 per cent less energy. In fact, we often replace 4-lamp T12 troffers with 2-lamp T8 fixtures (42-watts) and although foot candles may come in a little lower, switching from a 3,500K or 4,100K lamp to 5,000K gives the impression that the space is brighter.
With respect to industrial lighting, replacing a 455-watt metal halide steeler (an industry standard) with a $100.00 222-watt T8 high bay fluorescent fixture will cut power demand by half. In addition, lamp life doubles from 20,000 to 40,000+ hours and end-of-life lumens are 90 to 94 per cent of their initial values versus 50 per cent or less for an HID (i.e., same watts, but only half as much light). And when it comes time to replace those T8 lamps, the cost per lamp is typically less than $1.00 whereas a metal halide lamp might set you back $40.00. Lastly, by adding occupancy sensors you can often cut energy use by half again. Occupancy sensors work well with fluorescent fixtures because they come back on instantly whereas a metal halide fixture can take 10 to 15 minutes to re-strike and return to full brightness; consequently, these fixtures are often left on even when a space is unoccupied for hours at a time. We replaced metal halide fixtures in a large warehouse with high bay fluorescents and each fixture is fitted with its own occupancy sensor; this warehouse operates 24 hours a day and from what we're told over half of the fixtures remain off 80 to 90 per cent of the time.
Without question, the generous incentives offered by Nova Scotia Power/Efficiency Nova Scotia make our retrofit work a breeze. We provide our clients with a comprehensive, no-cost/no-obligation lighting audit and if they decide to go forward with our recommendations, Efficiency Nova Scotia will pay 80 per cent of the total cost and the remaining 20 per cent can be repaid over 24-months, interest-free, on their Nova Scotia Power account. Thus, there are no upfront costs or out-of-pocket expenses, their complete satisfaction is guaranteed by ENS/NSP, and for every dollar repaid over those first 24-months, the client will receive two, three, four or more dollars back in energy savings. There is a comprehensive two year warranty (materials and labour), so if a lamp or ballast should fail within that time frame, it's replaced at no charge. Not surprisingly, most businesses sign up on the spot.
No expansion plans at the moment. The Small Business Lighting Solutions programme is keeping us busy and our work with larger commercial and industrial clients is growing by leaps and bounds. We've done some work in neighbouring New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, but that's about as far as we'd like to go for now, geographically speaking, at least until we catch our breath.
Cheers,
Paul
Simple change:
IRS 179 - Deductions.
Allow the instant writedown of renewable energy.
Actually a very good idea !
More tax breaks for business gets R support ! More renewable energy gets D support.
GWB used the same ploy (1st year Sec. 179 write-offs) to promote Hummer, dually pick-up and other has guzzler sales.
I will remember that !
Alan
But I've been pitching that for years. It got no love from my old elected reps, perhaps coming from "communtiy supported" voices it'll get some lov'n.
All things being equal, make work government jobs do not create jobs because there is a corresponding loss of jobs in the sectors producing widgets that people no longer buy because they pay more taxes to support the make work jobs. Employment is a wash, but people are less well off because they don't have as many widgets.
That said, there are scenarios in which investment in clean energy really would create jobs:
1. The increased efficiency due to research breakthroughs and mass production makes wind and solar competitive in costs, combined with
2. Post peak fossil fuel production makes these resources more expensive.
3. Food costs do not rise as dramatically because catastrophic climate change is averted.
4. Same for emergency response costs, and medical costs.
5. Military costs are reduced due to reduced need to defend our oil supply.
make work government jobs do not create jobs because there is a corresponding loss of jobs in the sectors producing widgets
That's only when the economy is at full employment. Right now we have a big "output gap". When people get scared, they try to "save" money, but they give it to a bank which is suddenly scared to lend it to a productive company, because scared consumers are no longer buying! So, all those savings are destructive. If government borrows or taxes those savings, and spends them on productive renewable energy/EVs it puts people to work who would otherwise be sitting idle.
"When people get scared, they try to "save" money, but they give it to a bank which is suddenly scared to lend it to a productive company, because scared consumers are no longer buying!"
That may have been accurate in the great depression, but not currently. We have an excess of consumer debt and government debt, and a lack of savings.
We have an excess of consumer debt and government debt, and a lack of savings.
Actually, we have both too much debt, and too much savings.
What we need are taxes, to soak up the excess savings and put them to work. But, the anti-government drive to "starve the beast" (from corporate interests like the Koch's) has prevented anything that sensible...
"there is a corresponding loss of jobs in the sectors producing widgets"
I think this is not true for USA. We have already shipped all our widget making jobs to Asia.
;-)
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJbrieftechn.pdf
Good morning fellow doomers,
It looks as though the Italians have converted mass into energy using Cold Fusion.
12 KW of it.
Nothing subtle about that.
They are going into production
Rossi
Time for a cognitive dissonant moment of our own.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-italian-scientists-cold-fusion-video...
Arthur,
I've already commented on this PDF up-list.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7189#comment-760725
For me, doom is the thought that members of the human race actually believe stuff like this.
See also RockyMtnGuy's post that follows mine.
Even if there were a tiny atom of truth in this, it hardly contradicts JulesBurn's thesis, which is that jobs created by developing renewable energy are a scam. IMO, Jules' argument is much more general than the specific situation of jobs created by renewable energy deployment. Anything that creates jobs with the hope and intention that prosperity will result, is goofy. The Romans already understood this many centuries ago. They provided bread and circuses to the plebians, not jobs.
"..JulesBurn's thesis, which is that jobs created by developing renewable energy are a scam."
Why don't you take another stab at this, then. Just how do you square a statement like this? Or would you mind trying to make it a little less sweeping and damning of an entire (continually nascent) sector?
I find this kind of expression far more offensive and worrying than a bunch of folks getting excited over a new energy toy, since I don't think the news of that Mr. Fusion will reach all that many curious ears.. unless it proves itself. But we hear a regular echo of "Solar Doesn't Work" and "Wind is undependable.." and thousands of offshoots that get people thinking that there's nothing to see over there, it's Fake, it's a Scam, it's Undependable..
Where's the scam in creating a PassivHaus Carpentry Specialty, or a Thousand Cottage Businesses with people making and selling Solar Hot Air Heaters? If your following remarks were the attenuation of that statement, I would simply add that 'Prosperity' in this case might be a euphemism for having ANY work at all. Otherwise, how is your critique different from that ongoing refrain that 'Renewables can't buy us BAU' ... since they might be the key to simply maintaining 'Business at All' ?
Bob
I'm glad that wasn't my thesis.
A bright Roman engineer once figured out how to haul marble and granite columns, blocks, etc. from the port up to Rome with much less labor.
History records that the Emperor rewarded him well, but ordered the idea suppressed. He told the engineer that getting day work hauling massive blocks uphill was one of the few ways plebeians could make honest money and he did not want to diminish that.
Alan
Hi Geek,
This is a good example of the vulnerability of the left hemisphere of the brain. It is in a powerful position as it controls logic processing and communications. (We are using it to communicate here). But it’s vulnerability is that it cannot assimilate information that it has not already incorporated.
It is only when the Right (gestalt) brain experiences the reality, that the new information is passed over to the Left for assimilation.
Another example of this is the reaction of perfectly normal people to the notion of heavier than air flight. It was not even reported in the media as everyone “knew”(Left hemisphere) that it was impossible.
If we do not find a low EROEI replacement energy for fossil fuel we will go to war.
We do not have the magic resource (oil) to fight a conventional war, so it will have to be nuclear.
Anyone who does not turn over every stone in a search for a solution to our predicament is guilty of flirting with nuclear war, if not actively supporting it.
Would you mind writing your views on Cold Fusion in copperplate, framing them and hanging them in a prominent place on your wall?
They will be ever so entertaining for your guests in future.
Well, the US could of course continue increasing its dependence on fuel imports instead of creating jobs in the local and national efficiency and renewable sector. In order to pay for these costly fuel imports it could legalize prostitution and attract john's, which currently end up in South East Asia. If the US keeps on ignoring its trade deficit, the USD will continue to fall and Americans will become more and more competitive in the adult service industry. Moreover, since prostitution doesn't require any education the US could cut any educational funding, enabling tax-cuts for adult workers and making them even more competitive.
Meanwhile European and Asian companies will continue to outperform the US in the renewable and the efficiency sector.
Besides: The real question you need to ask is: Why does the US-taxpayer need to spend almost 3 orders of magnitudes more on the military than on the reduction of the dependence on foreign resources? http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html
(Not to mention: A military which is currently struggling to get a hold of a bunch of barefooted nut cases.)
Two big points, which may or may not be mentioned adnauseam above. I can about imagine the go round in these comments and don't think I will have time to wade through them.
Joules you have a big disconnect in your reasoning on this one:
3.Adding in the concept of "induced impacts" is unnecessary. It has nothing directly to do with what is required to create the product (energy), is especially difficult to quantify, and is not unique to any particular industry (i.e. all workers will spend their paychecks somewhere). It is useful in gauging impacts to a specific locale of locating an industry there, but not in comparing different energy technologies
If one industry is losing jobs and thus payroll and another is adding this induced effect should be measured. Like you say the effect is not unique to any particular industry but is is relatively constant across payroll dollars spent. Obviously the industry adding jobs will have positive induced impact on the economy while the one removing jobs will have negative induced impact--a negative ripple effect for every job that disappears.
Now arguing about where the money comes from for those jobs and whether the diversion of those funds has created a net measurable loss in total payroll dollars to the system is a valid line of attack but it puts you in even more contentious territory than simply adding or subtracting the 'induced impact' of the 'direct and 'indirect' jobs any industry can show itself to have created.
On the flip side of the coin:
The other very obvious point is that most every direct job in the 'Winds economic ripple' chart is due to build out. Very few of those jobs are there once the renewable plants are up and running. So the renewable build out is a short term stimulus but in the longer run its per joule work force should shrink even faster than the the coal power industry's.
My point is indeed that the payroll of "induced" jobs is somewhat proportional to the actual jobs created. So in comparing two companies (or energy providers, for example), and concluding that one requires twice as much jobs as the other, the total jobs (actual + induced) will also be twice as much -- it doesn't change the relative merits.
If something is implemented which actually does require a lot more labor (because it's a higher cost product), and the government subsidizes it to keep the price the same for consumers, would that provide a needed economic stimulus? Perhaps, but isn't that what caused many problems over the last couple years? Government subsidizing the housing industry through low interest rates, providing lots of construction jobs plus financing jobs plus home depot jobs, etc.? Not a happy landing (assuming we have).
On the third side of the coin:
The industries with high initial buildout costs and lower long term (wind, solar) will have higher financing costs relative to the electricity delivered (longer payback). Offset by lack of fuel costs? Maybe. Jobs? Not clear cut.
Contentious territory? Heh.
isn't that what caused many problems over the last couple years?
Not at all. The problem in the last several years was a classic bubble, and stimulus during a bubble just makes it worse. Right now we have an output gap, so stimulus only makes things better.
The industries with high initial buildout costs and lower long term (wind, solar) will have higher financing costs relative to the electricity delivered (longer payback). Offset by lack of fuel costs? Maybe. Jobs? Not clear cut.
It's very, very clear cut. When you include all costs (occupational health, direct pollution (mercury, sulfur, asthma inducing particulates etc, etc), CO2, low level radiation, post-generation waste dumps, mountain removal, etc, etc.....wind is cheaper than coal (don't forget, for coal, fuel costs are mostly labor costs). Solar might be arguable at the moment, but solar costs are falling fast.
I was about to change 'contentious territory' to 'more contended territory' but I can't seem tell if either is proper usage today ?- )
The contended portion, anyway, is where those dollars would have been otherwise spent. I skimmed through something a while back that gave numbers for how many jobs weren't created (in Western Europe) because the expensive green jobs sucked up all the capital.
The assumptions used in the calculating jobs that might have been created in a place with a very flat though aging population and high labor and retirement costs most certainly can be contended, as would the relative economic contribution of those imagined jobs. Would some have been in high finance and have helped create an even worse house of cards. Would some have been in home health care and kept more high cost lives going creating an even greater long term drag? The world of jobs that might have been created is an ethereal place.
No argument from me about how bad the hangover is from our subsidized home building party. But hey I often make my living on even worse spent bucks, federal military build out, so I dasn't be too sanctimonious ?- )
Does that mean I feel the government should get out of the building business (both by subsidy and direct expenditure)--no. I've felt since my mid sixties high school days that creating good rapid mass transit and more livable urban spaces through the creation of flow through green space would be a great place to spend fed bucks.
The pressures for the increased housing subsidies coming hand in hand with less oversight of finance tools came from the established big players. Not many players more established or bigger than the coal industry on the American energy scene. That of course is not in an of itself incriminating but it does raise my red flags.
If there's one thing we learned here at TOD, it's that energy is money (in terms of real worth, not funny money). With that in mind, let me remind you that a hundred man hours of labour spent by renewable energy employees does not hold a candle to the mechanical energy spent on making a single windmill blade or running an oil rig for a minute.
On the other hand, let me present to you energy source X. It requires no human labour at all, it only requires that you feed it 2000 bboe of energy in return for each 1000 bboe of energy it generates. Should be a slam dunk according to your argument, no?
In the final analysis, unless you want to argue that renewable energy sources have negative EROEI, it does not matter whether they create more or less jobs, any investment in any net positive energy production, renewable or not, can only have positive impacts on the economy.
If more net energy is generated, it hardly matters if 99% of the population is tied up with energy and food production. With more energy on hand and with the help of modern automation, the remaining 1% of people can generate more goods and services than all of us are generating now. Unless you have that archaic "people is wealth" mindset...
For high income nations ~ whether they are long time net oil importers, like the US, net oil importers in more modest amounts who were recently net oil exporters, like the UK, the marginal impact barrel of crude oil burned on the employment impact of Net Exports is the same: one more barrel of crude oil burned is Net Exports dropping by the price of a barrel of crude oil, with employment dropping by the price of a barrel times the income multiplier on net exports times the employment multiplier on a dollar of national income.
Given that the price of crude oil will be volatile and subject to repeated price spikes over the decade ahead, that means that the exposure of a high income nation to a substantial negative employment impact of crude oil price spikes is a function of its dependence on crude oil.
So the first question, entirely set aside in the analysis above, is how to avoid that. Avoiding that requires some combination of improved energy efficiency of the things that we do, more rapid exhaustion of other non-renewable energy resources, or more intensive exploitation of renewable energy resources.
We can pretend that the costs of coal are low, by allowing firms focused on exhausting our coal reserves to free ride on destroying our life support system while mining and burning the coal and by using the atmosphere as a CO2 dump with neither any requirement that they prove that its safe to so so nor with any prospect that they could provide it if called on to prove it. However, physical and biological facts cannot be overturned by any legislature, administration or court ~ they can either be respected or ignored, but if ignored the consequences will be felt.
And if we don't pretend that the costs of coal are low, there are multiple sources of domestically generated power that are cheaper than coal. We will gain more standard of living from the domestic resources we direct to the process of replacing oil consumption with domestic energy sources if we focus our attention on those multiple sources of domestically generated power that are already cheaper, and our longer term R&D efforts on expanding the range of technologies that meet that standard.