Saul Griffith calculates what we need to do to keep the world we evolved in 7

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   David Roberts Posted 2:58 pm
   08 Mar 2009

   Definitely worth watchingI met Griffith once and talked to him for a bit. He's so smart it's intimidating, and I've met lots of smart people.
   
   grist.org

   Permalink

2. 

   Gar Lipow Posted 5:43 am
   09 Mar 2009

   We need it all, but Griffith overstates difficultyGriffith may be smartest guy in the world, but he made an arithmetic mistake somewhere. He estimates it takes 141X141 meters to sustain U.S. energy consumption with renewables, but:
   If all energy use was converted to kWh the U.S. uses about 100,000 kWh per person per year
   
   
   Nevada solar produces about 7.69 kWh per square foot per years.This includes all land use, not just solar collectors, but generators, access roads, buildings, services and even land left undisturbed within property boundaries
   
   So square footage to generate energy from solar equivalent to U.S. use is about 12,750 square feet per person per year.
   That is 34.4 meters by 34.4 meters, not 141 x 141 meters.With current populaiton that is about 3.2 million square miles.If population stabilizes at 10 billion that is about 4.7 million square miles
   But lots of very nice places to live use about half the energy per person the U.S. does, and
   
   they have not maximized efficiency. We can reduce emissions by 80% from per capita U.S. usage without doing stuff like reducing use of pens to one pen per lifetime.
   So about 820,000 square miles to provide energy to sustain a world population of 10 billion with current U.S. GDP.So about 1.5% of land area of word's deserts could generate energy needed for a U.S. per capita GDP with a world population of 10 billions. That is less than one third of an Australia, and includes population growth!
   Of course Nevada One, because it is small, has a high ratio of service area to collectors. Large scale solar farms would probably reduce that, and require only 1% of world desert land.
   And that does not consider wind energy, solar on or shading rooftops or paved area, small amounts of geothermal and hydro, small amounts of biofuel, small amounts of fossil fuel.  

   Permalink

3. 

   biodiversivist Posted 6:08 am
   09 Mar 2009

   I second that. This is well worth watching.Some notes on biofuels:
   When asked how he thinks funding for renewable energy should be distributed he said 90% into existing technology that we already know works to reduce GHG, 10% into research for things like algae biofuels "...that go closer to the 9 or 10 percent efficiency instead of the present half of a percent."
   Biofuels have a wildly disproportionate [infrastructure] investment compared to its capacity to solve the problem.
   He likens algae biofuels (does not even give the time of day to existing biofuels) to fusion as a hoped-for future solution with an unacceptably long lead time.
   I don't hold out a lot of hope for a magic biofuel and I also think the power density of biofuels is problematic.
   He spent a lot of time trying to diplomatically placate a biofuel enthusiast named Drew in the audience off to his right.
   Misc Notes:
   He is about to have a child (or at least, his wife is). This will bring him into the fold with those of us already worried sick about our children's futures.
   I'm worried about how you would phrase it [green jobs will solve problem]. Lets not call that an energy independence project ... that's about oil. We will have to use energy much more wisely.
   He was asked if we have the political will. I would have answered that with a question. Have you known any politician since Carter with enough integrity to call for something as simple as a reduced speed limit (which was mentioned in the talk as a very effective solution)?
   Does not think highly of carbon offsets. Mentions http://www.cheatneutral.com
   "Business travel actually sucks."
   Amen to that.
   He flew 120,000 miles in 2007. He owns eleven bicycles. I am relieved and inspired by his example of reducing his own carbon footprint. Maybe Gore and Friedman really should make an effort to do same.
   He mentions repeatedly the fact that ideas must "scale." This is key.
   He is 6/7 ths vegetarian, but, dairy and eggs use about the same resources as chicken and pork, a little less than beef. We need a new word to replace vegetarianism, which is inaccurate anyway if you include dairy and eggs. Somebody come up with a better all-inclusive word for a low impact diet.
   Making stuff last longer is another way of saying we have to slow our economic growth down.
   Have to stop deforestation, accounts for 10-20% GHG.
   
   In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

   Permalink

4. 

   sunflower Posted 6:32 am
   09 Mar 2009

   new word -- FlexitarianNegative feedback mechanism -- economic collapse.
   Saul, others, and I have vested interests, so be somewhat cautious.  Nonetheless, a good start on the possible.
   The solutions that can scale will cost less than coal in Asia, India, and here in the USA.

   Permalink

5. 

   Gar Lipow Posted 7:34 am
   09 Mar 2009

   BiofuelThe only biofuel I have time for is small amounts from waste. Small because biofuel from waste has to not rob the soil, which reduces energy production.

   Permalink

6. 

   GonzoDon Posted 7:37 am
   09 Mar 2009

   You forgot one small inconvenient truth.All measures to thwart the degradation and destruction of our ecosystem will be useless if we do not cut population growth.

   Permalink

7. 

   biodiversivist Posted 7:44 am
   09 Mar 2009

   True that GonzoHe should have mentioned funding for family planning education and voluntary contraception.
   
   In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

   Permalink