This started as a response to Michael Tobis in this thread, but seemed worthy of moving to its own post.
Michael said: "I started by defending sequestration on the grounds of the conventional wisdom that renewables do not seem adequate for the whole energy picture ..." This is a common refrain. You frequently hear people say that we "have to" continue using fossil fuels for the foreseeable future because we "can't" meet our energy needs with renewables. Naturally, if that's true, the debate is over. Can't is can't; impossible is impossible. Or is it?
What's known as our "solar budget" -- the currently circulating flows of wind, sunlight, tides, the heat inside the earth -- is orders of magnitude larger than our current or projected energy demand. It's more than we could ever realistically use.
We already have the technology to put these renewable sources of energy to work for us (and to do so more efficiently). New, ingenious ways of capturing renewable energy are being developed every day.
We also have the money to shift to renewables. It's easy to forget in all the quibbles over relatively small dollar amounts, but the U.S. is almost unfathomably rich, with an economy north of $13 trillion in 2006. When all is said and done, we're going to spend about $1 trillion on the Iraq War, and while it's a spectacular waste, it hasn't noticeably damaged our economy. If we collectively decided to devote, say, $5 trillion over five years to build out renewables and efficiency (R&E), you better believe we could make them "adequate for the whole energy picture."
So: we have the renewable energy, we have the technology to capture it, and we have the money to build out the technology. That is to say:
The argument over renewables isn't about can or can't, it's about should or shouldn't.
If people want to argue that we shouldn't aggressively switch to renewables -- that it's too expensive, or too politically difficult -- let them. But quit with the "can't" cant.
‘Heretic’ battles straw man
Gore on the Daily Show: extended dance remix
Comments
View as Flat
NonprofitWatch Posted 6:40 am
06 Sep 2007
a multitude of posts on this site
regarding the rapidly expanding climate chaos
and the problems and costs of non-renewables
that we definitely SHOULD
bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org -
bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org
Permalink
justlou Posted 7:11 am
06 Sep 2007
It seems logical that our economies at all scales would have to adapt to these variations so as to not be dependent on fossil fuels or other stored energy sources to fill in the gaps.
Logistically, it seems that economies would need to function more like farms -- when the sun shines, make hay. This could be a very challenging way to live in synch with the natural earth rythyms and cycles. I am not sure our 24/7 modern version would fit very well. But that may not be bad.
By all means!
Permalink
sunflower Posted 8:05 am
06 Sep 2007
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:17 am
06 Sep 2007
"We also have the money to shift to renewables. It's easy to forget in all the quibbles over relatively small dollar amounts, but the U.S. is almost unfathomably rich, with an economy north of $13 trillion in 2006."
Mr. Roberts, I'm looking forward to hearing more about the solar energy and/or wind energy system you are installing on your house. Everyone who can afford it should be installing alternative energy systems appropriate for where they live.
I'd like to do the same, but I decided that the $30,000 price tag for removing my home from the grid was prohibitively expensive right now. I really don't have much I can cut from my budget in order to pay for two decades of energy years before I need it. Perhaps if enough of you folks who can afford it do pursue renewables it will bring down the cost for the rest of us.
Thank you in advance for pushing the envelope on renewable energy.
Forward!
Permalink
sunflower Posted 8:47 am
06 Sep 2007
Permalink
Jones Posted 11:39 am
06 Sep 2007
Based on growing markets in the United States for clean, base-load capacity, the panel thinks that with a combined public/private investment of about $800 million to $1 billion over a 15-year period, EGS technology could be deployed commercially on a timescale that would produce more than 100,000 MWe or 100 GWe of new capacity by 2050.
and said:
By almost any criteria, the accessible U.S. EGS resource base is enormous - greater than...130,000 times the current annual consumption of primary energy in the United States.
Now suppose that some of that money you guys just spent on beating Love into the hearts and minds of Iraqis was invested in developing EGS? Like, $15 bn a year for 15 years, rather than the $1 bn/year proposed by the study? How much sweet baseload would you be pumping out by 2050? All of it Middle East- and pollution-free.*
This could happen, but your government seems intent on letting the terrorists win.
*Warning: may cause earthquakes
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 12:02 pm
06 Sep 2007
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 12:26 pm
06 Sep 2007
Forward!
Permalink
hosro Posted 8:23 am
07 Sep 2007
the equation. Like "shop locally," the idea needs some deaper and honest thought. By honest I mean being willing to recognize the consequences of our position and limitations to its use.
I would appreciate discussion by professional and academic experts regarding size of systems. It has been a long while, but
I remember Edison supported development of many small to
medium power plants, not related to dc transmission.
The Japanese are using fuel cells to power some office buildings and looking at providing power by city block and individual residence using fuel cell technology.
The foot print of the very large power systems we have favored have their consequence simply by their foot print where they are located and the means of transmitting their power over long distances. Now one reads of homes and businesses selling back to power companies excess power their own system provides, solar or otherwise. I know the power companies are required to pay for it.
I lived in a community where power was generated partially using gravity and water to turn turbines. This allowed for levelling energy loads during the 24 hours. Excess power pumped water to a reservoir during the day and the water was released at night to turn turbines and generate electricity that was then sold across the grid. The effect was to lower over all cost to consumers. Other fuels were used to complete the co-generation.
The end to remember is that all of the systems we realise require expenditures of energy to fabricate, transport, erect, and maintain. The total life cycle costs to establish, service, and dispose need to be transparent. The reduction of carbon-dioxide has its costs the non-reduction of carbon costs are much higher to us and with what we share this small globe. The Earth you may recall does not need us.
Life has unintended consequences. I am not passive.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 10:46 am
07 Sep 2007
Personally, I don't know why we call it "renewable" energy because the sun, wind, tides, waves, and other natural forms of energy are infinite - I mean come on, they don't have to be "renewed" like plugging in a battery, right? You don't have to plant a crop of switchgrass, right? It's free!
Likewise, you have to admit that the rhetoric about should, might, could, and would is the same as debating whether renewable energy really is renewed (what would Einstein say?).
We all know why there is resistance to replacing large 100 to 250 megawatt power units with alternative wind and water power: the stockholders. So far, such alternative power sources have only been used to augment extra power, not replace baseload electrical generating stations. Even Florida Power and Light, very forward thinking and a large investor in wind turbines, uses it for peripheral growth in the "green market." It sells, too.
But at the same time, 158 new coal fired plants are being considered for construction in the US, as of a little over a year ago. Those business maneuvers are decided in board rooms of very large monopolies who control the base load and distribution.
But you already know all that.
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Brudaimonia Posted 4:16 am
08 Sep 2007
He said, "You know that wind turbines would slow the rotation of the earth, right?"
(It's something to ponder, but the answer is no. The winds themselves might influence the Earth's rotation ever so slightly, but not, by any kind of non-negligible amount, wind turbines.)
Permalink
objective7 Posted 5:58 am
08 Sep 2007
Some countries are blessed with an abundant supply of hydrocarbons [substitute non-renewable fuel or fuels of choice], and yet no such "region" is energy independent, nor can it ever be due to unpredictable and disruptive natural (earthquake) and unnatural (sabotage, corruption) forces. Thus energy independence is an unrealistic goal.
It follows that, paradoxically, global energy security can only be achieved by promoting energy dependence, which fosters cooperation and engagement, rather than isolationism. Thus energy dependence represents a greater good for humanity, and while a rise in demand for non-renewables can be tempered by the deployment of renewables, a hasty retreat to renewable fuels to the exclusion of non-renewable fuels would ultimately work to destabilize global security.
Everyone needs, and hence, is inextricably bound to non-renewable fuels, and demand for these fuels will only increase. Therefore, we must give precedence to balancing the needs of producers and consumers while simultaneously increasing supply and curbing demand, and this can only be achieved by relying on companies (or forces) like Chevron who are most qualified to handle the complexities inherit in these delicate, complex and demanding tasks.
Hence the global map of oil flows [substitute non-renewable fuel or fuels of choice] at the top of the page, and the barrel (source) at the bottom that frames the sober text message in between the two. The barrel of oil fuels global commerce as food and water does the human circulatory system, and this barrel is projected to increase in size by 40 percent by 2030. That's the result of "human energy." The question is, just who really is holding whom over a barrel, and how many Americans know how to use who or whom as effectively as Chevron [substitute non-renewable fuel supplier, large-scale user or enabler of choice]?
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 9:46 am
08 Sep 2007
You can create market incentives on the supply side and/or the demand side, but the customer has the final choice, right? If it's anything else like mandates from the central government, then that isn't Democracy any more - it smacks like those Soviet 5-Year Plans.
There is an ugly side to some of the wishful thinking about renewable energy. If people won't do it, and corporations won't do it, you want the government to do it for you. Last I checked, no Democrats weren't proposing gasoline rationing or scheduled brown-outs so as to lower energy demand.
Onward through the fog
Permalink
trock Posted 11:01 am
08 Sep 2007
I wish it would be done. But I have doubts. Every option which starts here and we want to go to over there and in the middle is the statement "and then a miracle occurs", we're stuck with being over here.
There is optimism for the future from this post. We could spend a trillion dollars a year in 5 years and have replaced most of the fossil fuel energy for renewable energy. It might really take longer than that actually to build everything, but the theory is there.
If the world gets to hot, and deniers even get to hot, it might be possible to make the change. Maybe the plans should be loosely worked out as an exercise. What would a flash 5 year energy plan look like? Or make it 10 years.
Permalink
wayneluke Posted 1:43 am
09 Sep 2007
If you push renewables and offer the coal miners in the country jobs installing those systems without worrying about cave-ins or black lung diseases and comparable (or better income rates), then you can simply go around that industry. Same can be done with oil rig crews and refinery workers over time.
If the government went to the large petroleum companies and said "We have a trillion dollars to invest in your business but you need to do this", then they would look at other means of producing their income besides petroleum. Like someone said above, its the stockholders. In the long run the stockholder doesn't care if the energy comes from fossil fuels or a solar bank as long as the dividend check arrives on time and their investment increases.
The main problem here is that the people in charge are so closed minded about current profits that they are not looking long term. The oil industry is not going to be a trillion dollar a year industry forever so these people should be looking to alternative income sources to replace that if they truly want to keep their stockholders happy. I know that BP gets knocked a lot and they aren't the most environmentally friendly company but they do have their feet wet in Solar and Wind Energy. It shows someone at that company is at least looking towards the future. Other companies should get on board as well.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 3:45 am
09 Sep 2007
Not a good way to make friends with a Republican, but face it, it all comes down to money, greed, and the political lobby.
But there is factual evidence that government controls do indeed work. States that deregulated electricity, for example, have higher rates and LESS competition than ever (thanks to companies like AEP). So, let's say electrical rates would be changed so
conventional fuels charged 25 cents/kW-hr
clean energy sources 12.5 cents/kW-hr
That'll turn some heads!
I'm no economist and nothing happens in a steady state system, but the idea is you're going to charge a tax of up to 5 cents for conventional fuel use and give that as seed money to the clean alternative power projects. If you play with the math, at first the pool of money will be huge but then dwindle over time as more people and businesses shift to the clean power (Law of Diminishing Returns). This is the way you want to build the system, and of course one has to fiddle with the numbers along the way to prevent massive power supply interruptions (Small Provider Exemption - such as an island off Alaska) or for the needy (lower incomes and the elderly).
I wouldn't call it a tax, subsidy, or even a "carbon tax." It is simply a way to fund a shift in energy demand without having to print new money. Of course, the only fallacy I can see is that it will be impossible to get 100% of the users paying half what they used to pay (25 cents down to 12.5) but I'll think about a work-around about that pesky devil, too.
See what you think.
sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
mihan Posted 4:23 am
09 Sep 2007
Permalink
trock Posted 12:15 am
10 Sep 2007
I'm a businessperson who just bought a coal mine for a billion dollars. I got workers who have benn there for years with pensions and they live in places near the coal, but far from other industry.
Now environmentalists want to reduce my business and even put me out of business. I've got loans to pay on the business as well as kids to put thru college. My workers don't want to leave our town and are quite satified with their pensions piling up. The workers also want their children nearby, so they don't want the plant to close either.
As a businessperson in coal and workers in coal, we're going to use many methods to keep our way of life. We even invade other countries to keep our way of life, it's nothing to run a Global Warming disinformation campaign. Hell, there is hardly any law making bills possible to be a threat to the fossil fuel industry and there is already a disinformation campaign. Just imagine if we took out 100 billion out of the trillion dollar industry and we were going after the second 100 billion. You don't think they would have a 100 million or even a billion dollar disinformation campaign?
The fossil fuel industry has the money, workers and customers who want Global Warming Environmentalists to be wrong. A little thing like science isn't going to make much difference.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 3:35 am
10 Sep 2007
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Kristina & Jason Makansi Posted 5:24 am
10 Sep 2007
David is right that the technologies needed to tip the balance in favor of wind and other "renewables" and away from coal are in place and are improving every day. The question is not can we do it, the question is will we do it. It is a question of political and market will.
Let's not forget that companies wouldn't be selling all that electricity made from coal if consumers didn't demand cheap electricity...and today, cheap electricity comes from coal. If we want to change that equation, we need to change our consumption habits (Think: Less!) and our willingness to pay more for a green product. The largest business sector in our economy will not turn around on a dime. It has to be pushed, pulled (shoved?), incentivized, and subsidized in order for major shifts in business prorities to take place.
Plus, remember that many of those stockholders out there demanding their dividend checks are you and me. Utilities and oil/gas interests are usually always represented in pension plans, diversified mutual funds, and other retirement savings plans. If we want companies to pay attention to a greener agenda, we all have to be involved.
As for making "renewables" work in a world where cheap, always on, always reliable energy is demanded 24/7 and the wind only blows sometimes and the sun doesn't shine all the time, well, there's always bulk storage. Investments in bulk storage will "smooth" the effects of intermittent energy sources feeding onto the grid.
And, believe it or not, there are good people within the electricity industry working hard to research and deploy new efficient technologies, trying to make "renwables" part of their company's asset portfolios, and, generally speaking, trying to be a part of the solution.
Pearl Street::Jason and Kristina Makansi
Read Lights Out reviews
Permalink
Kristina & Jason Makansi Posted 6:15 am
10 Sep 2007
Light - $ .02/kwh
Refrigeration - $ .04/kwh
Heating - $ .05/kwh
Cooling/Air Conditioning - $ .08/kwh
Computing - $ .04/kwh
Plus:
Computing Power Reliability Surcharge - $ .02/kwh
CO2 Emissions Reduction Surcharge - $ .08/kwh
Would the average consumer change their electricity usage habits? Chances are, when it is spelled out so vividly, the answer would be yes.
It's not just a question of no pain/no gain; it's about no knowledge about consequences/no reason to change behaviors. Giving consumers the tools and the knowledge to make educated decisions about their energy usage is the only clear way we can expect them to make the choice to use a lot more of what some are calling the 'fifth fuel'--energy efficiency.
Pearl Street::Jason and Kristina Makansi
Read Lights Out reviews
Permalink