Recently George Monbiot argued that humanity must figure out a way to leave the fossil fuels in the ground:
Most of the governments of the rich world now exhort their citizens to use less carbon. They encourage us to change our lightbulbs, insulate our lofts, turn our televisions off at the wall. In other words, they have a demand-side policy for tackling climate change. But as far as I can determine, not one of them has a supply-side policy. None seeks to reduce the supply of fossil fuel. So the demand-side policy will fail. Every barrel of oil and tonne of coal that comes to the surface will be burned.
In other words, things like fuel economy standards and efficient appliances won't help unless cars and appliances are powered by renewable energy (solar/wind/geothermal).
The problem might be more manageable if we divide it into three parts:
- Active energy sources -- wind/solar/geothermal.
- Passive energy sources -- mostly in buildings, as detailed in David's recent excellent post .
- Design -- as in how to design cities, towns, and the their transportation systems.
Once we have moved to renewable electricity and passive systems as the source of almost all of our energy needs, then we can keep the rest of the fossil fuels in the ground.
Why buying cheap energy certificates worsens climate change
‘Heretic’ battles straw man
Comments
View as Flat
trock Posted 1:14 pm
18 Dec 2007
Permalink
JohnMashey Posted 1:29 pm
18 Dec 2007
a) It's hard to understand how we'll avoid burning most of the oil and gas we can get. [Of course, a lot of oil will still be there, because that's the way oil reservoirs work. Also, gas reservoirs, being gas, tend to drop sharper after the peak.]
b) It's coal I worry about, as there is going to be terrific pressure to burn more of it as oil (& especially gas) prices jiggle their way up.
c) Suppose people get scared enough to start doing the right things on efficiency. Suppose later a new oil/gas field pops up. Should we wish to leave it in the ground, or hope to use it to fend off coal?
Any gap between (oil+gas decreasing) and efficiency+renewable increasing => terrific pressure for coal. [I grew up near coal country, and have read Jeff Goodell's Big Coal. Please, No.]
At least, so far, we're not drilling in ANWR, and California has long tried to deny renewals for offshore oil leases.
-John Mashey
Permalink
Ekirky Posted 1:48 pm
18 Dec 2007
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:19 pm
18 Dec 2007
Am I optimistic? No. But I think it's our moral imperative to attempt to avoid disaster, which is why it's important to lay out exit routes, trock, even though it leaves one open to sarcasm (not that I care..sob...weep).
As for pricing carbon, the problem we face is that the non-fossil fuel alternatives must be put in place as fossil fuels become more expensive -- for instance, if gasoline becomes more expensive, then there should trains available (using renewable electricity, of course). And in a way, carbon taxes/cap-and-trade have to eventually lead to carbon emission bans.
One alternative, which some commenters have discussed (I can't remember if it's amazingdrx or pangolin), is to try to switch to natural gas as much as possible by shifting to geothermal exchange/retrofitting to avoid using natural gas for heating. But it still begs the question -- what kind of infrastructure/means of electrical generation/passive building do we need to avoid any fossil fuel use?
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 3:42 pm
18 Dec 2007
A supply side approach achieved through extraction limits, agreed by a small number of governments removes the complexity associated with billions of stakeholders.
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 12:17 am
19 Dec 2007
But the larger point is that all sources - even the renewable ones - are inherently limited, and we therefore have to pursue greater efficiency in parallel with renewables. Putting in a more efficient lightbulb is agnostic with respect to the upstream power plant fuel it saves, but it implicitly makes a renewable future more likely by reducing the amount of upstream renewables we need to harvest & build. On the other side, moderinizing regulations to remove the throughput bias of electric utilities lowers energy use for all upstream fuels, which is critical even in renewable futures.
As against that, there is a real danger in framing efficiency as being competitive with renewables, because it puts otherwise allied groups (the EE and RE camps) in opposition. I speak from experience on this, as I've suffered my share of Pat Tillman moments, getting shot by "dark greens" as I advocated EE positions that tried to topple the "browns". Whenever this happens, the result of such infighting amongst greens is another win for the browns. The ability of the environmental community to meet it's long-term goals will always be hampered - often, quite dramatically - until they can get over this false competition.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:30 am
19 Dec 2007
Permalink
JMG Posted 1:52 am
19 Dec 2007
This is hugely wrong--100 MW of new supply presumes that we will replace dirty fuels with clean, rather than adding the cleaner supply to the dirty stuff (which is what we actually see happen). And there's essentially no end to the amount of this that can be done, so it does nothing to limit the overshoot problem (more energy means more of everything else, means more people, means more demands for energy and everything else ...).
Adding an equivalent amount of negawatts through efficiency means that you reduce the call on resources and reduce waste and materials throughput. And efficiency tends to require behavior change that tends to viscerally reinforce the idea of limits and the need for conscious use of resources; the same amount of new megawatts, even if renewable, encourages people to keep thinking that outlets are magical devices from which electrons flow without end.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
JohnMashey Posted 3:34 am
19 Dec 2007
Sean and his father have certainly been trying for a long time to move EE forward. I recommend:
Thomas R. Casten and Robert U. Ayreas, "Energy Myth Eight - Worldwide Power Systems are Economically and Environmentally Optimal" in:
"Energy and American Society - Thirteen Myths", Benjamin K. Sovacool, Marilyn A. Brown, eds.
That's an excellent article, as is the book overall.
[I've twice tried to write a review of it for Amazon, but they seem to fall into a black data hole somewhere.]
-John Mashey
Permalink
stopgreenpath Posted 8:16 am
19 Dec 2007
you want demand-side management? how about net-zero building codes? how about real-time usage meters so while you blaze 50 lights and 3 plasma TVs in your McMansion, you can see exactly what you are doing to the planet? how about STEEPLY tiered pricing, so that each resident gets a base allowance of, say 350 kWh/month for cheap, then it cranks upward from there. because that's the reality. every EXTRA load you put on the system leads to environmental destruction which is very expensive. we are just too accustomed to socializing those costs, and we should stop.
you don't have to be a "Dark Green" to realize that a pyramid scheme of ever-increasing consumption will destroy the planet. you have to have 2 brain cells. you don't have to be a "Dark Green" to recognize that destruction of entire ecosystems (rainforests, old-growth forests, coral reefs, polar icecaps, and next up - deserts!) is gonna have catastrophic effects on the planet, so you can't just offset greenhouse gases with ecosystem obliteration.
sincere conservation paired with 100% urban renewables is the only answer. let's fix this mess before the entire desert is gone forever.
the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.
Permalink
picassotrigger Posted 2:34 pm
31 Jan 2008
The regenerative braking system of a Toyota Prius hybrid captures energy from the forward motion of the vehicle. Would this be considered a supply side or demand side solution?
On the one hand, it is unrelated to the primary production of renewable energy from solar/wind/geothermal; on the other hand, it is not technically an energy efficiency solution in that it unrelated to the efficiency of the internal combustion engine that powers the car, the design elements of the car that affect energy requirements for acceleration (eg. mass), or the design elements of the car that affect energy losses due to friction (eg. shape).
Reframing the issue in terms of "active energy production", "passive energy production", and "design" is better, but it still fails to suggest the possibility of creating the Prius hybrid's regenerative braking system as a solution.
In actuality, the Prius's regenerative braking system is a mechanism for capturing energy that is an unintended byproduct of an existing human machine or system. That is, the intended purpose of a car is to transport people or goods from point A to point B. The fact that a car embodies kinetic energy while it is in use is completely unintentional.
This "by-product energy" exists in many human machines and systems, but may be overlooked because of the way in which we frame our conversations. For example, the purpose of a water tower is to store water for domestic consumption, but it also stores gravitational potential energy that might be harnessed to generate energy.
Is this renewable energy? No. Is it clean energy? Absolutely.
Permalink