There's a point about renewable energy that's been rattling around in my head for a while. Now one of our dear readers has gone and made it in comments, so let me take a whack at it here, drawing on what he said.
Imagine this: A (small-d) democratic, open-source, modular energy grid that accepts and distributes power from any source. Some regions or towns generate power with solar installations, some with wind turbines, some with hydropower, some with tide or wave power, and most with some combination of sources. The energy grid is a piece of federal infrastructure; access to it is a guaranteed public good.
This is, I think, the kind of energy grid most greens would like to see, and the kind they ultimately have in mind when they advocate for clean energy. (The details -- and they are legion -- will have to be hashed out, obviously.)
Now, consider a few characteristics of that system:
There's no central source of energy, access to which can be controlled or taxed. Local communities will be substantially more economically self-reliant, less subject to manipulation through strings-laden federal grants. Because energy sources will mostly be small-scale and locally owned, there will be no massive energy lobby cuddling up to politicians, lavishing them with donations in exchange for special favors.
The more you think it through, the more you realize: a lot of today's centers of power and influence stand to lose big in the transition to a post-oil, distributed-energy society. Power, both literal and political, will devolve downward and outward.
This is, in fact, just the point jimbeyer makes in this comment: "Renewable energy is about the permanent loss of a major source of control of much of modern humanity."
His guess is that the big PR push for the "hydrogen economy" is "an attempt to try to structure renewable energy and remaining coal resources into a mechanism of control." (I would make a similar point about the concurrent PR pushes for nuclear power and natural gas.)
I don't even chalk it up to a grand conspiracy on the part of the powers-that-be, really. It's just what they know. It's the model they're familiar with. They are accustomed to power and influence being centralized in the hands of elites. They will fight the passing of that model -- it portends their own obsolescence.
Renewable energy is part of the historical trend putting more and more power in the hands of individuals, fracturing the elites that once held it. That -- not feasibility, or economic viability, or dead friggin' birds -- is the biggest challenge it has to overcome.
Comments
View as Flat
Biodiversivist Posted 11:08 am
15 Jun 2005
I am having a hard time coming up with concrete examples of control based on centralized energy production. I am not saying this is not necessarily valid, but I can't think of of any examples that illustrate how central energy production is bad for me.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 6:47 am
16 Jun 2005
Upgrade and extend the national power grid and have government regulation such that a free and fair market in energy is created.
So that a power company in one state can invest in a wind or solar installation in another area where that power is steadier and more plentiful.
Consumers in Ohio could use wind power generated on the high wind areas of the great plains, from wind machines owned by their local power company.
It will take a government effort on the scale of the TVA or Hoover Dam project.
A small percentage of the value of the power transported, bought, and sold would go towards paying for the system amd it's operation.
This regulation would take monopolistic manipulators like those energy traders recorded snickering about grandma's energy bill in the California energy crisis right out of the picture.
I'm all for local power generation too, from home scale all the way to factory and oil refining levels! A big solar furnace powered refinery in the desert southwest would be a great start.
Isn't this a better idea than "The Apollo Energy Project"?
I would also want government to purchase it's energy from these sources in order to get this whole system operating in mass production scale.
The same with biofuel plants and hybrid plugin vehicles.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 6:54 am
16 Jun 2005
Big power is comcentrated in monopoly businesses, energy business hsas been this way since whale oil, and then John D's dtandard oil.
The old trust buster showed how it is, plain and simple.
We need to restore free and fair markets to the realm of energy and the capital that impels energy policy forward. With real competitive capitalism at work, where each power source truly pays its way, in terms of waste, war, and environmental policy, inovation will rule once more. Renewable energy inovation. It will win out given a fair and free market place.
And replace monopoly exploitation and the harm that fossil and nuclear power are doing to civilization, through endless war, and mother earth through pollution.
Permalink
John Romankiewicz Posted 10:57 am
16 Jun 2005
But, what scares me is DestiNY USA, the new super mall they're putting in Syracuse, NY. It's supposed to be bigger than Mall of America, but it's also supposed to be entirely run on renewable power.
I'm not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing. It's normal American development as usual, putting up malls and such. Is it leading to the decentralized more democratized power that Dave was initially referring to? I don't think so. It certainly isn't a paradigm shift at all. It's trying to keep with the normal pace of American consumerism but introducing renewable energy to power it all. I'm skeptical if it will work, and if it doesn't then people will lose faith in renewables.
Check out the plans: http://www.destinyusa.com/home/?page=home
Thing's like the friggin Death Star...
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:39 am
17 Jun 2005
Corporations seeking a social/political structure that allows their preeminence over government. How will ocean based colonies govern themselves, or space based colonies?
Will they be corporate entities or will government of, by, and for the people rule them?
If a mega cities can contain civilization for the most part, and they are eco-friendly, then that leaves the rest of the natural world a bit less sprawled upon..that is a plus, but without sane reproductive rights for women worldwide it will not stop the destruction of spaceship earth from over population.
As far as renewables being capable of supporting the mega mall? Yes, that is technically possible and can be economically profitable, given a successful design and execution.
But government that represents the interests of we the people ought to rule mega cities.
And consumption equalling happiness is the huge flaw behind these mega consuming projects.
The basic value of quality of life over quantity of consumption and possesions must take over for 99% of humanity or this planet will be used up as exponential population growth and consumption takes over.
Permalink