Tomorrow, I'm interviewing Amory Lovins, Cofounder, Chairman, and Chief Scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute. I suppose Lovins needs no introduction here, but if you want a compact summary of his contributions, Wikipedia's got a decent entry. If you'd like to read some of his stuff, check out Winning the Oil Endgame, which promises a roadmap for getting the U.S. "completely, attractively, and profitably off oil" by 2025. This year, he won the highly prestigious Blue Planet Prize for major contributions to solving environmental problems.
In short, Lovins represents the most articulate proponent of what's come to be known as the "techno-optimist" take on green issues. He believes that we can design and engineer our way out of our energy and climate problems, while improving our quality of life and our economy in the process. Not only does he believe it, he designs and engineers it, and he consults with extremely powerful corporate and military leaders.
The two standard digs at Lovins are that a) he leads people to (falsely?) believe their consumptive lifestyles will never have to change, and b) he neglects regulatory and legislative changes in favor of technology.
The RMI's 25th anniversary is this year, so this interview will have to involve some historical perspective. I've only got about 30 minutes, so I want to make it count.
Anyway: what should I ask him?
Do we need nuclear and coal plants for baseload power?
Slideshow: Our favorite green mustaches
The Climate Post: Big hopes for Al G.
Comments
View as Flat
Ron Steenblik Posted 6:22 am
10 Jul 2007
If he goes on about that, ask point out that what enthusiasts for cellulosic ethanol tend to forget is that there is no "waste" in nature. The biomass that they want to turn into energy has a value to the soil, and to wildlife. Studies by the USDA suggest that if corn is to be grown "sustainably" (only a fraction of one percent of corn grown in the USA is produced using organic methods), all but 1/4 to 1/3 of the non-cob part of the plant would need to be left behind on the ground, or plowed under.
Also, many of the cost estimates of cellulosic ethanol seem to have made heroic assumptions about the cost of the feedstock -- starting from the cost of producing plants like switchgrass on prime Midwest farmland. What these studies forget is that, unless bribed (i.e., subsidized) to do otherwise, farmers are going to grow the crop that offers the greatest profit per acre, not necessarily the crop that can be produced the cheapest. And that is, and will remain, corn.
Yes, some switchgrass (or hemp) might be able to be grown on CRP land. But that land rarely exists in nice, large contiguous parcels -- the kind of catchment areas that large cellulosic plants (i.e., the ones that can exploit economies of scale) would need in order to be profitable.
So, what about wood chips? Well, it seems, the various biomass industries are each laying claim to it. In the northeast USA, for example, wood-fired power plants are also counting on having cheap fuel available. Yet there is only so much that can go around. The result already may be a doubling in the price of wood chips by next year.
In short, where is the feedstock going to come from, how much will it cost, and how much of taxpayer's money does he think it is worth to reach his cellulosic ethanol dream?
Permalink
trock Posted 6:47 am
10 Jul 2007
Permalink
JMG Posted 6:52 am
10 Jul 2007
Is the market's virtually total disinterest in the hypercar a sign of market wisdom or market failure?
You might follow up by asking whether there's any evidence whatsoever that the world can afford to pursue (much less attain) MORE private autos, hyper or non ...
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 7:11 am
10 Jul 2007
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 7:28 am
10 Jul 2007
I honestly suspect that Lovins has not stayed abreast of the well-defended critiques from the blogosphere of both hydrogen and agrofuels. I have recently come to the conclusion that many of the enviro celebs are lagging the blogosphere. The tail has begun to wag the dog.
He really missed the boat on hydrogen and can't seem to let go of it. It was essentially a hypothesis that bombed, which has value in itself.
His hyper car does not even exist. The idea is a run of the mill non-commercially viable prototype indistinguishable from all of the other engineering student versions created to enter fuel mileage contests, except he envisioned it will use hydrogen and a fuel cell.
It has been a decade since the hyper car hype. However, I read all about and marveled at the artists rendering of what was essentially the same hydrogen powered car with regenerative braking in Popular Mechanics in pre-Lovins 1974. To date, the Prius is the closest thing to a commercially viable version of one, and Lovins had nothing to do with it. Most of his visions of the future will not pan out. That's the problem with predicting the future.
Cellulosic may well pay off some day but at present it is just another unproven idea among thousands--yet another hypothesis to be tested, that is instead being hyped as an bonafide answer.
Scientists turned celebrity must deal with the same endorphin highs and withdrawls as movie stars. Remember Jarvis and his clunky artificial heart? He's now hawking medications on television commercials.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
sunflower Posted 7:29 am
10 Jul 2007
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 7:31 am
10 Jul 2007
Aren't there things that are environmental decisions that are better made by "we the people" than "I the consumer"?
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 7:45 am
10 Jul 2007
Welcome back.
Ask him if his ideas should be viewed as hypothesis' to be tested or as answers to be funded and implemented.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
sunflower Posted 7:47 am
10 Jul 2007
Permalink
odograph Posted 7:48 am
10 Jul 2007
I'm not sure it's possible to exclude contributors, especially ones that you acknowledge had listeners. We are a social species and often come to conclusions as a group. Now the web/blog world cuts down the latency in all this.
(I believe that modern research shows that folks are generally unaware of the weight of their peer group in their opinion formation.)
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:06 am
10 Jul 2007
"A pioneer in restorative development, Rocky Mountain Institute is working with communities and businesses, finding practical solutions through integrated design, whole-system thinking, green design, and Natural Capitalism -- ways to strengthen the community and build economic value while protecting and restoring the environment."
Are they interested in promoting sustainable, natural, and beneficial landscaping in urban and suburban areas? Is it possible to integrate human and natural environments in a manner that will serve both humans and wildlife, reduce pollution, and conserve resources? Or will we eventually have to clearly separate the human world (i.e., all live in urban areas) and natural world (i.e., limit access to enormous parks and corridors)?
I don't know if this is part of their ball of wax, but addressing the issue might play a role in preventing their ball of wax from melting down to a pool of irrelevance.
That's all I can think of right now.
Oh... is the hydrogen economy history?
Forward!
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 8:09 am
10 Jul 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
odograph Posted 8:28 am
10 Jul 2007
BTW, speaking of social movement toward products ... cooler electric motorbikes appearing this week.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 8:37 am
10 Jul 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
zacaroni Posted 8:38 am
10 Jul 2007
Also, try this:
If [Lovins] could pick any issue OTHER THAN global warming as the most urgent/significant environmental issue, what would he choose?
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:49 am
10 Jul 2007
I will NEVER NEVER NEVER -- assuming I have any say in the matter -- start renting products that most people purchase right now. I don't care how !@#$% efficient it might be. It gives someone else control over your life. And if it happens to be a corporation like GM, you might find them taking your cool, efficient, and pleasure-to-drive car away not to upgrade it but to bury the technology so no one sees just how great it actually is. Why didn't they let those people keep the !@#$$% cars!!!!
I cannot bring myself to trust someone who charges and arm and a leg so you might "borrow" something for a short time. It is money down the drain. I can see renting an apartment. I can see renting a moving van... or a car when you are on vacation. But stereos? Refrigerators? Carpeting?
Renting does not make sense and, as I slowly turn into what is often referred to as an "old fart", I refuse to accept it as the normal way of doing business.
Sorry... I'll go away for a short while so I might calm down.
Forward!
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 8:49 am
10 Jul 2007
Yep, Ron got it right the first time. Much as I like Amory Lovins, he needs to be cornered on the agro-fuel, agro-corporate, agro-boondoggle he has supported. Get him to admit the mistake and that it only causes more economic and environmental impacts and drives up food costs, and it is not sustainable.
Lots of other good contenders for questions--good luck, David. Amory is a good man, and a good leader.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 9:36 am
10 Jul 2007
Presently in the U.S. we have federal government leadership that's mostly dedicated to servicing the whims of entrenched, polluting corporations. How does renewable, sustainable, techno-optimism thrive -- or even just operate -- under such conditions?
If [Lovins] could pick any issue OTHER THAN global warming as the most urgent/significant environmental issue, what would he choose?
That's an interesting question in itself. I'm inclined to say deforestation and loss of natural habitat. Or perhaps toxic industrial emissions and waste. But then again, there's a little-mentioned threat to human life and health that is rapidly becoming a global epidemic: traffic crashes.
By 2020, the number of human years lost from road-crash death and disability will be greater than years lost from any of the communicable or infectious diseases. Losses from road crashes will be greater than all war-related injuries and casualties.
Even if all cars were Hypercars, crashes would still be a growing threat. Along with all the other non-energy related costs and environmental impacts of sprawl.
Ped Shed Blog
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 9:43 am
10 Jul 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
david1111 Posted 10:24 am
10 Jul 2007
David D. Schmidt
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 10:50 am
10 Jul 2007
"When small, light weight cars hit something, there is much less force involved (mass times acceleration) than when SUVs hit something."
Why not require heavy vehicles to have front crumple zones of some sort of light honey-comb material that will absorb some of the energy of the impact and reduce the damage to the drivers of smaller vehicles?
Oh... and one strike, your out if you kill someone when you hit their car... might discourage folks from driving large vehicles.
Forward!
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 11:25 am
10 Jul 2007
Better than a standard SUV? No doubt about it. But the Hypercar was no NEV.
Ped Shed Blog
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:06 pm
10 Jul 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
JeffB Posted 3:55 pm
10 Jul 2007
How does one make distributed energy (e.g. solar) and energy efficieny profitable for companies whose business model is centralized?
How do you make a hypercar with the same profit margin as an F150?
How you make a hyper-F150? (Not that I want one...it's for my...um...friend. Yeah, that's it...my friend.)
Do you think Detroit has the engineering and manufacturing skill to pull-off a hypercar? If it isn't Detroit then where will the hypercar originate?
Is CAFE worth pursuing as we move toward the hypercar?
Have you mapped out a timeline as to the time it would take to develop the technology, engineer the vehicle, re-tool the manufacturing supply chain, and produce the vehicle to the point where the majority of vehicles were hypercars? When would that be if we started today? What would our energy use and CO2 emissions be at that point?
Closing thought. I just attended the roll-out of the 787 all composite airplane.....do we really think we are going to continue making automobiles from steel in the future? The solutions are easier if you accept that cars will be lighter....
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:57 pm
10 Jul 2007
I would challenge his support for hydrogen and biofuels.
RMI tends to support these, and yet they are perhaps one of the greatest political diversions away from the most ideal "Fuel".
Electric Batteries.
_
Oh yes, also ask him why these realistic renewable technologies get so little attention.
Solar Thermal
Geo Thermal
Since they are a lot more realistic than Wind or PV.
________________
Hydrogen used to be put forward as the promise of a clean renewable fuel, however unless it's created with extremely clean electricity+purified water, or cleaved from CH4 Natural Gas, it'd end up no greener than just putting gasoline in your tank.
By comparison, driving a car on coal electricity would be as green as running a hybrid.
There was also the idea that hydrogen was the electric fuel solution simply because electric batteries could not be charged quickly enough.
This is no longer the case, you can charge AltairNano's electric batteries in "less than 10 minutes" which in reality breaks down to a 100% charge in 6 minutes, and an 80% charge in 1 minute.
http://greyfalcon.net/quickcharge
http://greyfalcon.net/quickcharge3
Even the original EV1 could get an 80% charge in a mere 15 minutes.
http://greyfalcon.net/quickcharge2
And at the same time, a drastically increasing number of the forklifts used to build our cars are powered by electricity.
_
For someone so interested in Solar, it's strangely bizarre that he believes that Hydrogen is anything but a waste of electrons.
And something that will keep us locked in to consuming hydrocarbon fossil fuels.
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen2
_
Especially when you consider how brittle PEM fuel cells are, how readily they clog, and how they require scarce rare metals like platinum, rhodium, pallidium and gold.
Whats more, you need 2.5 gallons of fresh water to equal 1 kg of hydrogen, or the rough equivalent of 1 gallon of gasoline.
Both of which are becoming increasingly scarce.
Certainly not something which we could build the world's economy around.
_
I'd also mention for instance that BioFuels can quite easily cause more Co2 emmisions than they attempt to block, and that many studies from the USDA/DOE even admit to intentionally downplaying landuse, soil carbon sinks, and fertilizer N2O emmisions.
http://greyfalcon.net/lcarough5.png
With all the attention to switching fuels, it takes away from the real issue which is how do we get more mileage off of less CO2 emmisions.
(i.e. You have car companies running ads saying "Oh we need to focus on switching fuels, not switching to fuel economy")
Or the equivalent of "High Fuel Effeciency will force you to drive smaller cars, which are death carts on wheels! And you will DIE!"
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/brandnewday/archiv ...
_________
To use an analogy, it's like having 2 Ralph Naders running in the same race with you.
You know neither of them can win, but they take away support, funding, and public/political attention.
_
That said, Algae still does have some promise.
But the rest of the terrestrial crops use so much water, arable land, and fertilizers that it wouldn't be possible to grow enough to meet demand. And even if it was possible, it wouldn't be enough in a decade or so as demand rises.
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol.png
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/56047
_
Oh yes, perhaps ask him why these realistic renewable technologies get so little attention.
Solar Thermal
Geo Thermal
Considering, combined they both offer the greatest potential for reliable electricity.
For instance, Solar PV is being built up on a ultity scale in just a few MW of capacity at a time.
Solar Thermal is being built on a scale of gigawatts. And offers the potential for thermal storage.
http://greyfalcon.net/csp
http://greyfalcon.net/csp2
http://greyfalcon.net/csp3
http://greyfalcon.net/csp4
http://greyfalcon.net/raser2
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:08 pm
10 Jul 2007
People aren't going to give up their cars for golf carts in disguise.
What they want are vehicle which are flexible, large, safe, and affordable.
Having to buy a secondary car to compliment the shortcoming of your NEV does none of that.
Thats why the real innovation is instead creating better powertrains.
http://greyfalcon.net/electriccars.png
http://greyfalcon.net/electriccars2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen.png
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen4.png
http://greyfalcon.net/raser
Particularly, "Series Plugin Hybrids", which are an Electric Car with a scaled down battery pack, and a small gasoline generator attached.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:22 pm
10 Jul 2007
"Shouldn't we be more focused on effecient energy storage devices than ineffecienct ones like hydrogen and biofuels."
For instance, Pumped Hydro, Compressed Air Storage, and Batteries.
By comparison, Hydrogen loses nearly 50% of any electric energy stored into it.
And biofuels lose atleast 75% of any solar energy stored into it.
By comparison, Pumped Hydro, Compressed Air, only lose about 15%
Lithium Batteries only lose about 8%
Whats more, electric batteries after they've lose 80% of their battery life aren't so worthwhile for transportation anymore.
However using them for grid storage of electricity would offer a highly effective aftermarket for they potent batteries.
Thus, Building more electric cars would directly lead to distributed energy storage.
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins5
_
(Sorry I'm kinda skeptical about V2G, someone isn't going to wear down their expensive car battery just to make a few extra cents.
Logistically it'd be a nightmare.
By comparison, if the battery is physically owned and controlled by grid operators, it can then supply reliable electricity for whenever it's needed.)
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:15 pm
10 Jul 2007
Can't biofuels lead to defforestation?
Especially give the fungability of food crops and farm crops.
For instance growing soy for food in deforrested regions of Brazil, since massive quantities of soy have been removed from the US export marktet. Since all that lands being used now to grow corn for Ethanol.
http://greyfalcon.net/soy2
Deforrestation from biofuels could easily eliminate centuries worth of biofuel planting.
Since deforrestation accounts for CO2 in the trees, in the soils, evaporative cooling, and albedo from diurnal water vapor cycles.
http://greyfalcon.net/tropics3
Aparently 20% of world Co2 emmisions already comes from deforrestation.
BioFuels could drastically increase that number.
For instance Deforrestation in Indonesia and Brazil have made them periodically the 3rd and the 4th highest emitters of Co2 for certain years.
Permalink
farnishk Posted 8:12 pm
10 Jul 2007
Surely quality of life, beyond that which is essential for our immediate survival, is being able to connect with what we hold dear, and which is essential to us - the only two I can think of are the natural world and people who are special to us.
The USA has the lowest "happiness index" of any industrialised country, but has one of the highest per capita consumptions of luxury goods - the kind that are meant to give you good "quality of life".
Vanuatu has very few luxury goods, but has the happiest people on Earth.
Economic growth only improves quality of life if it is digging you out of a miserable ditch. After that it is just destruction by another name.
Keith Farnish
www.theearthblog.org
Permalink
sunflower Posted 11:21 pm
10 Jul 2007
Permalink
zacaroni Posted 11:55 pm
10 Jul 2007
Maybe do some reading on the idea before you reject it outright. I suggest starting with Cradle to Cradle. And maybe watching this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ1dECu5sSc
Beyond your intelligence? Hopefully not. This stuff is common sense. I'm just curious what Amory Lovins thinks of McDonough's ideas...
Permalink
Steven T Posted 1:43 am
11 Jul 2007
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:35 am
11 Jul 2007
Did you watch "Who Killed the Electric Car?"
My remarks are not parnoid or drivel. It is clear that a business can simply decide to recall a product you are paying for and very pleased with... just because they wish to suppress the technology.
If it leftist to retain some control over what I'm spending money on, if it is leftist to not want to continue spending money on a product long after I've paid for the cost of manufacturing the product (including a profit for the owner of the business), then fine... I'm a leftist.
I love the Gristmill! I can be a corporate shill, a mad scientist, a hawk, a dove, pro-GMO, anti-GMO, an environmentalist, a threat to the natural world, a conservative, a liberal, and a leftist... and more... all at the same time and, from my perspective, free of a single internal contradiction!
That said, I've read two of Paul Hawkin's books. Does that count? They make a lot of sense. I'm just skeptical about the whole notion of leasing everything.
Forward!
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 4:26 pm
11 Jul 2007
Other major car makers tested the water at the same time with electric cars and also stopped production when it was obvious that not enough people would buy them. GM decided to destroy them so they would not continue to lose money providing parts for them and fighting lawsuits.
It turned out to be a PR disaster but they were not trying to suppress technology. There was no new technology in that car. It had 1,200 pounds of lead acid batteries (lead acid batteries were used in WWI submarines) and an electric motor. Not rocket science by any means. Battery technology at the time simply was not advanced enough for a commercially viable electric car. The film was pushing a conspiracy theory for effect and you got sucked into it.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
zacaroni Posted 3:18 am
12 Jul 2007
I'm sorry I called you a leftist. I have seen WKEL, including the special features on the DVD. Happy reading.
Onward!
(as if progress were directional! ha!)
Permalink