You have probably noticed that I tend to focus a lot on today's technology rather the big breakthrough around the corner.
Part of this is for obvious reasons: I want to show we can get off fossil fuel even with conservative assumptions. Also, while we know what is possible, and even have good guesses as to what can be cheaper, we can't know the timing.
But there is another reason.
We want to be very careful in constraining our future. Picking winners is always dangerous -- you can promote unintended consequences, or even help kill a more promising technology. But you don't want paralysis by analysis either. We do have an emergency situation. What makes sense is to follow a no-regrets path, as far as possible. Beyond that, follow the path that offers maximum choices -- while understanding that we must make choices, and as human beings won't always make the optimum ones. So ultimately, while we would like the best answers, it's better pick ones that will work well enough than wait forever for perfection.
Efficiency contributes no matter what technology provides the energy supply. Even if consumption increases, better efficiency lets you use more expensive sources. Storage is good because there is no form of electricity generation that cannot benefit from it. Long distance transmission lines are good because they reduce the need for storage or backup if we use variable sources to generate electricity. (Storage is good, but transmission is almost always cheaper.)
But for every efficiency technique, there is another "just down the road" that will provide better efficiency. For every type of renewable supply, there is breakthrough "only a year away" that will do the job more cheaply.
Problem is, breakthroughs can stay "just down the road" for hundreds of miles and "only a year away" for decades.
We are pouring greenhouse gases into the atmosphere now. Start putting the things we know how to do in place. We won't replace fossil fuels all at once, regardless. So if something better comes along before we are done, we switch new capital investment to that -- and live with obsolete but working renewable and efficiency techniques until more primitive renewables wear out, as the price of having shut down some coal plants decades sooner than if we had waited.
Comments
View as Flat
David Roberts Posted 3:07 am
05 Jan 2007
www.grist.org
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 3:40 am
05 Jan 2007
Gar, may I make the friendly suggestion that you qualify that statement. I can recall back in the 1970s when there was a lot of public resistance to new transmission lines, and with good reason: they can be unsightly.
Also, for developing countries that still have large populations not yet served by electricity, thinking in the multilateral lending agencies used to be that the answer was expand the grid everywhere. Over time, analysts have realized that opening up new corridors for transmission lines can disturb the environment (contributing to ecosystem fragmentation), and that in any case local, off-grid power, is often a better choice.
See, for example,
"Promoting Private Investment in Rural Electrification--The Case of Chile"
and
"Rural Electrification with Solar Energy as a Climate Protection Strategy"
Permalink
JMG Posted 3:44 am
05 Jan 2007
That way there's no argument about "but there will be even more efficient stuff later." The rule is simple: no new generation until all less expensive alternatives available NOW are exhausted.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 5:27 am
05 Jan 2007
Also, I wonder, is paralysis by analysis the danger or lack of analysis (which is how we got in this mess in the first place)?
If you are talking about wind, solar, wave, geothermal (in places where these technologies are viable) then I'm with Dave, especially if you can replace some coal plants with them. But,
"...it's better pick ones that will work well enough than wait forever for perfection."
"... well enough ...forever ...perfection." These are pretty relative terms and of course there is no such thing as perfection.
Here are some examples of current technology that I think you would agree are anything but perfect:
Flex fuel internal combustion engines running on corn ethanol. Why wait for cellulosic?
Soy and palm biodiesel being burned in existing diesel engines. Why wait for algae technology or even pollution controls on these cars? In all seriousness, if we are willing to ignore downsides, we can increase average gas mileage by about 40% by replacing gasoline engines with diesel (as they have in Europe at the expense of air quality).
Nuclear power using existing transmission grids. Why wait for pebble bed breeder designs or fusion?
Dave has rung this warning bell more than once. There is danger in using the emergency of global warming as a lever to promote whatever idea one happens to favor, be it biodiversity preservation, a biofuel, a lifestyle, nuclear power or any number of technologies. The danger is the potential to kill the patient with an untested cure. All three of the above meet your criteria but are also cures that could be worse than the disease. Analysis is very much needed, more so than ever before.
Technology is moving at an exponential rate. I've replaced most bulbs in my house with curly bulbs not because I think they will save the planet, but because they will save me money and I am sick of replacing fricken light bulbs. A design that actually works finally showed up (they are bright, fast starting, long-lived, fit in existing fixtures, affordable).
I was actually given curly bulbs for free once by a local government attempting to get people to use them. They sucked. They started out dim, and didn't fit in most of my fixtures. The government wasted time and money (mine) trying to promote a technology. Years later, when I saw one of the new technology bulbs shining in Fred Meyers, I bought a cart full.
I ride an electric hybrid bike using batteries that charge in minutes, not hours, weigh practically nothing and are expected to take thousands of charges. I don't ride an electric bike to save the planet, I ride it because I like riding it and hate sitting in a car.
The bike uses bright flashing diodes powered without any batteries. Again, why buy or charge a battery when you don't have to?
We drive a Prius, far from perfect, but a hell of a lot better than what it replaced.
Three of the four items mentioned above did not exist (were not perfected and affordable) a year ago. Should I have instead stuck with current technology that was "good enough?"
In the end, as long as game plans are not being forced on others through massive government lobbying and subsidization, then essentially you have the free market. Forcing people to ride electric bikes just would not be wise. Find ways to convince people to want a given lifestyle or technology. The free market will provide what consumers want. Carrots work better than sticks. The Soviet style of economy management is a lesson learned, lets not forget it.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
caractacus Posted 7:25 am
05 Jan 2007
The worry I have with speculative technological fixes is that very often they are used to argue that we can keep going with business as usual, with but a few tweaks here and there.
The superstructure of modern capitalism is highly resistant to the idea of radical change and if as seems to me likely, radical change is required to achieve sustainability, speculative technical fixes are likely to play a prominent role in resistance to fundamental change, by providing quasi-plausible reasons to argue that significant change is not necessary.
Permalink
EcoSpeak Posted 11:38 pm
05 Jan 2007
According to the Times, it's a lifestyle for them, and they've found ways to integrate energy conservation into every aspect of their lives--they have fuel cells for their homes!
Check it out here.
Now if only our government would be as willing to support such unconventional tactics as the Japanese government is! And if only our people would be as open-minded, selfless, and considerate as these Japanese civilians are.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 10:17 am
06 Jan 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
bookerly Posted 5:26 pm
07 Jan 2007
Dear BioD,
It may not be appropriate with your kids, but you and your wife could shower together, as could same young kids. (grin).
Thanks Ecospeak for the link, I was also impressed by the article!
During the last water crisis in CA (last one I was there for), we did the drought style (or perhaps Asian style) of shower, a 30 second or so wetting, then soap down and clean, then a two or three minute rinse. We had buckets in the shower to catch gray water (which we used for our plants).
Hair washing? You wet it (very little water), soap it up. Squeeze the soap out until most of it is gone, use water to rinse out the rest.
(Barber shops in China often do this, they can wash your hair with less than two gallons of water. (I can wash mine with about a gallon if I try, in the sink.)
We used similar methods for dish washing.
We flushed less (not flushing for liquids with every usuage).
A household of five, we ran on 110 gallons of water a day. (And sometimes less.)
If we had showered every other day, we could have reduced it further.
Public showers in China have foot pedals. You only get water when you are standing on the pedal. This encourages people to soap and scrub without running water.
Washing machines here generally run with cold water only. And they are pretty efficient at it.
Clothes hang to dry.
The Japanese can serve as good models for us all, but many other parts of Asia are not far behind (as far as personal lifestyles are concerned.)
patrick
Permalink