Reading about the sunken tidal turbines -- which seem interesting -- I got an overwhelming feeling of "here we go again."
Why is it that people who know that "eat the foods you love and lose weight without exercise!" is hokum can't resist spending hours and hours hyping and being hyped about technotoys that promise "abundant low-cost clean energy that lets you lose carbon without reducing consumption!"
I'm an engineer. I like engineers. But most of the engineers I've known are, at some level, stuck at the "bigger hammer" stage of development. ("Won't move? Well, you just need a bigger hammer! Here, I've designed this one, and it should do the trick.")
In the utility industry, some wag (probably Lovins, but I'm not sure) called this the "edifice complex." The utilities like to build plants and put the names of executives on them -- if you conserve your way out of the need to build the plants, there's no edifice.
In the Bigger Hammer stage, the thinking is that for all problems there is a technology solution.
That's the way good engineers are -- they can't sleep because they see a better way to use materials and science to solve a problem. (To do for a dime what any damn fool can do for a dollar, as one of my profs liked to say.)
So I have no fundamental beef with the pursuit of new technologies (toys) to provide the services we want and need with lower environmental cost. (For example, here at Gristmill I recently posted a call for people to help convince Google and Mapquest to tweak their technology to make it more useful for low-impact means of getting around.)
And tidal turbines might work out, as might some of the many, many other wondertoys that are constantly being conjured on this list as if they were waiting in the wings, ready to stroll on stage.
What gives me gas is that I notice how rapidly, at least in America (the only place where I have a lot of direct experience), Wondertoys are unmatched in their ability to worm their way into and quickly take over what are nominally environmental discussions.
Take Gristmill, for example. It seems like more than half of the discussions here either start out as or soon get turned into technology "evaluation" threads, albeit mainly through handwaving and what I can only call magical optimism, all boiling down, at some level, to "don't worry, Wondertoy X is on its way, and that'll take care of it." Followed by the necessary corrective of "well, that turns out to have been way oversold." And off we go, madly typing about different techno fixes for our real fix (the consequences of all our previous techno fixes).
Is this fascination with wondertoys a necessary painkiller for the grim state of the environment? Do we naturally prefer thinking about the shiny new toys to considering, "OK, that'll be great if it works out; meanwhile, what do we do if it doesn't?"
I guess I'm just saying that there is something important lost when environmentalists spend a lot of time as technology boosters, because when we do that we, in a sense, leave our posts as environmentalists and become just more droplets in the wave of demand for things that will let us continue doing business as usual.
"Ethanol will save us from having to change!"
"No, it's hydrogen!"
"No, not hydrogen, biodiesel!"
"No, not biodiesel, butanol!"
"No ..."
Maybe I'm just weary of fighting the dominant paradigm.
This morning I plan to go testify at a hearing on a transportation "plan" that is essentially nothing but a roadmap for more carburban sprawl, including a massive, costly new bridge across a river.
Nowhere in the "plan" do the words "peak oil" appear, or do the "planners" even state their assumptions about the costs of gas or the effect of carbon taxes. They have defined their problem as "too much congestion" and they have a new, bigger, multi-million dollar hammer (a new bridge) that they'd like to throw at the problem. Behavior change/non-tech solutions just aren't in their worldview.
But if the technotoy blogs and magazines are all filled with discussions of the next cool new toys and the environmentalists spend all their time thinking about the next wave of cool new toys, who's minding the store as far as the non-tech solutions we're going to need? I know they aren't discussing non-tech approaches over at Popular Mechanics and Green Car Congress or any of the bazillion other places where people go to talk toys.
Calling all radicals: Unite for Kerry-Boxer
Dispassion as the world ends: The absent heart of the great climate affair
Comments
View as Flat
GreenEngineer Posted 5:13 am
24 Apr 2007
Certainly this tropism is partially because it's much more pleasant to consider a technological solution than a behavioral one. Even if one personally would rather see our culture change its ways, it's easier to believe that we will accept a tech solution than one that requires us to act differently. It's easy to be optimistic about technology. It's hard to be optimistic about people getting a clue.
However, I think there's another reason why technology keeps creeping into these discussions, and yet is such a persistent red herring. Technology is a piece of the puzzle, without doubt. But the real key is how we apply the technology. Technical practitioners must develop a design philosophy grounded in cooperation with and respect for natural forces, as outlined by Bill McDonough and also by the permaculture movement.
Since the solution is not purely technological, but is technology-related (in application and design), discussions of technology will never be far from the conversation. But they shouldn't be the centerpiece.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 5:56 am
24 Apr 2007
Old proven technologies, such as district heating, clotheslines, carpools, firewood, trains, window shutters,... are so not sexy that nobody talks about them.
Behavior changes are not sustainable without economic signals. Ditto for energy toys.
That said, there is hope. One in a hundred new technology ideas could become a game changer. Big established old businesses will do all that they can to suppress such threats. Promoting false tech solutions is one of the tools in their bag. Others are more nasty, more corrupt.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:59 am
24 Apr 2007
With one cavieat. Political social change.
But overall what you do as an individual is meaningless if it doesn't cause political social change.
_
But definantly, one could do with atleast talking about more pratical technology, rather than pie-in-the-sky silver bullets.
_
Concentrating Solar Power
Wind Power
BioMethane
Those are all rather practical from a tech standpoint, right now.
_
Electrification of Cars
And CIGS solar panels aren't far off.
Those aren't far off.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 6:23 am
24 Apr 2007
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 7:09 am
24 Apr 2007
So you're saying that politics is the only way to effectively address environmental issues? So, for example, what the US Green Building Council has done with LEED is irrelevant? The system is completely non-governmental, and started with no political clout whatsoever, but has done a great deal IMO to jumpstart the green building boom.
Not buying it.
I agree that individual consumer choices have only a very limited potential for impact. But individual action includes alot more than what we buy. There's also the question of what we do professionally, and what we do within out communities.
Politics has its place, but to suggest that it is the sole source of a solution is like suggesting that we should get all our energy from, say, PV. It's good and useful, but even at that, it's only a piece in the puzzle.
Permalink
odograph Posted 7:28 am
24 Apr 2007
But I'm more interested in the Ju-Jistu where we all flip to simpler, happier lives. It's not just efficiency, but also finding the simple pleasures in life.
See also the "Hedonic Treadmill." Understand it from an engineering perspective, and then jump off.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:32 am
24 Apr 2007
This is my general objection to the farm towers mentioned in a different thread, though I lack appropriate experience to evaluate them and can't find the words to articulate my objection. Why are we designing farm towers that will probably take decades to deploy while there are still relatively simple ways to dramatically improve agriculture TODAY and reduce our agricultural foot print TODAY?And I'm not even advocating GMOs here. I know organic famers have a lot to contribute toward providing more and better food while at the same time reducing damage to the natural environment.
Forward!
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 8:17 am
24 Apr 2007
"You can't be too poor, or too thin."
--John Bailo
In other words, it's not that Richard Branson "is efficient" it's that his enormous existence creates so much waste.
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 8:36 am
24 Apr 2007
They acknowledge the effects of carbon taxes by doing all they can to increase the size of the carbon tax revenue pie by making it easy for more people to drive farther, and awkward for them to avoid doing so.
They may not understand that this is what they are doing, but clearly this is what they are doing. They understand carbon tax the way a baby understands milk.
--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
Oxygen expands around boron fire, car goes
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 9:00 am
24 Apr 2007
Fair point.
I guess I should more-so say that influencing groups is more important than making a small contribution.
The difference with LEED which is expressed very well is the degree of influencing others and creating coordination and standards.
Since LEED is all about influence.
Semantically it different from "politics".
But what would be a more appropriate phrase for that?
_
It's the "uncoordinated unorganized solo efforts" which I disagree with.
Kinda of the "I did my part, and nobody else needs to know about it."
Which is great for moral things, however it's worthless in terms of affecting broader social change.
_
But in general, making something simple, easy, or cheap is a great way to make it so that coordinated social change happens.
For instance, the Prius, or Compact Flourescents.
When all they have to do is "Buy X instead of Y" thats rather easy to do.
But the more you make people go out of their way, the more maintenence you require. The harder things are going to be to affect change.
I still believe it's a lot easier to change people's Things.
Hell, LEED is mainly about changing Buildings.
_
I agree there is a syngergy there.
However I'd still argue that the Tech needs to be there first in order to get change to happen.
But instead what I would argue is you have more of a scenario of people worrying about "Gee I should install a solar panel"
Rather than first checking to make sure their insulation is good, or whether their appliances use low energy.
Thats Tech solutions still are the solution.
But that for so much facination about the WonderToy solutions, people don't focus enough on the "GenericToy" solutions first.
That they believe they need to procrastinate for silver bullets before they do anything.
Permalink
cleantech Posted 2:41 pm
24 Apr 2007
The difference between efficiency and conservation is that with efficiency you get to keep on doing the work you were doing, but use less energy to do it.
Building automation is a prime example. Energy Priorities has many articles about facilities that use more daylight, or smarter air conditioning. Same light, same comfort. Less energy.
In transportation, as they've long ago learned in Europe and Japan, some efficiency comes from smaller vehicles and engines. The quantum leaps in efficiency come from mass transit. You know, buses and subways. Same distance, less energy per commuter.
Electricity efficiency took off in California when energy costs went past 15 cents per kWh. The concept of mass transit in the U.S. might not catch on until we have $10 gasoline.
Denis
Energy Priorities
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:16 pm
24 Apr 2007
I'd credit the fact that California's utilities don't get money based on how much electricity they sell.
But on how much effeciency they sell.
Different profit motive.
_
Not to mention, California is kinda bottlenecked by the fact that our energy has to be clean (and now it has to be low in carbon, we're phasing out all our coal contracts)
_
Lastly, California has been leading the nation in energy effecient appliances and such.
Particularly air conditioning.
_
But I wouldn't really credit any of this due to public behavior. Hell, I'd say California as a whole is rather hedonistic with their energy use.
I'd credit instead the concerted effort of politicians, institutions, and businesses.
_
But I'd actually say that asside from travel between high density areas California is perhaps the opposite of successful public transportation.
We have some of the longest commutes in the country with roughly 2x our carbon emmisions coming from cars rather than electricity.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:02 pm
24 Apr 2007
http://greyflcn.blogspot.com/2007/04/affordable-electric- ...
Permalink
Green Granny Posted 7:51 pm
24 Apr 2007
Demand for organic and locally grown food has increased exponentially -- my local Kroger meat manager proudly carries turkey and chicken raised on farms within 25 miles of the store. They happen to be free range and he is happy to tell you the names of the farmers. . . Another grocery store in my area carries hormone & antibiotic free chicken raised on an Amish farm about 40 miles away. They no longer carry Tyson and other mega-producers. Both stores now have larger "organic" produce sections than non-organic.
Several churches in my area have "stewardship" projects, inspired partly by a nun who is "the Mother Teresa" for the Environment. Spiritual connection to the creation, morals, ethics, and feeling good about their actions are the motivators there.
I overhear conversations that lead me to believe people are at least aware and willing to change/adapt. But we do need to make it easier. The number of people willing to walk/ride a bike to run mundane errands increased dramatically when my community built a bike path along an old railroad right of way. The fear/danger was removed from the process. I know I don't like to walk or bike in car traffic. . .
Techno-toys have a place in the solution. Low tech measures that make it easier to "do the right thing" are a must. Attitude shifts prompted by social pressure (what's cool) and economic incentive are also a necessary part of the solution.
"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 8:29 pm
24 Apr 2007
I am totally weary of the lies and deceit, the illusion, the delusion and the lack of expertise.
LOL, Reasons given for GCC are so off (target) they have to be a casualty of one-eyed manipulation or a liability cover up.
The myopic problem is simple... if the adverse effects GCC is not directly in front of the people's face, they really do not want to know, so political action is totally ineffective.
Give GCC another year and they all will be screaming.... LOL, too late my friends.
>> Demand for organic and locally grown food has increased exponentially >>
Once it was all we had, until "wondertoys" took over, and now the world has been turned totally mad by businesses not understanding the science of poisonous substances,... just like the White House politicians... have no understanding of any type of science, even if the intricacies are explained to them in detail. Just TOO MANY WORDS.
Dr. Hanson >> I don't know anything in our Constitution that says that the executive branch (laypeople, spin doctors) should filter scientific information going to Congressional committees >>>
Filtered or not, there would be no understanding ..... scientists do speak another language.
Democracy is a receipt for total disaster..... What happens to the USA is of no consequence, y'all have made your bed.... BUT YOU GUYS are F'n up the whole world, and it seems y'all really don't give a stuff.
No wonder no one would cry if the USA sank to the bottom of the deep blue sea !
Hey, Green Granny good for you,
but to be sane in an insane world gets an insane label pinned to your apron. I am with you gel... join the insane club.
omegafour.com
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 10:38 pm
24 Apr 2007
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 11:10 pm
24 Apr 2007
My feeling is, in just about every state and county, there are various unique options for going "green."
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Energy745 Posted 12:08 am
25 Apr 2007
California uses more electricity each year, and is trying to be greener by importing power from coal power plants outside the state. Don't use California as an example of self-sacrifice and hard work.
Permalink
odograph Posted 12:16 am
25 Apr 2007
Permalink
Energy745 Posted 12:28 am
25 Apr 2007
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 12:33 am
25 Apr 2007
Thats already getting phased out.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 12:51 am
25 Apr 2007
So this is the energy equivalent of:
210 miles to the gallon in an all renewable grid with no line or storage losses.
168 miles per gallon from an all renewable grid with 20% line and storage losses.
75.6 mpg from our current grid - which matches or slightly exceeds a Prius, and then improves tot he higher figure as the grid is decarbonized.
Permalink
odograph Posted 1:00 am
25 Apr 2007
http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/U01-02_CalifElectr ...
I think that's the kind of thing that people often frame as the "California success"
Are you saying it is wrong?
Permalink
Energy745 Posted 1:12 am
25 Apr 2007
Imports of power 2005 - 62,456 GwHr
Imports of power 2006 - 64,763 GwHr
Permalink
odograph Posted 1:19 am
25 Apr 2007
... because despite the divergence from the US trend, despite the leveling of per-capita consumption, there are some other numbers ...
But isn't the per-capita leveling itself some level of accomplishment? How many fewer kWh would the nation use if they'd followed that same leveling?
Permalink
Energy745 Posted 2:41 am
25 Apr 2007
Admittedly my response above was emotional and driven by not living in Ca. and being very cynical about the reports from Ca., and thinking of people from Ca as being prosperous, living in huge houses. If there is more progress being made in Ca. than the rest of the country I would be surprised. Not because I suspect that Ca. is doing nothing, but because there are equal efforts in other states.
Permalink
Jerome Woody Posted 3:36 am
25 Apr 2007
post about it is a bit "cheerleaderish", a trap that many technocrats tend to fall into. But I would like to assert that within the context of eco-technologies, there has been a slow but steady paradigm shift in the increase of research and development, or at the least, media attention to it.
I believe that people who are dialed in and know what's at stake in all this will not "avoid" any personal or community change on their part, and just want to wait until some miracle technology comes out of the techno-ether to save
their skins. Remember, it was the use of industrial based technologies that got us in this mess in the first place, and if we are to learn anything for this period in human development, it that we all should be mindful of the external effects any technology will have on the eco-system.
That said, current and future technologies will have a role in solving this crisis. As part of the "triple threat" of policy and lifestyle change, technological change must and will happen. And I think as technology users, I believe that we at least have to be aware of what's out there in development, and add that knowledge to whatever personal and community based commitment we place on ourselves to help out.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 3:45 am
25 Apr 2007
Easy technologies that drop consumption:
High albedo roofing. (white roofs cut AC bills. duh) Look around your neighborhood at the colour of the roofs.
Geoexchange HVAC. Savings of 40% of power useage are common when replacing existing systems in older houses.
District heating (and cooling)-combined with geoexchange a few large deep wells and one large water tank could replace dozens of shallow wells. This would be easier to moniter and maintain.
Double or triple-paned windows. Much of the existing housing stock has windows that have aluminum or steel frames.
Surface light rail- proven cheap, effective and reliable transit.
Light electric vehicles-we don't need to go everywhere at 70 mph.
Trains- a no-brainer everywhere but the US.
Dirigibles- slower than planes, faster than trains. Can be solar powered.
Solar-thermal power generation. Solar pumped stirling engines could provide combined heat and power anywhere the sun shines. Three times the effiniency of PV.
Organic Farming-it works and it tastes better.
What we don't have is the political will to do is take the profits away from the wealthy and corporations. All congress talks about are non-solutions that make corporations wealthier. Burning ethanol in giant SUV's is feeding the destruction.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 3:53 am
25 Apr 2007
In addition nobody is better than us at turning eight lanes of freeway into a long parking lot. For the most part our public transit systems are a joke outside San Francisco and Sacremento.
My town, Chico, actually had BETTER, train service and light rail in 1910. This also applies to Santa Rosa, Sacremento, the LA basin and the Oakland area.
We're not so great. Trust me.
Permalink
odograph Posted 3:55 am
25 Apr 2007
If Californians use < 8 MWh/capita/year, and the rest of the nation uses 14 ... and if there are 36,132,147 people in California, and (296,410,404 - 36,132,147) = 260,278,257 outside California.
Then we are using (14 - 8) * 260,278,257 =
1,561,669,542 extra MWh
BTW, what makes California #1 in hybrid registration?
http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0504/26/autos-16 ...
Permalink
odograph Posted 3:58 am
25 Apr 2007
Did you all get your flier? My electric company is offering inducements for home-owners to install remote controls, which in turn allow the power company to switch down people's AC as the grid approaches max capacity.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 4:14 am
25 Apr 2007
My rant is the segment about new technology at NREL. Nova interviewed Sarah Kurtz Ph.D., inventor of the 42% efficient pv cell (much more efficient than coal power), and showed those pv cells on the Mars rovers. Nova did not mention the efficiency of the Kurtz type III-V cells, rather said that this is distant and expensive technology, not ready for prime time. Not true. This breakthrough technology is ready for 1000-sun concentrators and can make power at a capital cost < $1/Watt(e). That is cheaper than coal power without subsidies.
OK I feel better now, and can go back to planting fruit trees in the vegetable garden.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:38 am
25 Apr 2007
What I do not understand is why storing energy remains such a difficult problem, so that nighttime, and high latitudes, and even cloudy skies during daytime, are major obstacles to making solar energy reliable.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:56 am
25 Apr 2007
Couple things.
We got the highest cost of gasoline
The culture
Lots of subsidies
Most importantly, when it was first put out it offered unrestricted access to carpool lanes.
Often cleantech companies have 1 out of every 2 cars being Priuses
Permalink
sunflower Posted 5:06 am
25 Apr 2007
From a social grid policy perspective, solar power does not need to be stored until the daytime solar power exceeds the region-wide demand for power. That is after many billions of dollars worth of deployment. Storing solar power is one of the arguments used to marginalize public support. Nova was full of reasons to not embrace solar power for reasons of cost, storage, efficacy, blackouts with suggestions of chaos and terror. The war of solutions has begun.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:44 am
25 Apr 2007
CSP is definantly already there.
And when you have it backed up by natural gas (ideally biogas) the concept of power failures is laughable.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 6:25 am
25 Apr 2007
Offer a better, greener, less costly alternative and market forces will work. People will drive twice as far in their electric cars that cost half as much to drive?
Convincing people to sacrifice dollars, time, and convenience for an idealistic end, like saving the planet, seems crazy.
I have come to realize through discussions here that a number of people actually see sacrifice, such as higher taxes on fossil fuel energy, as a huge selling point. That people, given the chance to sacrifice, will join up and get this effort moving.
They have in times past when international emergency loomed. Why aren't they doing it now?
I think that leadership is the missing element. No one is setting goals or clear plans to reach those goals. All we have is vague advertising slogan platitudes. The simpler the more politically effective.
Yellow is green. Ecomagination. Green is the new red, white, and blue. The apollo energy plan. This seems to leave politicians free to set vague goals for GHG reduction decades from now.
Where is FDR when we need him? Gone. No one stepping up to replace him.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Energy745 Posted 6:59 am
26 Apr 2007
Here are the top five states for per Capita electric power consumption, from the EIA:
Texas 1,101
Ca 814.5
FL 741.7
OH 519.4
NY 491.5
Units BTU x 10^9
I have not been able to find a year with California being less than national average for per capita power consumption. What I suspect is that the graph is for power generation per capita and left off are power imports, which of course add to national average and reduce California. I could be wrong on this.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:08 am
26 Apr 2007
That "half per capita" quote seems to float around quite a bit from some people who supposedly should really know this stuff.
Permalink