The problem is that without featuring climate and air pollution (environmental issues) coal doesn't get touched.  I'm surprised you applauded the speech so strongly given this lack.  The word coal doesn't even appear in your post.    

But I'm not as enamored of it as you are, David.  The details he puts out (tax rebates, production tax credits) are rather at odds with the theme that we're going to stop doing the old washington stuff.   Indeed, he's really saying that "we're going to do what we've been doing, but bigger!"  Bush gave you tax rebates.  I'll give you bigger ones.  2005 EPACT gave renewables production tax credits.  I'll make 'em bigger and longer.  McCain says $300 million for batteries.  I say that prize isn't big enough.

Don't get me wrong - I like Obama a lot - but I've not yet seen that he really understands the structural problems in our existing regulation that are much easier, and much cheaper to address than tax policy tweaks.  Perhaps moreso than McCain, but he's still got a long way to go.

Steve: I agree on a macro policy level, but on the targeted economic development stuff, coal just isn't going to be a big player, even if you buy into the clean coal nonsense. In terms of growing markets -- and growing supply chains that including manufacturers in these rust belt states -- it's renewables and efficiency that are creating the jobs.

Sean, I don't know whether Obama's people are hip to the regulatory stuff. I know he calls out decoupling relatively frequently, but as you've said, the devil's in the details there. Either way, I'm not sure it serves the purpose of giving a rousing speech. "Yes we can ... remove perverse incentives for capital deployment from the regulated monopolies in the utility sector!" [crickets]

As for economic development policy, there's deploying incentives and deploying incentives. If the Bush era has taught us anything, it's that the difference between competent gov't and ... not competent gov't is as or more important than fine policy distinctions.

grist.org

Domestic green clean energy is cheaper, more reliable, and employs more people than imported black dirty energy.  Global warming mitigation is just a by-the-way benefit.

Government policies and subsidies do not wag the tails of venture capital, just another by-the-way benefit.  

Economics rule!  Obama is on the money!

Even mentioning security when discussing energy is disgusting.  The only real security issues the U.S. faces are those created by U.S. foreign policies that harm others.  These policies were the sole reasons for 911.  Instead of more pandering, Obama should be talking about simplifying our lifestyles so that we don't need to oppress people around the world and ruin their cultures by having military bases to protect "our interests," which amount to stealing their resources for our use.

That said, the security issue could help push the U.S. toward more localized energy sources and away from destructive ones, mainly nuclear.  But regardless, we still need to consume a lot less.

I don't disagree that it would be hard for you and I to deliver a rousing speech on regulatory reform.  But this is Obama we're talking about!  His tongue's a lot silverier than yours or mine.  Yes, he can!

More seriously, don't you find it a bit troubling that the details he's articulating are so light on ambition?  It just seems out of pace with the rhetoric of change and new approaches to then espouse details that simply expand things we're already doing.  Is the best idea out there to encourage clean energy that of renewable production tax credits, so that we can just evaluate candidates based on the size of their PTC?  

Don't get me wrong - I like the rhetoric as much as you do.  I just don't see details to back it up.  Hell, maybe there's a better idea than my crazy ones about regulatory reform.  But we ought to push for something greater than just doing what we've done before, bigger.

There's a lot more in Obama's plan than expanded tax credits. Say what you will about individual parts of it, it's definitely ambitious as a whole.

His tongue is silverier than ours and his political judgment is better, and he's decided the best message to lead with is that there are real jobs being created, and not just on the coasts, and he's going to dump a whole lot of public money into the effort to boost the industries that are creating them.

Remember, by and large, people don't give a sh*t about policy. It's all about affect. He's positioning himself as someone who recognizes people's economic pain and has a concrete, well-funded plan to address it. Anything more detailed than that belongs in a white paper (of which his campaign has released plenty!).

grist.org

One other point, while we're on the topic.  I'd argue that there is actually quite a bit of rhetorical potential in the idea of reforming regulation rather than simply subsidizing technologies - and rhetoric that could cross the aisle, in a rather Reagan-esque way:  

"We have a national ability to innovate.  We have a magnificent entrepreneurial culture, and massive access to capital.  Those strengths have enabled us to solve the greatest challenges faced by past generations, and will be put to work to solve the greatest challenges of our generation as well.  But they won't do so if they are held back by government regulation.  Government is not the solution.  It is the problem.  [riff on as appropriate]"

Reagan built a mantra around this that still drives much of the GOP, even as their actions fail to live up to the rhetoric.  So fundamentally, I don't agree that one could not frame an energy policy that is both rational and makes for a good sound-bite.  Obama's got the latter in spades...

Yeah, the biofuels stuff is awful, and I glossed over it. I think high-info voters have to face the choice. With Obama, they'll probably get continued biofuels subsidies, perhaps coupled with a Low Carbon Fuel Standard that could blunt some of the damage. For that price, they'll get (support for) 100% auctions, big public investment, boosted efficiency standards, good transportation policy, etc. etc.

With McCain, you get none of the latter. And for giving it up, what do you get in return? A zeroing out of federal biofuel subsidies? Let's just say I highly, highly doubt that. Even just so far in this campaign, McCain's shown his willingness to throw his climate/energy concerns overboard for the slightest political advantage. If he's in the White House, alone in his administration in opposing these subsidies, beset by the enormous agricultural lobby ... is he going to put skin in the game? Maybe, maybe not. Even if he does, it's hard for me to see that as a good bargain. I don't see the rationale for being a single issue voter on biofuels.

Sean, another aspect of the regulatory thing is that anything that even smells of deregulation is going to get Obama pilloried by large swaths of the left. I'm with you on the substance, but it's very hard for me to see how Obama finesses the complexities without getting political blowback. And remember, to implement good policy, step one is getting elected.

And to step back: my praise for the speech was political. I think he's nailing the message and I think he's hitting McCain with hard, legitimate punches. I didn't mean to hold it up as a blueprint for the Perfect Pony Energy Plan.

grist.org

I think theres a smart and appealing case to be made, if not for "deregulation," then "smarter regulation."  He could point out that utilities "cost-based" regulation is actually "cost plus" contracts, much the same as Halliburton got, with all the same incentives to gold-plate projects - spend more to earn more.  Sean's mentioned that a NY PUC commissioner has mentioned (and I've since seen it emphasized elsewhere) that deregulation, properly understood, is more a transfer of regulation to anti-trust authority.  A lot of the problems we've experienced with deregulation is that the handoff's been fumbled - companies have successfully gotten their "deregulation" - authority to set market based rates on the wholesale market, while staving off any attempts at opening them up to antitrust regulation (which they were exempt from when more heavily regulated, but presumably would not be if 'deregulated').  Hence you get companies able to exercise market power to the detriment of consumers.  Which of course is the opposite of the competition gains deregulation strives for.

So obviously I've gone overboard of what you could say in a speech - but I think 'not deregulation - smarter regulation - no Halliburton contracts for utilities' could work.  

Hi Ron

I am very interested in the elimination of world poverty. I come from India, which is a third world country. But I don't have any problems with US bio-fuels. I don't see it as a problem if you Americans decide to burn corn in your cars.

Why ? Because India is not dependent on US Food Aid programs. We used to be so during the 1970s. But thanks to the Green Revolution of the 80s, we are now self sufficient in food, indeed we export food as well.

Now, it is true that inflation is soaring in India. And food costs have exploded out of bounds. But the fault lies squarely with the speculators who teamed up increasing oil and commodity prices. It would be a great help to India if US actively starts reigning in these influences. Any US move towards lesser oil will reduce international demand, and help India.

Unlike India, there are a few countries which are indeed dependent on US Food Aid. These countries will be hit hard when you divert your food surplus towards biofuels. The question that needs to be asked is Why are the poor countries still dependent on US Food Aid ? What can be done to prevent water depletion and famine in poor countries ? What can be done to increase the agricultural investment in poor countries ? Why do they lack good seeds and fertilizers ? Why is the Green Revolution, successfully implemented in India 30 years ago, still being denied to many countries in Africa and Latin America ? What role do the food subidies being handed out to large agricultural conglomerates play in this misfortune ?

If Americans come clean about this, and implement a true initiative towards eliminating poverty in third world countries, that is great. This starts primarily with a commitment to spend 0.7% of GDP in foreign aid, extremely necessary to achieve the millenium development goals of UN.

Hijacking the world food prices issue towards condemning bio-fuels is cheap politics. Bio-fuels can be good or bad. It is primarily an American issue. It's about your priorities on energy security and economics. The ball is in your court.

Now, it is true that inflation is soaring in India. And food costs have exploded out of bounds. But the fault lies squarely with the speculators who teamed up increasing oil and commodity prices.

Uh-huh. Please provide evidence to support that claim.

Hijacking the world food prices issue towards condemning bio-fuels is cheap politics. Bio-fuels can be good or bad. It is primarily an American issue. It's about your priorities on energy security and economics. The ball is in your court.

I don't see any hijackers around here. Not too long ago, both the industry and the U.S. government were crediting demand for biofuels for driving up the prices of grains and oilseeds above the trigger prices for commodity payments, thus saving the federal government money that it otherwise would have had to pay for crop subsidies. (Of course, the increase in costs to consumers, and the costs of biofuel subsidies themselves, were usually glossed over.)

Since then, the volume of grains and oilseeds diverted to the production of biofuels has increased dramatically. Now what we are witnessing is an even higher mandated volume at a time when the area planted to maize was already expected to drop by 8%. And, because of heavy rains, the total harvest could fall by a much greater percentage than that.

No serious agricultural economist that I know of would ever claim that demand for biofuels has NOTHING to do with the rise in the prices of crops. Experts may respectively disgree on how big its contribution has been, but nobody would say it is anywhere close to zero.

These are only my personal opinions.

The impression I get from reading the work of Lester Brown and other sources is that India has some huge water problems, the underground aquifers are being used up, partly because of the needs of Green Revolution crops.  In addition, the soil has been abused because of Green Revolution practices (artificial fertilizers and pesticides).  

And this certainly is not just India's problem; China, and really much of the rest of the world, has been horribly abusing the freshwater and soils of the world.  So it seems to me that the rise in food prices is, at the very least, a wake up call to create a more sustainable global agricultural system.

Thanks for your comments. You are right.

India is indeed facing acute water shortage. This will be manifest in a decade when the available fresh water per person will drop below the bare minimum required (1700 cubic metres). Curently this figure is around 1800 cubic metres on the average, though several regions in India have already fallen below the threshold.

India has the largest irrigated land mass in the world (558,080 sq km). A large network of rivers makes this land very fertile. But the population growth is in the danger of trespassing even this liberal barrier. Water conservation is a more urgent problem in India (and in most of the 3rd world) than energy conservation.

It is a misconception that the crops of green revolution are responsible for water-abuse. It is the population growth which is responsible (coupled with dietary changes involving more meat) ! Green revolution just makes food production efficient.

Ron & BioDiversivist

Bio-fuels do have a role in increasing food prices, and this should be addressed. But they are not the main culprit.

World food security is an important problem, which has several variables. Drought in Australia  
 has a role. Increased transport and fertilizer costs due to oil prices have a role. Depleted dollar has a role. Open speculation on energy and commodity markets has a role.

When we are serious about an issue, we should make a thorough analysis of all the causes. One should analyse the rate of increase in food prices, and compare it against the rate of increase of each concerned variable.(what is the rate of increase in bio-fuel usage, what is the rate of increase of oil prices, what is the rate of fall in Australian wheat production.. and see if it all sums up).

Putting the blame squarely on biofuels for food price increase is a knee-jerk reaction, probably with intentional malice. It is not a secret that Big Oil has a huge media network. One knows not who to trust.

Thanks for the references.I agree with you that putting biofuels on hold will decrease demand for food grains. This is essential in the short term.

But I think you are misunderstanding the problem a bit. Ideally, the price and demand are strongly coupled. But in reality, the purchasing power of people could be so low that they cannot buy food even if it is available.

Millions of tonnes of grain can be stocked in warehouses, but people can still die out of hunger. This is the reason US and Europe have to constantly bail out populations through food aid.  This reality will sink in if you live in a poor country.

A question I have is, would decrease in US bio-fuel consumption create further demand for oil and push up the prices ?

Oil prices are the reason behind inflation. Inflation is present not just in food prices, but in pretty much everything (clothes, copper, iron..)

Again, demand is not the reason for oil price increase. The demand did not miraculously increase by over 300% an year. Currently, a few guys hold the entire humanity for ransom through an oil stranglehold over the neck. They can quote the price they want. This is a more important reason than environment, why we should get out of oil.

Energy is money. If people don't have energy, they will not have purchasing power. Even if there is food, it will just stay in warehouses.

Freeing ourselves from oil is not an easy process. Each of the promising technologies that help this transition produce results in different time-frames. Fortunately or unfortunately, the thing that helps the most immediately is biofuels.

The numbers you have produced tell us is that Bio fuels account for about 2.5% increase in demand (out of the 5% total increase). But in the poorest parts of the world, the increase in food prices is a lot higher than 5% (at some places, the prices  increased by more than 100%).  What is the reason for this ? For how much should biofuels be held accountable ?

Can the 2.5% damage of bio-fuels be compensated by investing in poor countries and increasing food production there ?

I am not accusing you of something as simple as being an oil agent. You could be just one of the people who ate their propaganda. It could be anyone, including guys from FAO. With respect to WTO and IMF, I always take what they say with a pinch of salt.

The scientific case will come forward to end biofuelish subsidies once Barack gets elected.

For the campaign we need to stress soaring fuel (and all other commodity prices)  prices driven by futures trading corruption and demand.  Since increasing supply of oil is a chimera, lowering demand is the way to stabilize or even lower prices.

Unregulated futures trading creates an artificial demand almost equal to that of the oil consumption of China.  Re-regulate trading and lower demand through higher mileage cars and converting long haul trucks, tractors, and trains to flex fuel operation so they can run on natural gas.

Negotiate large contracts with automakers to deliver high mileage economy cars, flex fuel natural gas trucks, and plugin hybrids for government vehicle fleets.  Jawbone large corporations to match government orders for these vehicles.

Geo heat exchange heating/cooling can replace huge amounts of natural gas (and heating oil) freeing up natural gas for flex fuel vehicles.

Biogas from waste can supplement natural gas supplies, replace expensive fossil fuel fertilizer with recycled organic fertilizer (a byproduct of biodigestion), and offset GHG by curtailing methane (21x the GHG effect of cO2) and nitrous oxide (296x the gHG effect of CO2) released by chemical fertilizer.

Green energy/ag re-evolution has to be seen as an inflation fighting, economy restoring, job creating movement along with the GHG fighting.  Barack is good at this.

He is just a bit confused on ethanol, as are a lot of americans.  Low information voters and swing voters tend to coincide.  They will have to be informed gradually so that our candidates are not vulnerable to that old rovian "elitest" talking point.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

on two posts, but anyway, I'm not denying some market manipulation -- but in both the silver and california case, I believe, silver and electricity were held off the market.  Oil is not being held off the market, as far as anyone knows.  I mean, do you think that oil is peaking?  20 years to peak? never?  

Ecologically-speaking, everything has limits, particularly if you use up capital.  Look at it this way, capital -- the means of production -- is used to create wealth.  If the capital is in the ground, such as oil, and you deplete it, eventually you can't create wealth anymore (actually, oil is not capital, it's used to run machines which are capital, actually mostly transportation machines).

If soil is blown away, you've lost capital, thus less wealth can be generated in the future.  The nice thing about solar/wind/geothermal sources of energy is that it does not use up capital.  Same with permaculture-type farming, you build up the soil.

I don't see a level of understanding for the basic economic/ecological processes of production among people who are focusing on speculation.  The financial system is only a byproduct of the production system.

"Ecologically-speaking, everything has limits, particularly if you use up capital."

There it is!  It is actually capital that is being used up. Not oil (in this case).

That's how futures markets are cornered.  And yes capital is held back.  Big trading players know when, it leaks out to fund managers from their own clients.

If Martha would have gone through a hedge fund, she could have warned the manager without being implicated in the inside information.

The phantom demand created by insider trading is nearly equal to the demand from China.  that's a lot of leverage.

Add in inside news of when Cheney will threaten Iran on an aircraft carrier?  You be riotch biotch!  Consumers go to the poor house.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Utilizing all the sources into one formula.

Often partial solutions to our problems are presented on the Internet but nobody puts the pieces together. Recently, I have focused quite a bit on the energy issue, and I have found that solutions abound, but the political will to implement them is lacking, or they appear uneconomical because they are, by themselves in fact uneconomical.

A good example of this is wind power penetrating the grid at more than about 20%. By itself taken in isolation, with all other variables ignored; more than about 20% seems impractical because of the variability of wind. But taken with other solutions the picture is quite different.

Our existing electrical grid is mostly an AC grid, the east and the western grids aren't substantially connected, and overall it's inefficient, unreliable, and at capacity straining to meet ever growing demands.

If this weren't the case; if we modernized our electrical grid adding east-west ties and converting all spans longer than 300km to DC transmission, first, doing this alone would be like adding 15% additional generating capacity to the grid without any additional pollution because we could cut the losses from around 17% to around 2%. Moreover, efficient east-west transmission would allow us to distribute the peak load across the time zones requiring less peak capacity and making more efficient use of the capacity we already have, above and beyond grid losses.

If we can utilize geographical diversity with wind generation, something only possible with the modernization of our power grid; then the total capacity available from wind power never falls below about 1/3rd of peak capacity, and then we could, if we choose, simply overbuild capacity and supply our entire electrical needs from wind alone. I'm not advocating wind alone, ideally we'd use a mixture of renewable sources, solar, geo-thermal, ocean-current, ocean-wave, tidal, ocean-thermal, various forms of hydro (there are forms that can capture energy from the movement of river water without dams), etc.

We could generate all of our electricity by wind if we so choose simply by building 3x as much capacity as we need and modernizing the electrical grid. But there is a snag, wind, presently the least expensive method of generating electricity, less so even than coal now, would lose its attractive economics if we had to overbuild by 3x AND if there were no market for that peak power.

Add in some other technologies, for example, we can take electricity, carbon dioxide, and water, and using one of three processes, we can make an alcohol called Butynol (Butynol is manufactured by combining the petroleum gases. isobutylene and isoprene at the extremely low temperature of 100 degree centigrade) which can directly be used as a replacement for gasoline in ordinary gasoline cars. Butynol actually has tremendous advantages over gasoline. Butynol produces only 3% of the hydrocarbon emissions, almost un-measurable carbon monoxide emissions, and greatly reduced nitrous oxides relative to gasoline. It also produces slightly better fuel mileage and power, greatly reduced acidic blow-by products (thereby enhancing engine life) and less waste heat (also enhancing engine life).

We can make Butynol from electricity, carbon dioxide, and water by one of three methods. There exists a kind of reverse fuel cell that was recently invented that uses a catalyst in the presence of electricity to convert carbon dioxide and water to Butynol. That is one method; it's a method that from what I've read Richard Branson paid to have developed to produce Butynol as a renewable jet fuel. However, there are two other methods also that can be used, carbon dioxide can be electrolyzed into oxygen and carbon monoxide, the carbon monoxide can be mixed with steam to form "process gas", and then in the presence of catalysts, this can be used to create a variety of useful hydrocarbons including Butynol. Lastly, electricity can be used to create sufficient heat to disassociate carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide and oxygen and then the same process that follows electrolysis can be used. The last process has been demonstrated on an industrial scale, I'm not sure if the first processes have made it out of the lab, but they have at least been demonstrated in the lab. Using the latter two processes it is also possible to make synthetic diesel.

If use the electricity generated during times when there is excess capacity to create Butynol, we can replace imported oil used for gasoline and diesel, while at the same time providing a market for the peak electrical production, thereby allowing wind power to be economical even when capacity is overbuilt, and we create a market for the carbon dioxide generated by existing coal and gas fired plants instead of just releasing the carbon dioxide into the air. When the Butynol is burned it will release carbon dioxide, but this is displacing oil that would have been burnt, so the net result will be a reduction in carbon dioxide and if we can bring enough renewable electricity capacity online to eliminate the need for fossil fueled power generation, then we can continue to make Butynol by sequestering carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere, thus making the process a closed loop resulting in no net carbon dioxide increase.

Any one of these elements by themselves may not be economic; but they are all mutually synergistic and implemented together they could eliminate our dependency upon foreign oil first, and later eliminate our dependency upon fossil fuels (or for that matter abiotic oil) entirely. (Abiotic - generally asserting that oil is formed from magma instead of an organic origin)

We should be doing this, and we should not be doing it ten or fifty years from now, we should be doing it now.

Jay Draiman said...
Water is the source of life - treasure it! R4.
Water is the source of all life on earth. It touches every area of our lives. Without it, we could not thrive -- we could not even survive.

Sustainability - "We strive to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".
We should discourage wastefulness and misuse, and promote efficiency and conservation.
"Conservation is really the cheapest source of supply,"
For the benefit of mankind, maintain the quality of life and preserve the peace and tranquility of world population. Water resources must be preserved - to sustain humanity. We must eliminate wasteful utilization of water, conserve our water sources and implement rigid conservation methods. We should utilize solar and or other source of renewable energy to operate desalinization projects from the oceans. Utilize renewable energy sources to purify and transport the water to its final destination. As world population increases the scarcity of water will become a cause for conflict, unless we take steps now to develop other sources of water for drinking, rainwater harvesting - storm-water and gray-water utilization. Designing of landscaping that uses minimal amount of water.
"With power shortages and a water scarcity a constant threat across the West, it's time to look at water and energy in a new way,"
To preserve the future generations sustainability, we should look into urban farming - vertical farming. The term "urban farming" may conjure up a community garden where locals grow a few heads of lettuce. But some academics envision something quite different for the increasingly hungry world of the 21st century: a vertical farm that will do for agriculture what the skyscraper did for office space. Greenhouse giant: By stacking floors full of produce, a vertical farm could rake in $18 million a year.
Jay Draiman, Energy and water conservation consultant
June 29, 2008
PS.

Hydro dynamics: forget oil. Sharing freshwater equitably poses political conundrums as explosive and far-reaching as global climate change.
Quoted from other sources
Anyone who has ever stood on a beach and looked out into the vast expanse of an ocean knows that there is a lot of water on this planet. In fact, 70 percent of the Earth's surface is covered by water. It may seem like water is all around us, but safe, clean, reliable drinking water is not a ceaseless resource. The problems facing drinking water range from failing infrastructure, to climate change, to insufficient supplies.

Personal Conservation
Preserving our water resources is not a job for water industry professionals alone. We all have a vested interest in ensuring that water remains safe, affordable and available. Therefore, each individual American has a responsibility to monitor and control their water use, There are many simple ways for people to reduce excess water use, lower water bills and protect the environment, especially in die spring and summer months, Beyond the standard constraints of watering the lawn only when necessary and washing car wisely by using soap and a bucket of water, some steps include: draining water lines to outside faucets, disconnecting hoses, shutting off outdoor water sources during cold weather and running a small trickle of water on whiter nights to prevent pipe from freezing.
Conclusion:
Water supply management is an issue that affects us all. It may not be apparent to every citizen today, but with climate change and population shifts transforming the United States, it soon will be. Effective solutions need to be put into place today before we are faced with a water crisis. A focus on careful planning, treatments, innovations and conservation measures will help to create stability for long-term water management. Commitment to keeping water at the top of the list for communities and citizens will better prepare us for whatever the future of water holds.

WATER!
The indispensable source of life-without water there would be no industry, no agriculture and, most importantly of all, no life. In dry parts of the world this essential commodity is even more precious. Almost all human actions involve water from taking a shower to reading a newspaper to driving a car or simply eating a sandwich - almost everything we do or touch is somehow related to this precious treasure. We ask that you stop and think how you use water and what you can do to conserve this essential natural resource.
*Water, beliefs and customs,
*Water as a vehicle of the economy,
*Water, source of art and life, irrigation and cultivation.
The people have decided to act to try and develop a real awareness program on the theme of water preservation and distribution in an attempt to help maintain the original purity of rivers and streams.
In many parts of the world water sources and wells are not equally distributed. Water as a source of life can also be at the source of conflict.
Whether we live in India, Iceland or the Atlas... we have always tried to trap and tame water. Dams, pumps, canals, water treatment centers; there are so many different ways to exploit this resource that we often forget how fragile this unique and essential treasure actually is.
Unfortunately, many of the things we do every day can harm our water. That's why all people and government should be working with municipalities, farmers, business leaders and developers just like you to take action to protect our water and clean it up.
Small changes can make a big difference. This guide outlines practical things we can all do to preserve and protect our water. We all need to be part of the solution.
Concentrated Solar Power, which requires no solar panels at all. It works by concentrating sunlight onto a small pipe using cheap parabolic reflectors. The pipe contains a liquid that's heated to very high temperatures by the sun and drives a steam boiler that rotates a turbine to generate electricity (much like nuclear power plants, but without the nuclear waste). It's cheap, low-tech, and far more affordable than solar power. Plus, it can be built in practically any desert, so it doesn't take up valuable land. As another bonus, when CSP operations are built near the ocean, they can desalinate ocean water as a side effect, providing fresh water for irrigation to grow food. This is the only renewable energy technology I know of that can produce cheap energy, fresh water and crop irrigation all at the same time. Plus, it has no emissions, no toxic chemicals, no nuclear waste and very little environmental impact..
"You can't escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today" - Abraham Lincoln said it.
"That man is richest whose pleasures are the cheapest" - Henry David Thoreau.
"To waste, to destroy, our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we ought by right to hand down to them amplified and developed" - Theodore Roosevelt.
"When the `study of the household' (ecology) and the `management of the household' (economics) can be merged, and when ethics can be extended to include `environmental' as well as human values, then we can be optimistic about the future of mankind. Accordingly, bringing together these three E's is the ultimate holism and the great challenge for our future" - Eugene Odum.
Water, it's been said, is the "oil of the 21st century" -- a commodity whose availability and quality may be subject to both known and unknown influences. For companies, that poses significant risks, and many companies are making water a strategic issue, creating water management plans that include efficiency and conservation as well as contingency plans should water become less available or more costly. Many firms are examining their products, policies, and processes through the lens of a world in which the availability of water becomes a constraint to doing business.

JUNE 29, 2008
COMMENT  
To be sure water is important to life; it's one of the first things we look for on another planet when considering whether that planet may or may not be capable of supporting life.

That said; fresh water on Earth is a secondary problem. Water is an issue only to the degree energy is an issue because there is plenty of salt water and energy can turn salt water into fresh water.

You and I disagree with respect to priorities. You make the statement, "As population rises water will become more scarce".

Well, that's true; but let's look at the first part of that equation, "As population rises", and attack that issue first.

Population doesn't rise in developed countries with robust economies except through immigration.

The lesson there is, if we can eliminate poverty globally, we'll eliminate population growth. In my view, this ought to be priority number one because sustainability depends upon a stable population.

Eliminating poverty, even with conservation, is going to require increased energy production and that can't be accommodated by fossil fuels.

Even worse; the production of fossil fuels has at least temporarily peaked, and even though recent discoveries and new technology will no doubt allow it to continue to grow, no new technology will produce more air; or ocean capable of absorbing carbon dioxide; therefore it's important that the use of fossil fuels not increase, even if we are capable of doing so.

However, the demand is growing and supply is stable or shrinking, if this issue isn't addressed immediately we're looking at a world of economic collapse, widespread hunger, and increased population growth rate.

So we need to consider every option available to replace declining sweet light crude production, we can not, absolutely can not "forget oil" as you suggest.
JUNE 29, 2008    
OUR CURRENT METHODS OF LIVING ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE
HOW WE MAKE A FUTURE FOR OURSELVES AND OUR CHILDREN.

JayDraiman

All you ever do is say what doesn't work, and what is bad or a problem. You never recommend realistic solutions to anything. You and Wolverine are just a couple of morons who never have anything positive to contribute anywhere.

Victory in Pattani

Cut out the personal attacks and name-calling, please.

grist.org