Is there a form of energy that isn't lame?

[XemaSab]

I was having a discussion with a certain candidate's wife tonight (www.jeffmorrisforcongress.com) about energy, and I fear I sounded like the world's most pessimistic environmentalist.

Seriously, is there any form of electrical generation that's practical and clean?

Also, what's the right balance between climate change and decentralization of the grid? Is decentralizing the grid even a priority? :shrug:

[Dead_Parrot]

1. ...

Other than that, not really.

Geothermal is nice as far as it goes, but that's not far enough. And I nearly said hydro, but the word "Banqiao" sprang to mind: It's still my preference where the landscape's right, and goes well with wind. And of course the N-word for flatland, possibly with solar thermal for peak.

Nothing is perfect, and there's isn't a one-size-fits all solution, but I don't think it's insurmountable if we actually get on with it.

As to your second point, It appears we're supposed to be in favour of decentralisation, but with a supergrid connecting everything up to work around intermittancy. Which sounds counterintuitive to me, but it might make for an interesting poll if you can word it right.

For my money, leave the grid pretty much as it is. It's a bit crap everywhere, but it sure beats the cost of re-cabling the entire planet.

[bananas]

7. Animal cruelty.

:hide:

[Dead_Parrot]

28. And carbon-neutral glue. Doubleplus good.

(Doubleplus :hide: )

[XemaSab]

13. You ever seen pastures overgrazed by horses?

If you have too many horses on a site, they'll NUKE the place...

(Oh crap, I used the N-word too. :hide: )

[Dead_Parrot]

29. But the roses will look great... nt

[XemaSab]

30. I'm laughing because between my last post and this one

I went and knocked all the climbing roses off the arbor in the back yard.

I had about 30 seconds of pure cognitive dissonance before I understood what you were saying. :P

[Dead_Parrot]

43. Hah!

Serves you right, you plant-murderer...

[Throckmorton]

77. Geothermal

is a major point source for air and water pollution.

[FREEWILL56]

78. Really? How so?

[Throckmorton]

109. Everything in the ground is dissolved in the steam from the wells.

The biggest pollutant is Hydrogen Sulfide, which is dissolved in the steam and comes out as a non-condensible gas in the condenser. I was shocked to learn this in the early 1990's when I did process controls work for the Central California Power Authorities Geysers Park outside Cloverdale CA. About 40% of the power produced there goes into pollution control for the various gaseous and liquid effluent streams produced by the plants.

Efforts to exploit 'Dry Rock Technology' which uses lined extraction wells to heat water were at the time a failure. The Plant I worked on, CCPA #2, was decommissioned about 7 years later because the could not get steam of sufficient enthalpy to run it.

That is also why the plants were built on the tops of ridge line, as hydrogen sulfide is heavier than air, and the hill top locations allow it to "Run Off" downhill, and get diluted by the atmosphere. The concentrations are low enough by the time they reach the site boundary to meet EPA emission requirements.

[kristopher]

111. I think this is the wrong focus for real near term results

The near-universal use of home geothermal would have a dramatic impact on the amount of energy used for heating and cooling. When I speak of geothermal making a real contribution to reducing greenhouse emissions, that is what I'm referring to.

[Nihil]

112. That is Ground Source Heat Pump not geothermal.

The idea of "home geothermal" (as opposed to "industrial geothermal" or
"community geothermal") is a non-starter for the reasons provided above.

Ground Source Heat Pumps are indeed useful for domestic properties and
should be encouraged but using the term "geothermal" for GSHP is as
misleading as using "solar" for coal - both terms have a degree of
technical accuracy but are not acceptable usage due to confusion.

:hi:

[kristopher]

113. Perhaps you should inform all the contractors selling "home geothermal" systems.

And all the books, green websites, and government websites that also use the term?

Just saying...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=home+geothermal&start=150&sa=N

[Nihil]

114. I'd be surprised if such people install systems like in .109 (the post you responded to).

It was discussing genuine geothermal systems (and the problems therein).

You replied with a comment that used 'geothermal' to describe a GSHP
system so I responded to point out the difference. I apologise if you
were already familiar with the differences between the two types.

The fact that there are a lot of illiterate websites out there is
no surprise to me. Neither is the laziness of using the wrong term
for any particular technology (cf. '1/4" jack plug' where the 'jack'
actually means the socket: the fact that it is incorrect doesn't faze
the millions of musicians who use the phrase). I just try to correct
bad habits when they arise but YMMV.

Sorry about the diversion.

[kristopher]

115. Perhaps the problem isn't the judged, but the judge.

I'd hardly deem the list produced by that search term to be a representative sample of lazy illiterates. Frankly, your distinction is baseless and potentially technically inaccurate. For example, the DIY system I plan on installing in my home doesn't use a heat pump; it is limited to tapping into the cooling potential offered and will cost less than $1000.

[Nihil]

116. True ...

... especially seeing as that cuts both ways.

> For example, the DIY system I plan on installing in my home doesn't
> use a heat pump; it is limited to tapping into the cooling potential
> offered

Working with the assumption that "the DIY system" relates to the systems
in this thread, not only is it not geothermal (not extracting heat from
a reservoir within the earth) but (unless it is a purely convective loop)
it had better be using some form of heat pump (transferring heat from within
your home to the cooler ground loop outside) or it will simply not work.

:shrug:

Good luck with it anyway, it is a worthy goal.

[kristopher]

117. I don't consider moving heat without compression

To be utilizing a "heat pump".
I'll admit that as with many basic conceptual terms there can be a degree of ambiguity so your usage is a fair one; HOWEVER the "rules" for usage you are trying to assert simply don't exist. Geothermal is "earth" and "heat" and it is used by any number of authoritative sources in ways that would run counter to your assertions.

For example:
Geographic Information System (GIS): A computer system designed for storing, manipulating, analyzing, and displaying data in a geographic context.

Geological Log: A detailed description of all underground features (depth, thickness, type of formation) discovered during the drilling of a well.

Geophysical Log: A record of the structure and composition of the earth encountered when drilling a well or similar type of test hold or boring.

Geothermal/Ground Source Heat Pump: These heat pumps are underground coils to transfer heat from the ground to the inside of a building. (See: heat pump; water source heat pump)

Germicide: Any compound that kills disease-causing microorganisms.

Giardia Lamblia: Protozoan in the feces of humans and animals that can cause severe gastrointestinal ailments. It is a common contaminant of surface waters.

http://www.epa.gov/OCEPAterms/gterms.html

So while I will be moving heat from my house to the earth, it will be WITHOUT the use of compression to augment the degree of heat exchange achieved. Since compression is the most energy intensive input to most "heat pump" systems, and further, since the use of the term "heat pump" invariably evokes the use of such augmented heat exchange, I prefer to label the system I'm going to build as purely "geothermal". Clear enough?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

2. Check out a co. called Blacklight Power. I read that it had an energy production breakthrough that's...

absolutely stunning.

[NNadir]

3. The most prominent form of distributed energy is the automobile.

The automobile - and how ironic is this - was promoted by clever but malicious libertarian type marketeers as "freedom."

Now of course, everyone is trying to figure out how to get the rails back.

Distributed energy is simply a libertarian license for distributing point source pollution across what's left of the landscape.

[XemaSab]

14. And why shouldn't point source pollution be distributed?

Especially since this distribution takes a lot of pollution away from population centers?

Assuming a maintenance of current electrical generation technologies, if every mid-sized city in the country had a coal plant, how would that solve anything as far as distributing point source pollution? :shrug:

[NNadir]

31. Well there are distributed coal plants in China and India, and some in the US as well.

I have never deviated from my insistence that dangerous fossil fuels should be banned, but looking at how to deal with them is instructive.

Suppose your neighbor has a coal plant, a small one. How likely is it that your neighbor can afford a scrubber, a disposal system, etc, etc? Compare this to a large utility with a 1500 MWe coal plant, where the cash flow is hundreds of millions a dollars per year and the situation changes dramatically.

Suppose you required all dangerous fossil fuel devices to contain their carbon dioxide for eternity. Would it be easier to stick a giant balloon on a coal smokestack or on the tailpipes 250 million dangerous fossil fuel powered automobiles? How could you be sure that all 250 million persons owning such devices disposed of them in lawful way? How much would it cost to administer?

In general it is much more difficult to concentrate diffuse wastes and to remove them. Here on the east coast, all of our waterways are contaminated by mercury. How much would be required to remove this mercury? How much energy?

Wastes, such as they exist, are most easily dealt with when they are small, dense and concentrated.

[XemaSab]

32. That's half of my argument

I think a lot of people confuse decentralizing the grid with environmental friendliness, or obfuscate the two issues.

My mission in life is partly to point out to people that you can't have your cake and eat it too.

[NNadir]

35. It's one of the big lies in energy, that distributed energy is superior.

The confusion on this issue - which I regard as a form of economic libertarianism - is enormous.

[XemaSab]

39. Comparing it to libertarianism makes sense

In both cases there's a sense that if you're too poor to put 30 thousand dollar panels on your roof, there's something morally wrong with you. :(

[NNadir]

40. There is also an element that insists that one's actions should not be guided by responsibility to

others.

This is really noticable in the car cults, or course, but every distributed energy scheme contains an element of that.

I covered this subject in some more detail in a few remarks I titled http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/14/94040/6467">Smashing the Corporate Robber Baron Centralized Power System with Individual Power Systems.

I am a big fan of the writer Katie Alvord. She's one of those people who thinks freshly.

[XemaSab]

42. Why do you hate socialist-libertarian advocates of liberationist hemp farming in Cuba?

:shrug: x(

This is a good piece. As I was saying last night to Jeff Morris's wife Judy (Vote Jeff Morris for CA-2!) and some other folks, if you're in favor of distributed power, a coal furnace in your basement makes a huge amount of sense; if you're in favor of reducing CO2 output, a massive nuclear plant makes a lot of sense.

I have sympathy for the decentralization crowd, but abolishing the grid (which someone OTHER than Jeff Morris's lovely wife Judy was advocating) makes NO sense. On the other hand, Judy (who is a smart, put together person, and who would make an excellent supervisor for Trinity county) was saying that up in Trinity county they are trying to get some homegrown power so they're not at the mercy of fragile lines going across rugged terrain.

But a grid that allows people in San Francisco to get energy from Shasta Dam, people in Eureka to get energy from Tehachapi wind, people in Sacramento to get energy from the Salton Sea geothermal plants, and people in LA to get energy from Diablo Valley... that makes the most sense to me.

[NNadir]

45. Um coal furnaces in basements once lead 4000 people to drop dead on the streets of London.

Another 8000 died over the next few weeks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_1952

It was a great victory for distributed energy.

[XemaSab]

49. My point exactly

Coal furnaces in basements are about the most environmentally UNFRIENDLY technology, but everyone's in charge of their own power production.

[NNadir]

52. The other distributed energy programs aren't much better.

Wait until those dead batteries turn up.

Once, on this site, I got a lecture from a fundie about how 90% of lead batteries are recycled.

Of course, the scary thing about this kind of "percent talk" is recognizing how many brazillion tons of batteries "only 10%" of batteries represent.

[bluedawg12]

54. NNadir- you guys lost me on this- could you explain

distributed energy in terms of what you propose and what exists?

I got the car example. Energy to the end user, to use ad lib.

I got the model of the private coal plant hypothetical and the problems of waste disposal on an individual scale as opposed to what...centralized energy source, with monitoring of one pollution/byproduct source as opposed to many?

Just keeping it on the model of say power generation to a major metropoltian area- commercial and residentail- what are you guys saying is optimal?

Thanks.

BD12

[bluedawg12]

56. NNadir- my apology, I am just reading your article in DK

and I see you explain the terms very nicely.

( Dang- my puter was having a brain fart- another progam was upadting and I didn't know it, couldn't get on the Daily Kos--hence,my confusion--not my first and won't be my last I am sure) back to reading your article.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/14/94040/6467
Smashing the Corporate Robber Baron Centralized Power System with Individual Power Systems.
by NNadir
Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 06:40:40 AM PDT


>>Many people on hearing of my support for nuclear energy though say that the real problem with nuclear energy is that it's centralized. One cannot build a private nuclear power plant in one's basement, and therefore nuclear energy is not "distributed energy." Distributed energy, I am told, is better than centralized energy because, distributed energy is distributed.

Say what?

Distributed energy is better because it's distributed<<

About cars and our love affair with them..etc...if you as a proponent of nuclear power witnessed the development of electricity from nuclear energy and that energy could be used to power/recharge a fucntional electric car--then, would cars once again become an acceptable means of mass transportation? Other than walking is good for you. heh

Thanks.

[NNadir]

72. To answer your question about electric cars, the answer is "no."

I am not here to announce support for a cornucopia. I do not believe that nuclear power can accomplish everything that it would need to accomplish to support a 12,000 watt lifestyle for any but a fraction of humanity.

I believe that the emergency of the present case cannot help but last several generations, if there are several generations. Were the content of dangerous fossil fuel waste in the atmosphere falling and not rising, I would be willing to reconsider, but that is not going to happen in my lifetime, and probably, excepting the intervention of catastrophe, in the lifetime of anyone reading this post.

I have written about this recently in A Comment On Whether Nuclear Energy Can Save Your Pathetic Butt. (And this diary was very much a brain fart, if it makes you feel better) and in a somewhat more considered diary, some time ago, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/26/211617/753">Real Numbers: The 1998 Swiss Proposal For the 2000 Watt World, and Year 2050 Talk....

[bluedawg12]

76. My pathetic butt

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/21/17401/1190/767/519955

NNadir-

I read your blog. I think you were perhaps tired, or simply weary of explaining a position you feel is rational, to what must seem like an irrational world.

At any rate, you threw in the towel there- and I don't blame you. Frankly, I am a little nervous that we are an unsustainable species, and more concerned that I am getting a little too old to give a shit.

It will be our kids and theirs that get to enjoy the world of 9 billion people and growing to see what the end capacity is.

Then, the universe will get to see the world heal without mankind. Recently a pic from flooded Iowa told that tale. The town under water, RR tracks flooded - and a mating pair of ducks sitting on the edge of town and the edge of water- one and the same- nature reclaiming it's own turf- the ducks didn't look like they miss us at all.

We have had a list of problems and a list of solutions for a long time- complacency has kept us wallowing -fat and happy - uninterested in these matters. It goes beyond corportate greed. No one is forcing us to value commercialism over environment. The public still laughs at "tree huggers" on their way to buy the plasma TV.

For what's it worth- nuclear is probably the way to go, while we work and refine other technologies. The winner should be the one that delivers results today.

Nothing says it can't be a mix of technologies, but all we do as a nation is talk. Or make ethanol.

Sleep well.

[FREEWILL56]

80. When talking of distributed energy, aka: electricity,

it is in reference to the placing of more power generating points being evenly distributed around. Just as a car uses energy to go from point a to point b, so a similar thing does happen with electricity as some power is lost in going from point a to point b. Now put a small generating source near point b and it takes the strain off of the generator at point a. Guess how it gets from point a to point b? Yes, those old high power transmission lines that are overworked because so much more power has to be sent farther than those transmission lines were designed to handle. This is why there's a cry to rework our grid as that is basically the interconnecting wires between the central generating points. That means that smaller generating sources being placed around not only takes the strain off of the main power station, but also takes the strain off of the grid wires themselves and reduces power losses as a bonus.
Those smaller generating sources do not have to be your typical generating plants, but can be many smaller points of generation that renewables could provide. This won't replace the main generators or the central power station, but will supplement them and take the strain off of the grid wires.
As to what is best I'll go with hydro. No, I'm not talking about your typical hydro station with dams in place, but smaller less invasive paddle wheels dipped into only a part of the stream of a river. This does not bode well with utilities as they like a more concentrated and centrally located point of generation and hence they need the dams to do that. Smaller hydro stations with paddle wheels will supplement well into the scheme of things in distributing the power into other areas without high maintenance dams or interference to nature. For general knowledge here, be advised that paddle wheels do not have to be pushed from above the wheels as has been seen in many places for placing them into a high current of water below will push the wheels just as well.

[XemaSab]

83. Here's the deal:

At my last job, I sat next to a dude who was trying to site a power plant in the state of California.

In California, every national park is buffered, I think every national forest is buffered, and some areas are just off limits. After all is said and done, there are small areas of the desert and a small area around Fresno left to build anything on.

Therefore, transmission lines are a fact of life for Californians. :shrug:

[FREEWILL56]

92. Who said anything about getting rid of the power lines?

I said they are not up to standard to carry the amounts of power that are needed remotely from the central power station. In California there are many who have gone the route of using pvs and there's no power plant needed remotely as these go on the roof or even a pole mounted on the ground. You can't get more distributed than that.

[bluedawg12]

55. Divorce my car? The what--my clothes dryer!? Geesh.

Soem ideas from Katie Alvord.

BTW- is this in tandem with policies that support rebuilding our decayed and negelected ground mass transportation system--which as I see as having been blown away by the car and airplane ( both now hurting thanks to the King- fossil fule oil)industry?

http://newsociety.com/blogs/index.php?title=guest_post_katie_alvord&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

>>Welcome to the blog of New Society Publishers- the activist publisher focused on solutions and social change.

Guest Post - Katie Alvord

Guest Post - Katie Alvord 2008-May-27
Categories: Sustainable Living, 714 words
This just in from Katie Alvord - author of Divorce Your Car!
Ending the Love Affair with the Automobile. Thanks Katie!

It can be especially fun to go car-free for long-distance holiday travel. In Divorce Your Car!, I wrote about a whole family who crossed North America on a bicycle built for five (four sets of pedals plus a trailer).

1. Combine bicycle, bus and train

2. Combine long-distance train, local transit, and walking

3. Head straight to a national park or other outdoorsy location by train or bus.<<

.........

[NYC_SKP]

68. A word of warning about energy discussions

Hi Xema,

I admire that you're trying to learn more about energy, but would like to share some thoughts.

When science facts get mixed up with economics and social issues, it confuses the science.

The scientific fact is that lots of small generating facilities is better than a few centralized facilities. That's science, plain and simple.


Now, who owns those facilities becomes another topic, and an interesting one, and one that might make centralized power sound better, but the truth is that it creates more carbon dioxide than many smaller facilities would due to line loss.

Also, if a person owns a home that has a roof, they're already among that elite group that owns homes!
If they don't mind finding the way to finance a solar installation, if they're that flat-busted, then it's sad.
However, their investment will pay for itself typically in 8-10 years, and more quickly as energy costs rise, and then their electricity is free, free of cost, free of carbon.

It reminds me of "Rent to Own", you know how low income folks rent a big screen TV and end up paying 5 times what a new one would have cost had they saved up or had credit?

Well, people that could but don't install solar are saying, "Nawww, I'll just pay the monthy fee rather than invest in ownership". Well, that investment will be paid by the savings, their monthly solar loan will be offset by their now non-existent electricity bill, and once paid off they'll be hundreds of dollars ahead, every month for years and years and years, or until their 25-30 year warrantee is up.

And the higher energy prices rise, the more valuable their investment becomes.

No brainer.

What we need are more incentives and assistance to help all homeowners install (assuming good solar exposure, etc.)

[kristopher]

59. As usual Nnadir is confused

Internal combustion engines in automobiles could be considered either point source polluters or non-point source polluters, depending on the pollutant you are referring to. For example, we've cleaned up their particculate exhaust considerably with catalytic converters and unleaded fuel; in that case they are point source polluters because we are able to control the pollutant at the point of origin - the car's exhaust. However, NOX and CO2 are not able to be controlled at the point of origin; so when talking about those pollutants, cars are non-point source polluters.
Another example might be found in water quality. All the large polluters are forbidden by the Clean Water Act from dumping pollutants into our waterways. They are easy to identify and control. However, a poorly regulated home septic system, lawn and agricultural fertilizers, or waste oil dripping from an automobile onto the highways are all examples of nonpoint source pollutants.

Basing the claim that distributed generation is a move that increases pollution is one that should be examined (it has been and has been found to be totally, unequivocally false). Building the argument around the internal combustion automobile is idiocy of the first order.

[PetrusMonsFormicarum]

4. Tidal power

is a form of hydroelectric that is considerably less detrimental to the environment than dams and turbines. Essentially designed as tethered buoys, tidal power generators create electricity from water coming in and going out.

Here's some info on tidal power

[stuntcat]

64. yes

nothing to add, I just want to second this! (not that I have any real hope in people, but still I think this idea rocks.)

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kristopher]

69. Yes; no.

[arenean]

5. Geothermal?

How about using geothermal energy?
Relatively straightforward to tap into (depending where you live).
The Icelanders seem to make good use of it....

[kristopher]

6. xemasab - It is the system you need to consider

Renewables are more than adequate to do the job of powering all aspects of our culture if the system they are performing in is designed around the qualities of each source of of energy gathering. If we switch to battery electric cars powered by the existing technology Lithium batteries, careful analysis has PROVEN that there is huge storage capacity in those batteries that can do double duty as personal transportation and as an integral part of the grid as backup.
It is a complex scenario, and I don't blame people who are skeptics, but once you take the time to understand how all the pieces fit together, you realize that cheap batteries, distributed inexpensive solar, and large scale wind - all tied together with a grid designed around and adapted to their particular characteristics - is elegant, achievable and will probably provide less expensive power than now with almost none of the associated pollution.

All we need is the vision and will to make it happen, the technology is here NOW.

[Zachstar]

8. This

http://www.emc2fusion.org/

[ElectricGrid]

9. Wind and solar are good.....

What alarmists like you don't realize is that it's going to take a healthy mix of all clean power sources to solve this problem. Right now if you wanted you could go offgrid for just a little over 70G's if you live in a class 2 or higher wind zone. That would be living at a standard like you do now. If you were using half the ele that the average american does then you could get off grid for 50K. We are real close to grid parity for solar and wind.

[XemaSab]

15. Part of my argument last night

is that rich people can afford to go off grid, but as for the rest of us...

As surely as a humvee or a 40-foot yacht is a toy for the wealthy, so are solar panels or a private wind farm.

Yeah, there are some people who aren't rich who have these things, but for the rest of us....

[tinrobot]

33. Rich people tend to be early adopters.

Rich people tend to buy technology early, when it's still expensive. I remember when a good laptop costs $4,000 and only rich people could afford one. Now you can find a laptop for $500. The fact that people purchased them early offset the R&D costs and made the next generations less expensive. Same with other technologies such as electric cars. $100,000 Teslas will give way to $50,000 sedans, and ultimately a $20,000 cars for everyone.

I'm glad rich people are buying solar. True, solar is still somewhat expensive, but the price is going down as production increases and more (rich) people buy it.

[FREEWILL56]

82. Sorry, but solar power has not been going down.

As a matter of fact it went up some over the years in spite of higher demands for solar.
It being expensive I will fully agree, but that depends on what you wish to do. It will undoubtedly be high priced if you expect to produce all of the power you need or to be able to sell power. You can go smaller in your endeavour and go for running a few things on 12vdc with a battery backup as I had done. It is still high priced as to do this properly it will run around $1000 minimumly with ease. That minimum $1000 endeavour won't do much just to be sure you understand this.
edit to add:
There's a vast area in between these 2 extremes as well and some areas do get help with costs, but with lots of government red tape attached

[kristopher]

60. Do you own a car? A TV? A refrigerator? An air conditioner?

All are examples of products that begin marketing to the wealthy. Just like those products solar and battery for electric storage are products that see declining prices due to economy of scale. If investment in manufacturing those products is encouraged by the proper government policies, there is no reason that home electrical generating and storage systems won't decline in price to the point where they are as ubiquitous as the computer or a TV.

[phantom power]

10. Not much is "clean" if you generate 100 EJ per year...

But you can at least try for "as clean as possible."

(I say 100EJ/year, just as a representative number, but I think humans are now using more like 500EJ/year)

I think there are good reasons for a "smart" grid, but as with most engineering projects, there is probably an 80/20 scope in there somewhere. Upgrading 20% of the grid strategically could get you most of the benefit. What that 20% is, I'm sure I have no idea.

[ElectricGrid]

11. Why don't you just pull a few more BS numbers

off you head and start spouting crap. Oh wait you allready are. I don't know where this EJ number keeps popping up and why people think it is significant, but it has no meaning to anything electricity related.

[phantom power]

12. Really? Units of energy have nothing to do with eletricity usage?

For somebody whose handle is ElectricGrid, your knowledge of units isn't very impressive.

[ElectricGrid]

19. see my reply just below

[NickB79]

16. You don't understand why EJ's are significant in this discussion?!?!

The joule is the SI unit of measurement for measuring heat, electricity and mechanical work. An exajoule is a common SI multiple, 10 to the 18th joules.

As for world demand: http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2006/03/08/renewable/

"A joule is one watt of power for one second. An exajoule is 10 to the 18th power joules. Current estimates are that the world demand for energy in a year is 428 exajoules. Right now, the best guess is that 4 percent of those 428 exajoules are satisfied by clean, renewable energy sources."

It's like saying you don't understand why kilometers are important when discussing a marathon :crazy:

[ElectricGrid]

18. Once again you do not get it.

you use EJ's as a basis for debate. It's simply not. You state it like it is some sort of evidence against renewables. Again it isn't. It has no relevance on the debate.

[XemaSab]

21. I think you're confusing Phantom Power with *another* poster

:hide:

[ElectricGrid]

23. Could be... the pessimism around here drives me crazy

I have a degree in electronics. This problem is not as hard as many are making it out to be. It's just having the desire to make it happen personally and in the national government. We could be off of fossil fuels within 30 years if we had the will. Imagine if all the money sunk into IRaq would have been put into transitioning us off of fossil fuels? Bad attitudes and hate are not going to get anything done but cause more problems.

[phantom power]

25. "exajoules" is primarily a description of problem-scale...

For instance, there's no particular "physical" reason that you can't build 100EJ/year worth of wind turbines, or PV, or gerbil-wheels. But if you build that much of anything, the environmental impact becomes large. For that matter, so does the economic cost.

The axe I grind around here is that I question that assumption that renewables are "obviously" lower-impact than nuclear. These days, my take is: When we've built a significant amount, say for instance 10 EJ/year worth of wind or solar, then we'll see what that impact really is, and then we can divide the impact by the energy we got, and get a comparison.

Renewables right now are where nuclear was 50 years ago. The running joke is how funny they were to predict nuclear power was going to be too cheap to meter. To me, the take-home lesson is that it's easy to make naive predictions before you've actually built a lot of something. Now, 50 years later, we've built nuclear energy, and sure enough we've learned about what the impact and economic cost are.

There are, of course, other arenas for comparison. And issues like available time frame for deployment before we can't afford to deploy anything, etc. Problem scale figures into all of it.

[ElectricGrid]

37. thank you for the reply...

sorry for the over reaction earlier. You make a viable point. I don't think very many people are saying that alternatives do not come without a price. I tend to weight those costs vs pumping out Greenhouse gases.

[phantom power]

41. I'm also feeling a bit... frayed today.

I woke up with one nerve, and several people immediately got on it. And then after lunch things really got aggravating.

I want a @@#!$! do-over.

[bluedawg12]

47. A "Jolt" to the nervous system?

LOL.

Hope your evening gets better. there's always tomorrow.

peace- :toast:
BD12

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NickB79]

22. Actually, the link I posted discussed future potential growth in renewable energy

It was quite optimistic and did so in terms of exajoules. Did you not at least skim through it?

"It has no relevance on the debate."

If the SI unit of energy is not relevant to this debate about global energy sources, what units do you think ARE relevant? MW, GW, kWh? Why are those MORE relevant than the J or EJ?

[bluedawg12]

51. World energy resources and consumption wiki with link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_consumption


World energy resources and consumption
In order to directly compare world energy resources and consumption of energy, this article uses SI units and prefixes and measures energy rate (or power) in watts (W) and amounts of energy in joules (J). One watt is one joule per second.

In 2005, total worldwide energy consumption was 500 EJ (= 5 x 1020 J) with 86.5% derived from the combustion of fossil fuels, although there is at least 10% uncertainty in that figure.<1> This is equivalent to 15 TW (= 1.5 x 1013 W) of power. Not all of the world's economies track their energy consumption with the same rigor, and the exact energy content of a barrel of oil or a ton of coal will vary with quality.

Most of the world energy resources are from the sun's rays hitting earth - some of that energy has been preserved as fossil energy, some is directly or indirectly usable e.g. via wind, hydro or wave power.

The estimates of remaining worldwide energy resources vary, with the remaining fossil fuels totaling an estimated 0.4 YJ (1 YJ = 1024J) and the available nuclear fuel such as uranium exceeding 2.5 YJ. Fossil fuels range from 0.6-3 YJ if estimates of reserves of methane clathrates are accurate and become technically extractable.

Mostly thanks to the Sun, the world also has a renewable usable energy flux that exceeds 120 PW (8,000 times 2004 total usage), or 3.8 YJ/yr, dwarfing all non-renewable resources.

According to the US Energy Information Administration's 2006 estimate, the estimated 15TW total energy consumption of 2004 was divided as follows, with fossil fuels supplying 86% of the world's energy:


In 2005 nuclear energy accounted 6.3% of world's total primary energy supply.

In 2004, renewable energy supplied around 7% of the world's energy consumption

Coal is the most abundant fossil fuel. According to the International Energy Agency the proven reserves of coal are around 909 billion tonnes, which could sustain at the current production rate for 155 years.<41> This was the fuel that launched the industrial revolution and has continued to grow in use; China, which already has many of the world's most polluted cities,<42> was in 2007 building about two coal fired power plants every week.<43><44> Coal is the fastest growing fossil fuel and its large reserves would make it a popular candidate to meet the energy demand of the global community, short of global warming concerns and other pollutants.<45> With the Fischer-Tropsch process it is possible to make liquid fuels such as diesel and jet fuel from coal. The Stop Coal campaign calls for a moratorium on the construction of any new coal plants and on the phase out of all existing plants, citing concern for global warming.<46> In the United States, 49% of electricity generation comes from burning coal.<47>

Most of earth's available energy resources are renewable resources. Renewable resources account for more than 93 percent of total U.S. energy reserves. Annual renewable resources were multiplied times thirty years for comparison with non-renewable resources. In other words, if all non-renewable resources were uniformly exhausted in 30 years, they would only account for 7 percent of available resources each year, if all available renewable resources were developed.<57>

Denmark and Germany have started to make investments in solar energy, despite their unfavorable geographic locations. Germany is now the largest consumer of photovoltaic cells in the world. Denmark and Germany have installed 3 GW and 17 GW of wind power respectively. In 2005, wind generated 18.5% of all the electricity in Denmark.<69> Brazil invests in ethanol production from sugar cane which is now a significant part of the transportation fuel in that country. Starting in 1965, France made large investments in nuclear power and to this date three quarters of its electricity comes from nuclear reactors.<70> Switzerland is planning to cut its energy consumption by more than half to become a 2000-watt society by 2050 and the United Kingdom is working towards a zero energy building standard for all new housing by 2016. In 2005, the Swedish government announced the oil phase-out in Sweden with the intention to become the first country to break its dependence on fossil fuel by 2020.

In the twenty first century, some of these different energy paths might become more mainstream and start replacing the ubiquitous fossil fuels. It should be noted that between 1950 and 1984, as the Green Revolution transformed agriculture around the globe, world grain production increased by 250%. The energy for the Green Revolution was provided by fossil fuels in the form of fertilizers (natural gas), pesticides (oil), and hydrocarbon fueled irrigation.<71> The peaking of world hydrocarbon production (Peak oil) may test Malthus critics.<72>

[Speck Tater]

20. Nuclear fusion IF we could make it work. NO radioactive waste. None.

This is the power source that lights up the sun (and the hydrogen bomb). It uses non-radioactive fuel (hydrogen) and produces non-radioactive waste (helium gas). Problem is, we need to find out how to tap that energy non-explosively.

(The hydrogen bomb is radioactive because it uses a convention thermonuclear atomic bomb as the fuse to trigger it. The actual hydrogen bomb part produces non-radioactive waste.)

[bluedawg12]

24. Looks like France is working on nuclear fusion already

it is still forerunner level tech-but hey, it's a start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France

Fusion reactors
While fusion power is not expected to be feasible for many more decades, France has shown promise to be a forerunner in the technology by winning the bid to host the ITER reactor in Cadarache. The ITER should start actual fusion around 2016.

[Speck Tater]

17. Prison population is growing. Put inmates on treadmills. NT

[bluedawg12]

26. My understanding of energy supplly

for communities, meaning commercial and residential scale, it will be a combination of nuclear, wind, and solar.

I think coal is in there lobbying hard- but their effects on devestating nature, mountains, miners, and the atmosphere is not too progressive, just IMHO.

Iceland has many geothermal access sites, I don't believe the US does. Correct, me if I have that wrong, but that's how I understand that.

I agree, "going off grid" on a house by house level places the cost burden on an already stressed citizenry. Discovery just had a thing about a family that went completely off grid- solar energy and energy efficient building construction, it takes a lot of will, support and education and I don't see it as a soulation on a mass scale scale.

BTW- there is a new show on about the rebuilding of greensberg Ks., which was leveled by a Cat5 tornado and is now going green--it's on the new Discovery -enviro-green cable station and is fascinating.

I wonder- does anyone know--did the pukes in charge ever publish their so -called "energy policy" after the secret meetings with oil men and darthdick?

In general there is no such thing yet as an environmentally cost free surce of energy in world wide use for a world wide application.

On the level of transport--it will have to be something other than simply more gasoline efficiency, or smaller cars--all of which still tie us to oil.

I just heard 5 ethanol plants are closing--due to rising cost of corn--the market has spoken. to some extent, any way.

I hope it will be hydrogen cell cars. I guess they are still in the planning stages.

[bluedawg12]

27. On an optimistic note- it's OT -but here is a cool pic

of what mankind is capable of- if we work together towards progress.

[XemaSab]

34. Beautiful photos

You wouldn't happen to know what's in the background of the first photo, would you? :shrug:

And on topic: I think geothermal can do a lot more in the US, particularly in the Pacific Northwest. We've got volcanoes, and those should indicate good geothermal resources, no? :shrug:

[bluedawg12]

46. Top pic is Florida during hurricane Dean

the pics came from a friend of a Friend who works for NASA--so this is a best guess.

Oh, the volcano's in the PNW--that would work! Hadn't thought of that. Cool.

The biggest lump around here-my neck of the woods- is an ant hill, with out steam! LOL.

[XemaSab]

36. Miraculously, I managed to find a caption with the location on teh internets

"Yesterday’s Dominion Post front page was dominated by a photograph of astronauts working on the International Space Station with Canterbury, Marlborough and Wellington gliding past below them."

http://www.freespeech.org.nz/section14/2006/12/

[Dead_Parrot]

44. I can see my house from here...

...must trim that hedge.

[GliderGuider]

38. The sources of energy that have sustained humanity for millennia can't be considered lame.

Wind, water, wood (and other biomass), animal power -- all these are proven sustainable over tens or hundreds of thousands of years, so they aren't lame.

Oh wait, you mean you want to support 6 billion people and an industrial civilization in perpetuity on non-lame energy sources? Sorry, that can't be done.

Hydro gets my nod as the least lame form of electrical generation, but even hydro can't run a race that long without going lame. Wind and solar power are likely to come up lame at the first turn from hitting the Law of Receding Horizons and insufficient capital. Fusion hasn't left the gate yet, so it's lame by default. We all know that Nuclear, Coal, Oil and Gas are running all doped up to mask the pain.

The only bright spot I see in humanity's energy future is that 1 billion of us will need only 15% as much energy as 6.7 billion of us, and we might at least be able to manage that without fucking up the rest of the planet.

[bluedawg12]

48. Here are two bits of info. on options and question about hydro

GliderGuider-
Haven't pretty much dammed up every river there is? in a sense hydroelectric from dam's is a very limited resource?

Here’s a global over view that I found:
http://www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/natural02.html

>>The taming of fire was one of humankind’s earliest technological achievements. It provided energy for heat and light on demand. But today the environmental impacts of the world’s power plants, internal combustion engines and boilers have serious implications for the future health and well-being of the planet.

Energy is one of the most basic of human needs, not as an end in itself but as a means to numerous ends.

During the past 50 years, global consumption of commercial energy has risen more than fourfold, far outpacing the rise in population.

One way or another, all this energy comes from natural resources – whether fossil fuels such as coal and oil, living resources such as timber and biomass, nuclear fuel such as uranium, or “renewable” resources such as flowing water and wind and the power of the sun.


Energy use is closely tied to health and well-being – low energy users have high infant mortality rates, low literacy rates and low life expectancies.

Worldwide, 2 billion people do not have access to electricity and use fuelwood or dung for cooking and heating – often destroying their local environments in the process.

The challenge for the 21st century is to develop methods of generating and using energy that meet the needs of the poor while protecting the planet.

There are three global energy trends in relation to demographics.

First and most obviously, as populations grow, energy use increases.

Secondly, as wealth grows, energy use per capita also increases. In the early stages of industrialization, this is typically accompanied by a decline in the efficiency with which energy supplies are used, resulting in more pollution per dollar of output. India’s emissions of CO2 per dollar of GDP rose by 29 percent between 1980 and 1995; Malaysia’s rose by 58 percent1.

But the third stage is more optimistic2. Beyond a certain threshold of wealth, which may vary widely between countries, energy efficiency begins to improve. Thereafter, countries with expanding economies and growing personal wealth can, with sensible energy policies, dramatically reduce growth in energy use. They may begin to show sharp reductions in emissions of polluting gases, including greenhouse gases, particularly by shifting to cleaner sources of energy, such as natural gas and renewables.

Gains in the use of non-fossil fuels have been inconsistent. Alternative technologies that require large initial capital outlays did well until around 1990, but have since stalled.

World civil nuclear reactor construction is now just a tenth of 1970s levels both because Western civil society has turned against nuclear power and because former Soviet bloc nations cannot afford the investment.

Large-scale hydroelectric power has suffered from a shortage of sites and a growing awareness of its environmental downside.

But smaller-scale renewable energy sources, notably wind and solar power, have seen double-digit annual growth – albeit from a lower starting point5.

There are many examples of moves around the world to more sustainable energy policies.

Solar power is making inroads in many parts of rural Africa where urban electricity grids are unlikely to reach.

Wind turbines are whirring on the plains of India, the steppes of Mongolia, the shores of the North Sea and among the sheep of Patagonia.

Brazil fuels half its vehicles on ethanol made from fermented sugarcane juice, reducing the country’s CO2 emissions by 18 percent 6.

Many leading figures in the oil business believe that by the middle of the century the world’s vehicle fleet will run on hydrogen fuel cells, probably extracted from water using electricity generated from renewable sources7.

Iceland has plans to complete the task of creating the first “hydrogen economy” within its own shores by 2020, using its domestic geothermal and hydroelectric energy sources to convert its small self-contained vehicle fleet8.

Most analysts still anticipate fast global rises in the use of oil and natural gas, and expect CO2 emissions to continue to rise for many decades yet, as developing countries’ economies grow.

But the increases may be much less than once feared. In 1997 and 1998, the global economy grew by 6.8 percent, but CO2 emissions held steady. The explanation appeared to lie in a combination of reduced coal use and the rise of economic growth based on new information technologies, which have lower energy requirements than traditional industries9. <<

...............
http://www.cleantechblog.com/2008/01/powering-planet.html

>>Powering the Planet

by Richard T. Stuebi

"Powering the Planet" is the title of an extraordinary speech that is regularly given by Nate Lewis, Professor of Chemistry at CalTech. It is a bit long and detailed, but very much worth reading, as it elegantly frames the scale of the worldwide energy/environmental challenges to be faced in the coming decades.

The gist of the presentation is that aggressive pursuit of energy efficiency is critical -- but we still need to supply the remaining human energy requirement in some carbon-free fashion, which leaves us relatively few viable options:

Nuclear power, which concerns Lewis not for safety/security reasons but because of inability to expand nuclear utilization quickly/sufficiently to meet the world's needs

Carbon sequestration of fossil fuel burning, which Lewis says may not be available in time or at the volumes necessary to have significant beneficial impact on climate change

Hydro, geothermal, wind and ocean energy, which are all fine in Lewis' view, but inadequate in scope to supply global energy demands

Bio-based energy, which Lewis finds to be highly inefficient and therefore unlikely to be able to provide more than a small fraction of worldwide energy requirements

This leaves solar energy, which Lewis concludes is the best hope for the planet -- technologically known to work, scalable with no binding supply limitations, at potentially reasonable economics with continued advancement. Then Lewis closes with the clincher: if we're going to succeed with solar energy, our priorities need to change:

"In the United States, we spend $28 billion on health, but only about $28 million on basic solar research. Currently, we spend more money buying gas at the pump in one hour than we spend funding basic solar research in our country over an entire year. Yet, in that same hour, more energy from the sun is hitting the Earth than all of the energy consumed on our planet in that year. The same cannot be said of any other energy source."<<

[XemaSab]

50. Hydro's really bad for the fish

Plus, the thought of 600 feet of water crashing down on my head doesn't help me sleep at night. :(

[bluedawg12]

53. I believe I heard there are 64,000 dams in the world already

and that every major river in thr world that can be dammed has been dammed.

.........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dams
As of 2005, hydroelectric power, mostly from dams, supplies some 19% of the world's electricity, and over 63% of renewable energy.<11> Much of this is generated by large dams, although China uses small scale hydro generation on a wide scale and is responsible for about 50% of world use of this type of power.<11>

Most hydroelectric power comes from the potential energy of dammed water driving a water turbine and generator; to boost the power generation capabilities of a dam, the water may be run through a large pipe called a penstock before the turbine.

assessment
Impact is assessed in several ways: the benefits to human society arising from the dam (agriculture, water, damage prevention and power), the harm or benefits to nature and wildlife (especially fish and rare species), the impact on the geology of an area - whether the change to water flow and levels will increase or decrease stability, and the disruption to human lives (relocation, loss of archeological or cultural matters underwater).


Environmental impact

Wood and garbage accumulated because of a damMain article: Environmental impacts of dams
Dams affect many ecological aspects of a river. Rivers depend on the constant disturbance of a certain tolerance. Dams slow the river and this disturbance may damage or destroy this pattern of ecology. Temperature is also another problem that dams create. Rivers tend to have fairly homogeneous temperatures. Reservoirs have layered temperatures, warm on the top and cold on the bottom; in addition often it is water from the colder (lower) layer which is released downstream, and this may have a different dissolved oxygen content than before. Organisms depending upon a regular cycle of temperatures may be unable to adapt; the balance of other fauna (especially plant life and microscopic fauna) may be affected by the change of oxygen content.

Water exiting a turbine usually contains very little suspended sediment, which can lead to scouring of river beds and loss of riverbanks; for example, the daily cyclic flow variation caused by the Glen Canyon Dam was a contributor to sand bar erosion.

Older dams often lack a fish ladder, which keeps many fish from moving up stream to their natural breeding grounds, causing failure of breeding cycles or blocking of migration paths.<15> Even the presence of a fish ladder does not always prevent a reduction in fish reaching the spawning grounds upstream. In some areas, young fish ("smolt") are transported downstream by barge during parts of the year. Turbine and power-plant designs that have a lower impact upon aquatic life are an active area of research.

A large dam can cause the loss of entire ecospheres, including endangered and undiscovered species in the area, and the replacement of the original environment by a new inland lake.

Depending upon the circumstances, a dam can either reduce or increase the net production of greenhouse gases. An increase can occur if the reservoir created by the dam itself acts as a source of substantial amounts of potent greenhouse gases (methane and carbon dioxide) due to plant material in flooded areas decaying in an anaerobic environment. According to the World Commission on Dams report, when the reservoir is relatively large and no prior clearing of forest in the flooded area was undertaken, greenhouse gas emissions from the reservoir could be higher than those of a conventional oil-fired thermal generation plant.<16> A decrease can occur if the dam is used in place of traditional power generation, since electricity produced from hydroelectric generation does not give rise to any flue gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion (including sulfur dioxide, nitric oxide, carbon monoxide, dust, and mercury from coal).

Dam failure

The reservoir emptying through the failed Teton Dam.
International special sign for works and installations containing dangerous forcesDam failures are generally catastrophic if the structure is breached or significantly damaged. Routine deformation monitoring of seepage from drains in, and around, larger dams is necessary to anticipate any problems and permit remedial action to be taken before structural failure occurs. Most dams incorporate mechanisms to permit the reservoir to be lowered or even drained in the event of such problems. Another solution can be rock grouting - pressure pumping portland cement slurry into weak fractured rock.

During an armed conflict, a dam is to be considered as an "installation containing dangerous forces" due to the massive impact of a possible destruction on the civilian population and the environment. As such, it is protected by the rules of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and shall not be made the object of attack if that may cause severe losses among the civilian population. To facilitate the identification, a protective sign consisting of three bright orange circles placed on the same axis is defined by the rules of IHL.

[NYC_SKP]

57. You asked about decentralized generation...

Moving away from large centralized power plants to decentralized, or more commonly called "Distributed Generation" generation grid will play a significant roll in reducing carbon emissions.

Because of line lost when sending electricity over distances, it's more efficient to have lots of small generating plants distributed over a region than to have a few large ones.

Additionally, it's less burden on the infrastructure, which can be smaller and lighter and more efficient.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_generation

[bluedawg12]

58. It seems that we have two sides to Distributed energy resource

According to Nnadir's DailyKos article, "Distributed energy is not proved to be better than centralized energy. Five million small coal fires in China are not superior to one large nuclear plant! (Yes, small wildcast coal systems are distributed power.)
Cars are not superior to mass transit in trains."

Hence the argument for centralized source of energy like a nuclear plant.

The wiki article states:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_generation

"Distributed energy resource (DER) systems are small-scale power generation technologies (typically in the range of 3 kW to 10,000 kW) used to provide an alternative to or an enhancement of the traditional electric power system.

The usual problem with distributed generators are their high costs.

The one exception is probably microhydropower. A well-designed plant has nearly zero maintenance costs per kWh, and generates useful power for many years."

The other issue NNadir mentioned in the DK article is the disposal of the inevitable waste from from say a coal based DER.

On the other hand, that would not be a hurdle for solar.

Well, except that NNadir states:
" All forms of energy have a waste problem. All have a profile for danger."

I wish we had a table or diagram, or some way to compare the pro's and cons of different types of energy and distribution.

This topic of energy to supply the US and the world requiries more than casual expetice or opinion from intersted citizens- it's expertice intensive.

We need a grand unified theory of energy--hey- isn't that what the governm....uh!...oh never mind...geez.

[kristopher]

62. Using coal to argue against solar and wind

Using coal to argue against solar and wind is right up there with Nnadir's other logical failures.

We know the environmental costs of coal and wind, and they compare to nuclear like a hangnail compares to an amputation.

[XemaSab]

63. Coal would be the hangnail and nuclear would be the amputation?

:shrug:

Oh, I disagree.

[kristopher]

65. So do I!

An early morning mix up.

"Using coal to argue against solar and wind is right up there with Nnadir's other logical failures.

We know the environmental costs of coal and wind, and they compare to nuclear like a hangnail compares to an amputation."

That was my original post. What I meant to write was more like:


Using coal to argue against solar and wind is right up there with Nnadir's other logical failures.

We know the environmental costs of renewables; and they compare to coal and nuclear like a hangnail compares to an amputation.

[NYC_SKP]

66. All energy sources have drawbacks, some more than others.

It's easy to make distributed power look bad if you use Coal in your example.

The TRUTH is that distributed generation usually is better for the reasons cited earlier, less loss during transmission, lighter infrastructure. Also, there is more resiliency if an outage occurs (imagine if all our power in CA came from 8 nukes, and one went out, better that there be thousands.)

Natural gas, for example, is scaleable and we have large and small generating facilities. Unlike Coal and Nuclear which run nonstop at 100%, NG plant output can be modulated to meet demand.

Hydro can also be modulate and works at different scales.

Solar should be employed wherever feasible and economical. As fossil fuel prices rise and photovoltaic panel costs drop, "wherever feasible" will mean more and more places.
Solar should be omnipresent, on almost every flat or sloped unused roof surface that receives sunlight, perpetually generating free electricity with utterly no raw material input.
Solar has no moving parts to lubricate or maintain, like wind and hydro.

And don't listen to the hype about all the awful environmental damage due to manufacturing solar panels.

Some seriously careless cases exist in China and elsewhere of dumping toxic PV manufacturing by products.

It's fear mongering, solar can and is accomplished in a safe manner.

EPRI, the electric power research institute, specifically lists distributed power among key strategies for reducing carbon emissions, along with more plug-in hybrid cars, etc. www.epri.com

[bluedawg12]

70. NYC_SKP

"Also, if a person owns a home that has a roof, they're already among that elite group that owns homes!
If they don't mind finding the way to finance a solar installation, if they're that flat-busted, then it's sad.
However, their investment will pay for itself typically in 8-10 years, and more quickly as energy costs rise, and then their electricity is free, free of cost, free of carbon.-NYC_SKP"

I want to back to your previous comment in this thread as it ties in with your present comment.

focusing more on the economics of it ( despite your warning that it can mire science) since you are talking about home owners, I have to disagree with this statement: they are already among an elite group.

Not really. there are many home owners here, in my part of the country who are trying to hold on to homes bought when they were in the $40,00 to $65,000 range- not McMansions by any stretch- these are blue collar, two wage earner families. They are struggling.

I haven't seen actual numbers for the start up cost nor for maintainance of roof solar panels--but I know many people have a hard time finding $45 for any discretionary spending.

Next- what about regional sunlight variations.

What would soalr panels on the roof do for people living in Chicago, or Gary. Indiana, or other places up in the north midwest where sunshine is not a daily event?

Would solar panels generate sufficient energy in such regions?

thank you.

[XemaSab]

71. My mom's house was close to 200K

Which is a "bargain" by California standards, but since the mortgage is $teep, she's barely getting by.

Do we have a couple thousand burning a hole in our pockets? No. Do we have a big, eco-friendly shade tree in the front yard that keeps cooling costs down but blocks most of the sun from hitting the roof? You bet. :D

[NYC_SKP]

73. I'll try to qualify my remarks...

Hey Dawg,

I was responding to this comment, "In both cases there's a sense that if you're too poor to put 30 thousand dollar panels on your roof, there's something morally wrong with you."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x155283#155528

That comment was in reply to, " It's one of the big lies in energy, that distributed energy is superior. The confusion on this issue - which I regard as a form of economic libertarianism - is enormous."

The two disturbing themes are: "Distributed energy is not good", and "Comparing Libertarianism to Distributed energy makes sense."

Now, my "elite" comment was inapt, but a sincere though poorly phrased response to the idea the "morally wrong" comment above. There are indeed people who own homes but can not possibly qualify for the funding needed to install solar, for these folks we need low on no-interest government sponsored loans, IMO. But compared to renters and the homeless, any homeowner is in a more economically successful class.

Now, regarding the comparison to "rent to own":
Provided the homeowners have stable jobs, didn't get a stupid sub-prime loan, haven't maxed out their home equity and have reasonably good credit and aren't being particularly hard hit by gas prices (an these are big provisions in some regions), the chances are that they could qualify for a 30-year equity loan for a system, the monthly payment for which would come close to their electricity bill. This at current energy prices. Depending upon the rise in energy costs, the electric bill that they might see in the future might be lower than the loan payment. I know it won't work for everyone. People living paycheck to paycheck can't do it easily, but they should at least look into it and think long term about the costs and benefits.

Not really. there are many home owners here, in my part of the country who are trying to hold on to homes bought when they were in the $40,00 to $65,000 range- not McMansions by any stretch- these are blue collar, two wage earner families. They are struggling.

**I haven't seen actual numbers for the start up cost nor for maintainance of roof solar panels--but I know many people have a hard time finding $45 for any discretionary spending.
I understand and agree. I think a sound energy and economic security package for the US would include assistance to make it possible for these folks to have solar if solar makes sense for their home, this should be conditional to other home improvements like insulation and weatherstripping. Some utility companies have great assistance programs, others do not.

**Next- what about regional sunlight variations.
Absolutely a matter of concern. A homeowner in some regions might have to install twice the capacity as someone in a sunny area. In this case, the investment recoupment period would be twice as long, say 16 years instead of 8---under current energy costs (shorter under rising energy costs), after which their electricity is FREE of cost and of carbon (yeah!)

**What would soalr panels on the roof do for people living in Chicago, or Gary. Indiana, or other places up in the north midwest where sunshine is not a daily event?
See above. I know of a gentleman in Boston with solar on his townhouse, he was featured in one of the Discovery or History channel programs. Look into Germany-they are further North than most of America and get less sunlight.

**Would solar panels generate sufficient energy in such regions?
The factors are these: Cost of PV panels, efficiency of PV cells, and cost of traditional sources.
The trends in each of these paints a rosy picture (some in the forum will disagree), cost per watt is falling, efficiency is rising, and costs of competing fossil fuel sources is rising.
This all means that it will become increasingly cost effective for anyone to install solar, anywhere. But even under current conditions in less sunny areas if a home has a roof with a favorable pitch and orientation and the owner looks at a 30 year cost-to-benefit analysis, my guess is that it's a positive for 90% of the country.

By the way, lots of people forget to consider that a solar installation increases the value of the home, and that increase in value increases with the cost of energy!

Hope this helps, and I hope president Obama gets real with energy....we haven't had leadership in that area since Carter.


:thumbsup:

[bluedawg12]

75. NYC_SKP

NYC- SKP-

Thank you for the reply. It helps put things into a big picture. Eenergy and the costof energy are big issues and on the minds of regular folks I hang with on the inter net- not a political group, but very aware and paying attention. It just exploded into a hot discussion today, on the heels of shrubco and McSame's move to repeal off shore drilling.

>>Provided the homeowners have stable jobs, didn't get a stupid sub-prime loan, haven't maxed out their home equity and have reasonably good credit and aren't being particularly hard hit by gas prices (an these are big provisions in some regions), the chances are that they could qualify for a 30-year equity loan for a system, the monthly payment for which would come close to their electricity bill. This at current energy prices. <<

There has to be more to court the average middle class homeowner than a break even proposition for solar. I wish the environment and CO2 emissions would register enough to motivate the extra work entailed in such a conversion to solar.

>>Absolutely a matter of concern. A homeowner in some regions might have to install twice the capacity as someone in a sunny area. In this case, the investment recoupment period would be twice as long, say 16 years instead of 8---under current energy costs (shorter under rising energy costs), after which their electricity is FREE of cost and of carbon (yeah!)<<

Yes, that would be a selling point. But keep in mind that most home owners now a days actually move every couple of years. So, there would have to be some nation wide conversion. And, yes, theoretically it could add value to the house–but, that’s theoretical to many people.

>>See above. I know of a gentleman in Boston with solar on his townhouse, he was featured in one of the Discovery or History channel programs. Look into Germany-they are further North than most of America and get less sunlight.<<

True a friend just came back from a trip to Germany and marveled at the number of solar panels in use.


“Hope this helps, and I hope president Obama gets real with energy....we haven't had leadership in that area since Carter.”

You betcha! Another four years of the repugs drilling our way to madness won’t do.

Thanks, appreciate the info.

And it is not going to waste- I am trying to spread the good word to folks on an entirely different forum– based on science fiction themes, all are bright, interested and involved, some dems and independents and just a sprinkling of RW’ers to say dumb things to be a foil against environmental issues. But mostly–many voters and potential voters for Obama, also many women voters. So, I try to do a passable job of getting out the message.


Thank you!



-Dawg

[bluedawg12]

79. Question: Solar energy and night time

what happens to energy when the sun goes down? How do folks get energy and lights at night?

I am assuming we are talking about a home solar energy system with roof top cells.

[kristopher]

81. Haven't we had this conversation?

A renewable grid consists of many different energy sources, just like the present grid. Over production during the day is stored in various forms to augment the renewables, such as wind, wave/current/tidal, and geothermal, that do generate at night. Besides the massive capacity of the batteries in an EV personal transportation fleet, there are various ways to use other proven technologies such as compressed air (see CAES as least cost alternative) or pumped hydro.

[bluedawg12]

84. Probably have- I guess I haven't absorbed all of the info in two days

“ A renewable grid consists of many different energy sources, just like the present grid. Over production during the day is stored in various forms to augment the renewables...-Kristopher”


Yes, I may be repeating myself as this is not my area of expertise and I am trying to understand the big picture and the details -all at the same time–while many here are already well versed in it.

The question came up in a discussion with a pro-nuclear physicist ( elsewhere) today. Of course he was talking about small cities--which may be a red herring,as I understand from NYC-SKP, that the concept is for home roof use?

Here is the statement I was trying to respond to:

>>The problem with solar is that it is spread out and requires a huge area. Our example was for a one small city of half a million. For solar power, life is good until the sun goes down. Do you know how big a battery has to be to run a city overnight?

Sorry, it isn't overnight. It is more like 14 to 16 hours. Solar provides energy for the other 8 to 10 hours while it powers the city and recharges the batteries.

I don't think they include the carbon footprint of the batteries. If it is apples to apples, then it should include that carbon footprint as well.

We've been working at batteries for a few hundred years and it is a tough problem.<<

His question was specifically about those “various forms.” He mentioned that a battery storage system for night time energy would be some enormous thing, if for example, solar energy plants were used to power cities.

I know you have discussed batteries in general, Kristopher, and the importance of funding research, I just don’t recall if there was a mention of batteries for storage, for home use at nighttime - as being available.

Does that exist presently- in that they can generate day time energy and at the same time- store energy for the night time?

Or are you saying a hybrid- day time solar use and then build plants from other renewable sources, to augment night time needs?

You know the discussion of energy is complicated. Everyone by now knows the laundry list of options–but understanding the practical aspects of application of those technologies is complex. As you mentioned, you have studied these issues for years.

My expectation is some patience here from those who know more than I. The same questions probably will come up more than once, as I, and probably some others like me, who are jumping in to the fray of energy... which includes science, economics, and politics... try to digest this topic and at the same time try to pass the word in other forums to Democrats, Independents and some repubs, in another words voters.

Thank you.

[bluedawg12]

86. I found the asnwer in another thread you posted-Kristopher

http://jaydiatribe.blogspot.com/2008/06/energy-policy-good-batteries-and-how-to.html

>>If our national wind and solar power together increased at the same rate as global wind power alone did from 1990 to this year, they would produce half of our total current power needs in eighteen years.

If conservation efforts kept our total demand from increasing in the interim, then nuclear, hydroelectric and geothermal power could supply most of the rest of our needs, leaving only about five percent of demand to be supplied by burning coal...

That’s eighteen years to nearly complete carbon neutrality, at a rate of growth that the world has actually sustained for wind power alone over the past two decades. That growth rate is not projection or speculation, but historical fact.

Except for batteries, the industrial infrastructure to make all this happen is in place already.

The promise of good batteries is enormous.<<

[kristopher]

87. Please investigate Vehicle to Grid (V2G) technology

There is considerable energy efficiency gains to be had in switching to electric drive vehicles. Transportation accounts for nearly 40% of total energy consumption and we can cut that in half by going to battery electric. Modern technology allows the grid (when you equip all demand and supply points with the proper computers) to manage the load and demand much more finely than is presently the norm. For example, if I want to supply power to my local utility, they don't even want to talk to me unless I'm generating more than 1 megawatt. A 'smart grid' allows the management to take place at the kilowatt level (probably through a hierarchical business model). This means that individual battery electric cars can act as storage for the grid. The total capacity is staggering. If there is a personal transportation fleet of 200,000,000 cars with a capacity of 25kWh each, and if they offer (for money) 40% of that capacity to the utilities, it means there would be be, at any given time, 2,000 TWh of standby capacity in the system.

Lithium batteries are what make this possible. And it should be noted that major increases in energy density of lithium (uo to 10X) have been realized in the test phase, and are now in the phase of trying to design cost effective manufacturing technologies. So the probable picture is even better.

There is also every reason the believe that if EVs become the norm, the same technology can be mated to home and commercial systems based on scaled solar systems that provide virtually all of the individual users needs; a move that drastically reduces the demand on the grid.

This isn't going to happen over night, but there is absolutely no technological reason for it not to happen over the next 30 years.

[bluedawg12]

88. Kristopher- we don't have thirty years.

People are being woo'ed again by the promise of cheap energy from offshore drilling- as we write this.

And- your opposite number here, so to speak, nuclear technology- is ready to go, been there and done that.

It will be hard to tell people - voters- we have this great idea and it will be ready when your infant is 30 years old!

Not saying batteries aren't scientifically and environmentally credible- even with mentioned concerns about the waste involved in batteries, and the C02 foot print in production ( as I mentioned, already thrown at me elsewhere) but, the article you posted about "good batteries" speaks of 18 years to go down to 5% coal energy, you mention 30 years...that's not a selling point.

[kristopher]

89. Nuclear will take even longer and cost a hell of lot more.

What makes you think nuclear can do it any faster???

And in the end we just jump from the frying pan into the fire. With nuclear we either are an importer of increasingly scarce uranium or we are an advocate of technologies that give everyone in the world access to nuclear weapons. The commercialization of the fuel recycling process and the grounding of globalized national energy policy on nuclear energy is a de facto endorsement of the right of each country to process their own fuel.

As the timeline for global warming becomes clearer we may, in fact, need to ramp up nuclear also to meet the needs of that crisis. But until it is essential, there is simply no argument for it except that it perpetuates the elite power structure that currently exists.

[bluedawg12]

93. Building a nuclear plant will take about 7 years on average

from what I read from the famous scienitific source: "Yahoo.answers" LOL. hey, at least I searched.

It takes about 4 years of paper work and 3 years of actual contruction.

If the paper work and over sight can be abbreviated--with ( I guess the issue there is standardization of plants/facilities) that time could be shortened.

I am not saying that in 18 years we can go to 5% coal and the rest nuclear, like the blog you mentioned cited for solar, because I understand we can't build all the nuclear plants within a year of each other.

But--the nuke tech is there, while battery tech is still largely developmental.

Listening to the debate here, I am thinking ( at this point) that nukes would be a start, the near term solution, but I am also advocating continued research to refine battery energy storage.

I have the impression that nukes could generate electricity, and as electric cars become more able to be used for longer distances, that would tie in with battery tech. I also realize that some here just plain don't like cars...
but I don't think giving up cars totally is viable for a nation this large with so many communters.

So, I see a blend of tehcnology.

That 2003 MIT study you guys talked about earlier-- well, I found the abstract and they do state:

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

>>The report maintains that "The nuclear option should be retained precisely because it is an important carbon-free source of power.

"Fossil fuel-based electricity is projected to account for more than 40% of global greenhouse gas emissions by 2020," said Deutch. "In the U.S. 90% of the carbon emissions from electricity generation come from coal-fired generation, even though this accounts for only 52% of the electricity produced. Taking nuclear power off the table as a viable alternative will prevent the global community from achieving long-term gains in the control of carbon dioxide emissions." <<

Look if the battery technology were available today, I would get an electric car, and support total wind, solar and other renewables but, it's not there yet.

As far as Uraniium depletion, here is what I found:

http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium.html

>>In summary, the actual recoverable uranium supply is likely to be enough to last several hundred (up to 1000) years, even using standard reactors. With breeders, it is essentially infinite. Hundreds of thousands of years is certainly enough time to develop fusion power, or renewable sources that can meet all our power needs.<<



http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/reserves/uresmine.html

[kristopher]

94. You are underestimating the build time for nuclear.

And I've clearly stated any number of times that I'm talking about existing battery technology. Your constant mischaracterizations are wearing a bit thin; especially since they 100% favor developing nuclear energy.

[bluedawg12]

95. What is your version of the build time for a nuclear plant?

As far as technology I talked about a blend.

You brought up Uranium as a limited resource, so I looked up some info, about projected availability of Uranium on this planet. I provided a link, Was that wrong?

You talked about a blend as well: solar feeding cars energy AND also as a way of energy storage.

You mentioned Li batteries but did not answer my question about available technology today:

You said:

“Lithium batteries are what make this possible. And it should be noted that major increases in energy density of lithium (uo to 10X) have been realized in the test phase, and are now in the phase of trying to design cost effective manufacturing technologies. So the probable picture is even better. - Kristopher”

“Probable” and “test phase” were the terms you used. No projected time.

Then, you made this statement, which I understand as the time frame to integrate solar and battery technology.

I made that assumption because the statement: “this isn’t going to happen overnight...” is vague as to what “ this is.”

“This isn't going to happen over night, but there is absolutely no technological reason for it not to happen over the next 30 years.- Kristopher”

You posted an article which I took the time to read and that author also spoke in terms of decades:

http://jaydiatribe.blogspot.com/2008/06/energy-policy-good-batteries-and-how-to.html

“In short, good batteries can remake the face of America and eventually the world. And they can do all this in twenty years or less.”


So, you left me with the impression that battery technology, while it has great potential is still in the test phase. And that by your words and the blogger you cited it will take
20 - 30 years to integrate.

Further, the blogger you cited (jaydiatribe.blogspot), stated the following:

.”We need only a single number: five miles per kilowatt-hour, or 5 mi/Kwh. That’s the electrical “mileage” that prototypes of GM’s Chevy Volt—a battery driven plug-in hybrid—have already achieved in testing... That’s... The only real limitation is that I couldn’t go more than 40 miles per day on electricity alone...All we need is better batteries. The Prius’ batteries are not strong enough to make a commute on electricity alone. So GM is working with suppliers developing stronger batteries. Working prototypes exist but need to be made more reliable.”

So, that is in conflict with your statement::

“ And it should be noted that major increases in energy density of lithium ...have been realized in the test phase, and are now in the phase of trying to design cost effective manufacturing technologies. So the probable picture is even better.”

Your assertion is that the test phase is working on cost effectiveness, either you imply that batteries are now tested to take us more than 40 miles, or you ignore that matter.

But jaydiatribe states the problem is the batteries are limited in their capacity:

“The only real limitation is that I couldn’t go more than 40 miles per day on electricity alone...All we need is better batteries. -jaydiatribe “

So, your are the expert, I have been polite to you and treated with respect.

I suggest you abstain from personal remarks that are judgmental and impatient such as: “Haven’t we discussed this already?”

And your latest: “Your constant mischaracterizations are wearing a bit thin..”

Wearing thin ins what way? In that I am discussing something, or attempting to discuss something?

What is that intimidation?

If I don’t understand your technical answers then it’s a mischaracterization, as opposed to a misunderstanding?

Why the hell would I want to mischaracterize something?

Especially as you misstated my position ( if I even have one yet) as, “especially since they 100% favor developing nuclear energy.”

What I said was:

“Listening to the debate here, I am thinking ( at this point) that nukes would be a start, the near term solution, but I am also advocating continued research to refine battery energy storage.

I have the impression that nukes could generate electricity, and as electric cars become more able to be used for longer distances, that would tie in with battery tech. I also realize that some here just plain don't like cars...
but I don't think giving up cars totally is viable for a nation this large with so many commuters. So, I see a blend of technology.-BD12"

My having an opinion, or asking questions, or trying to participate in a discussion is wearing thin with your patience? Are you kidding me?

If you can’t step back, relax, talk, teach, explain without being thin skinned and taking it to a personal level then all of the knowledge you have is wasted.

I’ve been on this forum for two freaking days, you have been studying this stuff for years. I am already talking in terms of grids, batteries, solar, nuclear, KWh, storage, distributed supply of energy and point sourcing- not bad, and it’s not wearing thin for me.

[kristopher]

97. When you're right, you're right

I'm bringing some personal baggage to the discussion and it is inappropriate; my apologies. I'm also in more of a rush than I should be.

Here is our previous discussion
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x154953#155312


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x154953#155613

You'll note that the back-of-the-envelope example differs between these posts and the one on this thread. They are both for purposes of illustration only regarding the number of vehicles that are electrified. A great deal of the benefit of vehicle to grid technology is obtained with only 5% penetration of the personal transportation sector.

I also see that I made an arithmetic mistake in the linked example. The 2,000 TWh is the correct magnitude, not the 150 TWh.

Please note that this is CURRENT technology - the same batteries powering my laptop. When I spoke of 30 years, that is for near total replacement of the automotive fleet and a total revamping of the national grid; now to near effective completion. It isn't a reference to the lead time needed to develop technologies or to train a workforce. (Both of which are important considerations in the decision to adopt nuclear energy.)


From insiders, I understand that 25kWh is the probable capacity of the cars being planned for production in 2010, and they are expected to deliver a 150 mile range. The blog I posted was offered as a good overview of the potential ramifications of these technologies, not a treatment of the most current information on the topic. I should have made that clear.

One last point, you stated you'd been speaking with a nuclear physicist. For some inexplicable reason, many people on this forum somehow gain the incorrect impression that one of our more ardent nuclear supporters possesses that qualification. If that is the source you referred to, you may want to confirm the assumption.

If you want informed, unprejudiced information on nuclear energy, I suggest a search of the Union of Concerned Scientists website: http://www.ucsusa.org/

Although you may want to do your own search of the site, this page is a good place to start. http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/

[bluedawg12]

98. Thank you Kristopher

Important information- as always.

About the nuclear physicist--no, not on this forum.

As I mentioned in another post, I frequent another forum of folks who gather to discuss science fiction media, and stories...the forum is actually quite large and quite busy and we often talk about environmental and political topics as a side bar.

These folks are voters- many Dems, some Independents and a sprinkling of vocal RW blow hards- I think it is important for me to stand up to environmental disinformation/skeptics--because I am reaching out to regular folks, lot's of women, young mothers, working men and women-

all potential voters for 2008 and for environmental policies down the road. One of the guys there is a known nuclear physicist--

In the mean time - the vast chasm of understanding between our discussions here and what the average person comprehends is amazing.

They are still very ambivalent and uninformed about climate change and C02 and it's urgency. These folks are like my neighbors- the average American. I keep plugging away and bringing them information and standing up to the blow hards- the message they bring back to their families, friends, sci-fi conventions is not insignificant in numbers--they are very ogranized and plugged in--just not politically like DU.

In the mean time, I am educating myself so that I can pass on a good message about these very topics we hash out here with more technical detail and sophistication.

Thank you for all your efforts in bringing information to this forum.

peace-

-dawg

[NYC_SKP]

96. Hey, nice chatting with ya'!

I was away for awhile, just read your post. Thanks!

Keep up the good work spreading the word, learning more, leaving the world a better place!

:toast:

[wtmusic]

74. Energy isn't lame, it's that we think we need so damn much of it. nt

[tom_paine]

85. Cheese. The Power of Cheese. I hanker for a hunka cheese.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3jgo5ea_zc

If we can only get the human race to be cheese-powered, everything will be fine...

:rofl:

[XemaSab]

90. My lunch is cheese-powered

:patriot:

[tom_paine]

91. Time for Timer! n/t

[TheWraith]

99. Here's the answer for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell

A truly practical fusion reactor... assuming that it gets the funds to be built.

And no, I'd say decentralizing the grid is not a priority.

[GliderGuider]

100. There is an ecological perspective from which "small fusion" appears to be a planetary catastrophe

As I've said before, the last thing this planet needs is 10 billion clever monkeys with an unlimited source of concentrated energy.

Here's a mental image:

Imagine a planet with 10 billion prosperous, healthy people, all of whom want to eat well. Now imagine a fleet of 10,000 fishing vessels -- each one the size of the Queen Mary, each powered by a small on-board fusion reactor like the Polywell, capable of going anywhere on the planet and staying at sea until their holds are full.

The idea of humanity developing successful fusion reactors is the stuff not of economic dreams, but of ecological nightmares.

Here's a commentary from a like-minded man on a mailing list I belong to:

It will only be a matter of time -- a few years -- before one of the dozen or so skunk-works fusion projects in the world demonstrates the feasibility of cheap hydrogen-boron fusion. I say skunk works, because for the last thirty years, virtually all funding for fusion research was earmarked for "official" fusion, which was the tokamak idea being pursued in ITER and in its antecedents. It is pretty clear that although tokamak fusion can be made to work, it can never be cheap and quick to deploy in the sense that is needed for a postponement of the imminent human die-off. In each major industrial country in which fusion research received significant funding in recent decades, it was always for ITER and its antecedents, and the institutions doing research for this "official" fusion research used every maneuver they could to keep fusion funding dedicated to themselves.

The rapid and successful deployment of cheap fusion would likely only postpone a die-off of humans, but it would guarantee that the extinction event that is modern industrial civilization would be much more profoundly destructive than otherwise. Even so, I'd like to see feasibility demonstrated in the next year or so, because I'm greedy enough to want my wife and I, and people close to us, to have a normal life. Although it's already too late to avoid horrible disruption of civilization by peak oil and climate change the widespread knowledge that fusion power is coming would stabilize the world's response to the difficulties. If feasibility is not demonstrated within about five years, or is demonstrated only later, I'd guess it will be game over for this industrial civilization within twenty years. I would also guess that if feasibility is not demonstrated within the five years, it never will be, because there will no longer be an infrastructure or coherent policies to sustain the work.

[TheWraith]

101. By which logic we all need to quietly sit down and commit suicide.

That's not going to happen, though, so we need to come up with a different plan.

[GliderGuider]

102. Perhaps. In one of his other messages the same gentleman said the following:

Of course there will be acknowledgment of realities that hurt. There will be great anxiety and calls for something to be done. Much will be done. But it will all be ineffective in staving off collapse and die-off because neither the popular conception of the situation nor the articulation of the situation by people with power will grasp the nub of the problem. The only effective actions to mitigate the coming permanent economic collapse require (or would have required -- it's too late now) anticipatory disruption of our economies and massive anticipatory diminishment of well-being.

It is this understanding of the significance of peak oil, general resource exhaustion, climate change, and overpopulation, that is shared by no more than, say, a million people in the world, to be generous. Their number will never increase much, and it does not include anyone "who counts" -- politicians, senior people in any bureaucracy whatever. Or it won't include anyone who counts who will ever be willing to articulate it in public. It will never become popular for many reasons, not the least of which is that no one who counts will ever articulate it approvingly -- or his career will survive no more than days after articulating it approvingly.

I agree with him 100%. It is long past the time when any action would prevent the massive changes that have begun. Changes we introduce now (which amounts to the "different plan" you speak of) will have both negative and positive effects, but the fact that we are already on the ecological downslope means that further changes will be more likely to hasten our slide than to arrest it.

[hunter]

103. I think this is a reasonable argument against nuclear power also.

Inexpensive sources of energy of any sort increase the amount of damage we do to the environment.

Imagine a world with ten billion electric cars...

I think when push comes to shove people would rather be mildly radioactive than poor. Look at the kind of damage we accept from coal. We exclaim in horror at the damage coal does to both the environment and our health, but it doesn't stop us from turning on the television or the air conditioner.

Every suburban box store would be a dark, stifling, and empty building without coal. Target and Wal-Mart would not exist.

People living in grinding poverty dream of a "first world" existence. As the affluence fueled by oil and natural gas fades away, the very affluent will defend what they can hold onto and let the rest of us starve. The entire world is going to look a lot like Burma.

In a perfect world we would run the numbers and figure out how to build a sustainable economy that minimizes damage to the environment without killing off some unfortunate majority of the human race.

Instead I am pessimistic -- humans will do what we always do. We will exploit any inexpensive energy resource we find until we crash against some other natural limit, and then the powerful may wring their hands but do nothing as the powerless die.

[GliderGuider]

104. The one thing nuclear fission has going for it is that it's very expensive.

The capital intensity of nuclear fission makes it unlikely to be the energy source we finally turn to in extremis.

Regarding coal, we might keep from turning on our lights or our A/C if that required us to fire up a few lumps of coal in our own homes. But because that takes place beyond our physical or perceptual horizons, some limbic part of us believes it doesn't happen. The flipping of the switch has no negative consequences we can perceive, value or respond to.

Humans will do what we always do. I agree completely -- we could hardly do otherwise.

[AndyTiedye]

106. We Could Also Use That Energy To Go Into Space

Seems like you WANT us to have a big die-off. I'd rather go to the stars.

[GliderGuider]

107. I prefer to deal with realities rather than fantasies.

What you or I might want makes not a pinch of difference to what will actually happen to the world as a whole. We will not use fusion or any other energy source to fly to the stars, there are simply too many other obstacles to such an endeavour. I'm sad about that, because I grew up reading Heinlein, Pohl and Kornbluth, and the human interstellar diaspora was my dearest boyhood dream. Unfortunately, that's one of the options we no longer have -- and our options grow fewer every day.

I don't want a die-off. That characterization is a tired, disingenuous, illegitimate part of the standard tool-kit used by so many people to insulate themselves from having to think about the real situation humanity faces, how we will probably respond to it, and what the possible outcomes are. Furthermore, even if I did desire what you impute, my preferences would make not a whit of difference. The gathering clouds warn of a massive storm coming over the horizon, and dreaming about a storm cellar when all you actually have is a tent isn't going to help the situation.

[AndyTiedye]

108. I Was Responding to Your Post on the Consequences of a (Hypothetical) New Cheap Energy Source

…so we were already in the realm of fantasy.

If we develop such a thing, it not only means we CAN go into space, it means that we MUST.

[Howzit]

105. Brain power?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b694exl_oZo&feature=related

[NNadir]

110. One last note, though. There are huge environmental consequences of having no energy.

I'll bet there's not a wild thing living in parts of Mali and Sudan.

[XemaSab]

118. Word

n/t

[JohnWxy]

119. What have you been smoking?? Wind energy is the cheapest form of energy available today. Wind power

grew 45% in 2007. If we could sustain that rate of growth (would require aggressive Government commitment) we would be generating 20% of our electricity with clean wind power. (the same proportion as nuclear is now). http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x156894

see www.awea.org for more info.

[XemaSab]

120. I've been smoking

the fumes from the local botanic garden, which burned down today! :cry: