COP15 and the Neuropsychology of Climate Change

[GliderGuider]

This started out as a response to kristopher in another thread, but I've expanded it and posted it, so I thought I'd bring it up top.

-------------------------------------------
As I watch the events in Copenhagen at the COP15 conference unfold, I am filled with ennui. The malaise does not flow from any sense that the conference and climate change itself are unimportant. On the contrary, like climate change activists and ecologists around the world I feel deeply and passionately that the issue is crucial to the long-term wellbeing of the human race. The ennui comes from watching yet another attempt to grasp the nettle founder on the completely predictable rocks of human psychology.

It's not that I feel the technologies of renewable energy and conservation aren't up to the task at hand. I think it may in fact be technically possible for renewables to power an industrial civilization. I'm not 100% convinced, but given the right starting assumptions and the right expectations for the level of industrial activity, it should be possible. My concern has nothing whatever to do with technical feasibility. It used to, but I no longer think that technical feasibility will play a role in the outcome.

Similarly, I'm not trying to discredit the huge body of empirical evidence that says technical remediation is possible. I am saying that I don't believe such technologies will be deployed on the scale and time line necessary to accomplish much of anything. I see the barriers to implementation more as shortcomings in human neuropsychology than any particular deficiency in the technology.

I refer to neuropsychology because I think that our evolved brain structure has bequeathed us with a number of key psychological qualities that will act as impediments in this situation. Those qualities include our herding behaviour, our steep discount rate for abstract threats, our tendency to see the world as separate from us, and our urge to seek power on the one hand and defer to it on the other. All these qualities seem to be exquisitely suited to supporting and defending Business As Usual.

The reason we are unlikely to see a global civilization powered by windmills has nothing to do with whether such a thing is technically possible, and everything to do with whether the psychological framework that underpins our particular industrial civilization will permit that to happen.

Here is how I think the psychological jigsaw puzzle fits together.

First of all, human beings have evolved a steep "discount function" with respect to abstract risks like global warming. What this means is that the more abstract and remote a threat is, the less urgently we respond to it. In fact, it's difficult for most people to perceive remote, abstract threats as threats at all. We tend to respond urgently only to immediate, tangible difficulties. I've written about this in general terms here, and there is a paper by a professor at UC Berkeley on this effect and its application to global warming here.

Next there's the herding instinct. Like the discount rate, this appears to be a product of our limbic brain. What it does is makes us very susceptible to popular opinion - we tend go along with the herd unless there are urgent personal reasons not to do so. It's why we respond so well to advertising, why stock market bubbles develop, and why the "War on Terror" meme was so successful. In each case we adopt rational justifications for our behaviour, but the behaviour itself is actually rooted at a very deep level in our brain's wiring.

Third is deference to authority. That comes from even deeper down, from the "reptilian" brain that was laid down hundreds of thousand years ago. This part of our brain generates behavior related to survival and hierarchy. It's where the "fight or flight" mechanism resides, and where our urge to dominate or submit to other troop members comes from. Because of this, when an alpha asserts themselves, large numbers of "average citizens" immediately and unquestioningly accept their leadership.

These three qualities define the behaviour of the vast majority of people when it comes to a threat like AGW. They don't see it as an immediate threat, so they're not prepared to spend significant time, energy or attention on it. When they see their friends and neighbours ignoring it this reinforces their assessment and makes them feel perfectly justified in their non-response. In the USA, the right-wing noise-box makes all kinds of authoritative-sounding pronouncements against action, so the three tendencies line up to make people believe such stupidity as, "The calls of alarm are coming from eggheads with agendas who are just getting their panties in a bunch over grant money and academic empires." They'll stop driving their SUV to work when the neighbours do: the neighbours haven't stopped, there's no sign around them that this "global warming" thing is even real, the kids still need to get to football practice, and everybody on Fox news is telling them not to fall for that baloney. So they keep on driving.

That's the innocent side of the equation. Now let's look at the darker, more cynical side. Politics. In the USA your representatives are elected by the people I just described above. If an individual politician awakens and starts promoting renewable energy, this leaves an opening the size of the Kasserine Pass for their opponents. All the opponent has to do is appeal to the three instincts I described above, and the result is virtually a foregone conclusion. They paint the concerned politician as slightly hysterical, say that the proposals are going to cost people their jobs, point out that everything is OK and that if there is a problem that it can be taken care of later since everything is just fine right now, trot out a bunch of scientists with opposing views to weaken the perception of consensus, and reassure the voters that they have their best interests at heart - unlike the self-serving, hysterical greenie they're opposing. On Election Day it's game over.

Now why would a politician be so cynical? It all comes back to the power-seeking aspects of the reptilian brain. To an alpha, being top dog is more important that anything else in the universe. Ordinary people are simply resources to them, because they have a very strong sense of separation between self and other. As long as their nest is appropriately feathered today, they really don't care if ten million Bangladeshis will be displaced by a rising ocean in 30 years. It's simply not an issue. This applies in spades to the corporate interests that control many (or most) of the successful politicians in the world today. In most countries you don't become a successful politician unless you have a commonality of interest with the corporate power brokers. You can disguise it (as Obama has until recently) but it's a fact of political life. Such politicians will not permit the adoption of any legislation that threatens their corporate symbiotes. If there is pressure to adopt something, the political process can be manipulated to ensure that it will be weak, unenforceable and full of loopholes.

The major corporate interests are not about to risk their entrenched powers by taking a gamble on renewable energy or conservation, especially if they worry that it might erode their position. And since ethics is not a fiduciary requirement for a corporation, they are under no obligation to fight fair. Buying politicians and funding disinformation campaigns are all in a day's work.

So the way I see it, cynical politicians tend to win, their agenda is always in favour of the moment, they are supported by corporate interests that are both risk-averse and amoral, and the voting public is easily led by those who knows a bit about evolved neuropsychology and are prepared to put their own interests ahead of those of the voters.

This is the recipe for Business as Usual. The boffins can develop all the clever technology they want, the activists can rant and rail, the enlightened policy wonks can write papers until their fingers are worn to stubs – in the face of the forces I've described above, nothing will change until the problems are so overwhelming that they can no longer be denied. Even then, the politicians will misdirect the public away from the real causes (generally by scapegoating a person or a group) if it's in the interests of their corporate string-pullers to do so.

So people won't "reject affordable, abundant, clean renewable energy in favor of dramatically lower standards of living." They will see it in the terms it is presented to them by the politicians, business leaders and the media: they will see themselves as rejecting the lower standard of living that the greenies want to impose on them in support of a self-righteous agenda that puts the needs of animals and plants ahead of those of human beings. By doing this we will of course back ourselves right into the corner of lowered standards of living, but those in power won't ever put it that way, and those who do will not be believed.

I suspect that most environmental activists see people by and large as rational actors, driven largely by neocortical reasoning. I don't. I see people as largely irrational. Most of us are subject at all times to the unconscious influences of our reptilian and limbic brains, with the neocortex providing little more than post-hoc rationalization to validate the unconscious decisions that drive our behaviour. This is why I believe the Green Revolution as it is currently formulated is doomed.

[drm604]

1. I'm not doubting what you're saying, it makes sense,

but why is it that large numbers of people (scientists, activists, etc.) seem able to escape this neuropsychology? Can we somehow use their example to find a strategy for changing the thinking of a large enough percentage of the rest?

I think education is a large part of the answer, but I doubt that we can produce a well enough educated population in the time remaining.

Is there a way to re-frame this issue in a way that would appeal to our reptile brain? I think the idea of energy independence could be a step in this direction. The idea of not buying fossil fuels from our "enemies" strikes me as something that could work. You would have to couple that with rejecting coal somehow, but there is immediate, non-abstract, large scale physical damage from coal mining that could be pointed to.

"Windmills to win the war". "Freedom from fossil fuels". Things like that may have some appeal.

The biggest problem of course is that whatever we do we're up against the powerful voice of the fossil fuel lobby who are already very skilled at appealing to the reptile brain.

[GliderGuider]

2. I'm actually seeing large numbers of people escaping this trap already.

They're the ones that create and join the grassroots organizations that Paul Hawken talks about in Blessed Unrest. That movement is growing by 40% per year, and it's a true expression of the shifting Zeitgeist around these issues. I don't think it's being driven by education exactly, through that plays a big role. At its core it represents a shift in awareness, in world view, in values and the perceptions that flow from them. It's spreading virally, and there is a possibility that this shift could play a significant role in how we respond to the unfolding human predicament.

Will it be enough to break the death-grip of our current culture? That's hard to say, but at least it gives us a fighting chance.

[drm604]

3. I think a big part is giving people viable alternatives.

Rather than telling them they're going to have to lower their lifestyle, we need to show how a similar lifestyle can be maintained (maybe even improved) on sustainable alternatives.

Another thing that strikes me is that religious people may be open to the idea that rampant consumerism (materialism) isn't necessarily good for the soul.

[GliderGuider]

4. The biggest part seems to be convincing people that there's a problem.

Some people are getting it, and many of the genuinely religious (as opposed to the politically religious) do get the "stewardship" thing. So do the Buddhists and the Taoists, so I'm promoting mass conversions to those philosophies.

[IrateCitizen]

5. It's not about "giving alternatives" -- that's centralized institution thinking

And, if you remain in that mindset, that people have to be "given" alternatives, then we're all going to be waiting for those alternatives until hell freezes over and the oceans boil, because the status quo sure as hell ain't gonna change.

The difficult and exciting part about this process is that it is about CREATING alternatives. And in the process, I hope, rediscovering many of the things that make us human in the process -- that "soul" that centralized institutions and modern civilization do such a good job of sucking out of us.

As to your last point, there is already a great deal of convergence on this matter between "granola lefties" and, as the conservative columnist Rod Dreiher has called them, "crunchy cons." We just have to get past these antiquated "left/right" divides in order to realize it.

[drm604]

6. I think we're saying the same thing.

"Giving", "Creating", or whatever, is a matter of semantics.

By "giving" I simply meant "making available", and you make those alternatives available by creating them.

[eppur_se_muova]

7. "people by and large as rational actors" is the fundamental assumption behind ...

many justifications of the Free Market as well. Most Free Marketeers push the point that an unrestrained FM leads to the best of all possible worlds -- but in fact it gives free rein to all manner of irrational behavior, and even rewards it, leading to catastrophe.

Some know well enough to argue for a FM on the basis of the rights of the buyer and seller, whether or not it works perfectly, or even well. But the claim of the Reaganauts and their ilk that the FM necessarily yields the best outcome does not survive a review of history.

Just to keep this an environmental thread, this does not bode well for hopes that "Green Businesses" will save the environment. As long as burning fossil fuels leads to easy profits, corporations will do everything they can to keep that money pump going, no matter how cheap and easy the alternatives. This is the irrationality of hanging on to vested interests out of familiarity misinterpreted as "safety".

[kristopher]

9. That conculsion doesn't seem to follow from your observations

Let me rephrase it to see what I've missed:

Green Business will probably not "save the environment" because burning fossil fuels leads to easy profits.
Corporations like the "easy profits" so they will try to maintain the status quo.
This is irrational behavior that mischaracterizes familiarity as safety.

Ok, so far?



I don't agree with that (more soon) but what I really don't understand is how that relates to the first part:
The Reagan economic perspective that a free (unregulated) market provides maximum social benefit is not supported by the historical evidence.
(I agree)

This "free market" principal is subject to and even encourages irrational behavior and such behavior undermines another free market argument, which is that rational individual decision-making is an inevitable part of the free market.
(I agree)



So how do you go from the idea that it is a bad idea to allow the free market to determine a just distribution of goods and services within society, to the idea that "Green Businesses" cannot "save the environment"?

What I see is an over generalization of "corporations" and a conflation of "free market" with "market forces" (they're totally different concepts).

Corporations are not all the same. Phelps Dodge Minerals Mining Company (coal), Exxon Mobile (oil) and Koch Industries (oil) are completely different actors with totally different motivations than Google (smart grid), GE (wind power) or Solyndra (solar).

The argument that a total lack of regulation is a bad thing just doesn't go to the issue of using *market forces* (how self interest and the profit motive) can work to accomplish a social goal set by a government that is representing the larger interests and values of the electorate.

[kristopher]

8. Question.

You are attempting to explain how people's beliefs and values are shaped. This is largely based on a certain perspective you own about what those values and beliefs are across a broad swath of some unknown set of our human population.

How have you established those beliefs and values? It seems to be based on personal observation and writings that center on a certain set of "well everyone knows" type of assumptions about the state of mind of the public.

Could you clarify?

[GliderGuider]

10. I think of it more in terms of how our behaviour is shaped.

Beliefs and values vary all over the map, and are often completely disconnected from our behaviour. For instance, I believe strongly that the continued use of fossil fuels is dooming many species including our own, but I still went out and bought a replacement automobile on Saturday.

I don't see this this article as being so much about beliefs as about the emotionally-mediated drivers of our behaviour. I think that beliefs are often created after an action has already been decided upon by our unconscious, and is used as a way of rationalizing an essentially non-rational decision.

There is enough information available to substantiate pretty much any decision we might make. We more or less unconsciously choose (aka cherry-pick) the data-set we need to inform the belief that's required to justify the action we've already decided to take.

The kinds of beliefs and values that are at play in this process are not terribly open to rational scrutiny and modification, IMO. In order to change people's values we need to go down underneath them and influence the emotions and unconscious impulses that drive our decision-making. That will cause people to adopt new beliefs and values in order to coordinate their conscious and unconscious mental processes and thereby prevent cognitive dissonance.

Imagery is very effective for this, because it speaks directly to the unconscious. That's how pictures of baby harp seals being killed on the ice have managed to pretty much dry up the demand for all seal-skin, or how pictures of starving polar bears adrift on ice floes finally made people agree to use compact fluorescent lights. After we make the decision we then come up with whatever beliefs are required to allow us to explain it to others as the product of a rational process. Once that belief or value is in place the rational mind can then generalize it into other domains.

Data doesn't change behaviour, emotions do. Beliefs and values are a post-hoc means of justifying those emotions to ourselves and others.

[kristopher]

11. The number of unfounded assumptions you use is troubling for the validity of your conclusions

The snips below are just the tip of the iceberg. Essentially you are just taking a lot of preconceptions, adding a buzzword (neuropsychology) and then presenting it as if there were actual research behind the work. I'm sorry but I see little support for that.

The major corporate interests are not about to risk their entrenched powers by taking a gamble on renewable energy or conservation, especially if they worry that it might erode their position. And since ethics is not a fiduciary requirement for a corporation, they are under no obligation to fight fair. Buying politicians and funding disinformation campaigns are all in a day's work.

This assumes that all "major corporate interests" are more or less perfectly aligned in the way they would be affected by a transition. That is false.



So the way I see it, cynical politicians tend to win, their agenda is always in favour of the moment, they are supported by corporate interests that are both risk-averse and amoral, and the voting public is easily led by those who knows a bit about evolved neuropsychology and are prepared to put their own interests ahead of those of the voters.

Same as previous paragraph only as it regards politicians. In fact it only takes a very small number of strategically empowered politicians to be able obstruct action.



This is the recipe for Business as Usual. The boffins can develop all the clever technology they want, the activists can rant and rail, the enlightened policy wonks can write papers until their fingers are worn to stubs – in the face of the forces I've described above, nothing will change until the problems are so overwhelming that they can no longer be denied. Even then, the politicians will misdirect the public away from the real causes (generally by scapegoating a person or a group) if it's in the interests of their corporate string-pullers to do so.

If your the foundations of your argument are false, then is *this* the recipe of BAU or is it a case of GIGO?


So people won't "reject affordable, abundant, clean renewable energy in favor of dramatically lower standards of living." They will see it in the terms it is presented to them by the politicians, business leaders and the media: they will see themselves as rejecting the lower standard of living that the greenies want to impose on them in support of a self-righteous agenda that puts the needs of animals and plants ahead of those of human beings. By doing this we will of course back ourselves right into the corner of lowered standards of living, but those in power won't ever put it that way, and those who do will not be believed.

Since, judging by your response to my query, it appears you've not bothered to investigate *in depth* what people's beliefs are or how they arrive at them (a process inextricably related to values), it is extremely difficult to accept that you could track the forces involved in shaping those beliefs. To phrase it another way, without knowing the existing state of understanding of what people actually think and how they both come to own those beliefs and values and how those beliefs and values interact with new information, how can you possibly presume to create a schematic of what is happening?

Don't you think prudence dictates that you should have been able to answer my question BEFORE you crafted a conclusion? You are dismissing this need with the view that these beliefs are merely post hoc rationalizations, but to jog your memory, the idea that people act based on "post hoc rationalizations" has been a staple of my perspective for decades and I frequently use that specific term. And IIRC your embrace of the idea of post hoc rationalization is rather new and in fact only appeared after exchanges with me where I presented both the term and the logic behind the term to you. It is based on the work of Harris where "the primacy of infrastructure" is the most influential force in culture and results in people reacting to the physical constraints of their environment by a variety of mechanisms that are more explicable as actions responding to these forces than as manifestations of the stated purpose of the actions.

The areas you've focused on are part of the picture, but they represent a very narrow set of currents affecting narrow groups of people who are in conflict with other currents and groups of people. The issue of beliefs and values is extremely relevant. It may not accurately represent the functional purpose of their actions, but it does reveal the place where people are - their starting point on any journey towards the future.

The purpose of my question was to both point out that a specific significant part of the picture is missing from your considerations and to use that as a demonstration that other much larger areas of understanding and study also need to be applied.

[GliderGuider]

12. Think of my writing on topics like this as op-ed pieces.

They are presented as my own ideas. As such, you may take them or leave them, or ask questions as you have done. If you ask questions I will answer in a manner that suits me, with the understanding that it may not suit you. I accept that most work posted on the net (and especially on boards like this) will not meet everyone's standards, and that none of us is under any obligation to do so. I don't present my work as being original "research", or even necessarily being supported by it. You are under no obligation to find any value in it.

No single piece of writing can cover all the sub-topics that might be related to its theme. In this case I focused on one aspect of neuropsychology (which is hardly a "buzzword", at least since Paul MacLean wrote about the triune brain). I deliberately omitted the entire question of the cultural influences on behaviour in order to sharpen that focus. I've written about the interaction of evolved psychology with our cultural story in other articles. For example in Meat Computers With Cultural Programs, written in April this year, in which I said:

One significant error I committed along the way was to accept an idea popular in evolutionary psychology – that humans are little more than genetically programmed automata. In this worldview the structure of our brain and consequently the behaviour it manifests evolved through natural selection over hundreds of thousands of years. The outcome was a creature that was exquisitely adapted to life on the African veldt. Unfortunately, the qualities that made us so fit in that environment turned out to be maladaptive in the context of modern industrial civilization. The theory goes on to propose that because so much of our behaviour is hard-wired we can do virtually nothing to alter it. The implication is that we are a tragically flawed species, doomed by our physiology to over-consume, over-compete and over-grow, all in a vain attempt to dominate the world we feel so separate from.

Fortunately, a bit more reading convinced me of the major role that our shared cultural narrative plays in determining how we behave.

If you wish to expand on the ideas in this article, please do so. One of the reasons I post them is to stimulate thought and discussion.

Oh, and I was first introduced to the idea of post-hoc rationalization through the writing of Jay Hanson, not Harris or you.

[kristopher]

13. Trite trash is still trite trash, whatever you want to call it.

You put this in the public domain and it is subject to criticisms based on both the content of the particular piece and your known proclivities for shallow thinking cloaked in the trappings of real knowledge. Your "work" on oil resources fit that profile and this more recent line of reasoning is in the same mold.

You've basically stated nothing more than the populist beliefs that:
All corporations are evil because of the profit motive.
All politicians are evil because they act in self interest.
All people are sheep that will do whatever they are told by politicians acting for corporations.
There is no hope we are all doomed.

[IrateCitizen]

14. Do you prefer for us all to bow down before you, or should we just send money?

Seriously, the level of your sense of smug superiority knows no bounds, does it? This from the same person who essentially said, "I can't find the information, you prove my argument for me!" when your ideas were recently challenged on another thread.

Do you really think that people take you seriously when you stoop to endless browbeating and proclamations of the inferiority of their thinking? Or do you possibly consider for a moment that you actually undermine the persuasiveness of your arguments through an inexplicable desire to be "right" on an anonymous internet forum?

Not that I'm expecting any of this to be acknowledged on your end -- rather, I'm expecting the usual snide comments about how you don't suffer fools well and the like. Whatever. At least it helps point out your boorish behavior to others and provides a good laugh in the process.

ON EDIT: I actually shouldn't laugh about this, because in a way I almost feel sorry for you. Placing so much pressure on yourself to be "right" all of the time must be a source of constant stress and alienation for you.

[kristopher]

15. The piece has no factual basis and employs horrible reasoning.

For example, if the words as written were even close to true, there would be no existing movement to take action on climate change.

The fact is that people, politicians and corporations come in a variety of flavors whose actions cannot be explained by such gross generalizations as were at the heart of the OP.

[IrateCitizen]

16. Then why do you spend so much time on such things?

Do you take it as your God-given mission to bring fact, reason and logic to the other posters on these boards? Seriously -- if you object so much to GliderGuider's posts on this forum, it borders on the obsessive to spend as much time as you do countering everything he says.

The same could be said for you and several other regular posters in this forum -- many of whom, in case you haven't noticed,have taken to declining to rebut your criticisms, probably because they have come to the conclusion that dealing with you isn't worth their time.

But hey, if you're convinced that this is the way to go about influencing others, have at it. :shrug:

[GliderGuider]

17. "Public domain"? Because it's posted on the interwebs?

FYI, work can still be under copyright on the web (though anyone who expects it to be honoured is living on another planet). Be that as it may, all my writing is in fact explicitly in the public domain because put it there. I relinquish all rights to it in a statement on my web site. And be that as it may, I have no problem whatsoever with others criticizing it which they could do even if it wasn't in the "public domain". Even you.

Though I still don't get why it's so incredibly important to you that I be wrong that you'll spend such time and energy objecting to my "trite trash".

[kristopher]

19. I didn't spend a great deal of time or effort.

The weaknesses are extremely self evident.

As for why I bother, it is simple. The perspective you insist on promoting is that there is no use trying; and as such it is nothing but another endorsement of business as usual.

And please don't give me another of your disclaimers about how you never intend such a message. Those are no different than the fine print is some smarmy ad on tv.

Finally the use of public domain in this case is unrelated to copyright, it is about your decision to offer such populist bilge it on a public forum - I have no obligation to either agree with you nor to be silent about the nature of my disagreement.

It is telling that none of the responses to my criticisms are directed at the meat of arguments but dwell exclusively on how mean I am to you.

[GliderGuider]

21. Even if I was in fact saying, "Everyone just give up now, please."

So what? Even if I were to convince a few people on this board that it was a good idea, so what? What difference would it make? A few people might decide to just keep on living their lives and not worry too much about Global Warming or Peak Oil or ecological devastation or economic collapse or social problems. So what?

[kristopher]

22. Why not address the huge gaps in your observations instead of attacking the messenger.

Why not?

[GliderGuider]

23. I'm not attacking you.

Why do you feel I am?

I'm satisfied with my observations, gaps and all. They are what they are.

[kristopher]

25. Your response has been to question why is is important to me.

That is perhaps a relevant tangential question, but when it forms nearly the entirety of your response it becomes an attack on the person as a means of distracting from the criticisms that were offered.

[GliderGuider]

26. You have an unusual definition of "attack".

The thing is, the importance of this to you is the only thing that interests me about this exchange at this point. I think I've made it clear that I have no interest in engaging you on your terms. So the only thing that's fascinating to me is, in the face of that, why you persist.

[kristopher]

27. Persist in what? Answering your remarks to me?

[GliderGuider]

29. Yes.

[kristopher]

30. Obviously because you make remarks to me or of concern to me.

Not terribly surprised that is a challenge for you to figure out...

[GliderGuider]

31. I'm sorry, I was a bit flippant in my last reply

The thing that is fascinating to me is why you persist in trying to beat me into the ground over my manner of thinking.

[kristopher]

32. Perhaps because the *level of knowledge and research* behind your conclusions is poor?

I wouldn't characterize it as "beating you into the ground", either. I offered an objective, non-confrontational perspective of your reasoning and you dismiss it as irrelevant. If it were about whether someone likes dogs vs cats or some other innocuous topic, I wouldn't have even bothered that much. However your focus (deliberately or not) is to discourage people from supporting the energy policy of the Democratic party through the promotion of FALSE conclusions (your remarks on renewables) then I have no problem inserting myself into your discussion to offer criticisms I think are valid.

You are free to address those criticisms directly or not. So far it has been "not" because you "don't want to engage on" my "terms".

[GliderGuider]

37. kristopher, I just wanted to say thanks.

Watching my own reactions during our exchanges has proven to be a wonderful opportunity for my inner growth. I know we don't see eye to eye on things, but I've discovered that I don't learn much from simple agreement. If I'm an oyster, you're one of my grains of sand.

Thank you for that gift.

[TxRider]

18. Ummm

"The reason we are unlikely to see a global civilization powered by windmills has nothing to do with whether such a thing is technically possible, and everything to do with whether the psychological framework that underpins our particular industrial civilization will permit that to happen."

The reason is because it is expensive, and like it or not the wind sometimes does not blow just as the sun sometimes does not shine.

We have the largest wind mill farms in the world here in Texas, but what happens on a 102 degree day when the wind stops blowing?

I can tell you what happens, the coal plants go up to max capacity.

What would happen if we shut down the coal plants and did away with them? We would sweat and our food would thaw, old folks would die to the heat, etc. etc. brownouts, blackouts, etc.

Alternatives are not cheap enough, nor reliable enough, nor plentiful enough to replace what we have yet. Though they are gaining ground it will take years of money and work to get there.

[kristopher]

20. That is a short sighted view.

It is like saying building a home us nice but it doesn't have a roof.

Self evidently true but a useless, stand alone, observation about the decision to build or the process of building.

[TxRider]

33. Not really

We demand reliable electricity. Not brown outs or black outs.

Wind does not provide that reliability. Unless you have some tech that will ensure 24/7/365 wind speed.

Neither does solar for most places unless you guarantee cloud free skies.

So you still need the coal power plants, and to have them able to take on the load.

Not to mention building out the grid to support a distributed system of wind and solar will take years to get financed, planned and built out.

It's not a matter of psychology, it's a matter of money and expectations.

Alternatives are more expensive, less reliable, and will take many years to develop enough to take over the demand which is ever growing.

After all, it's taken us over 100 years to build our current electrical grid and power generation. Your not going to replace that in a few years, it's not physically possible.

We have watched the worlds largest wind farm built in Texas over a decade, we make more wind power than any state in the U.S., and it barely makes a dent in the scheme of things. About 3% of power, not extremely reliable, and that is putting them up as fast as they could be built and connected to the grid however possible for over ten years.

Increasing capacity now is dependent on building out more grid, something Texas also has done wisely in keeping it's own power grid, but will take years more before we can expand wind power further.

I believe the price of oil and coal will rise to make these technologies dominant in time, but you just can't replace a national power grid and power supply in a few years, or even a decade, especially not with a system that relies on the weather for reliability.

Were talking 30-40 year time scales to get this done. By that time the rise in fossil fuel costs should be pushing things along pretty strongly.

[kristopher]

34. Those are right wing talking points.

Your knowledge of the criticisms of renewables is obviously greater than your knowledge of the overall problem and the related energy issues and policies. In fact, your criticisms are standard right wing talking points.

What makes you think that fossil prices are going to rise at the glacial pace you suggest? For example, evidenced by China ad India's pace of increasing demand, it is probable that petroleum will be approaching $200 a barrel by 2020.

Seriously where do you get your feelings and information on the subject? I'd suggest that you'd benefit from exploring some different sources that may be less attached to the status quo.

ETA: let me add that I'm not saying you are pushing a right wing view. What I'm communicating is that your reasoning is that of someone who has limited understanding of the overall possibilities, and the understanding that exists is influenced by the right wing message machine. t sounds to me like you're repeating conversations with coworkers or friends that you trust.

There is nothing unusual or nefarious in that, but it doesn't mean you are correct either.

Try reading this and see if it enhances your understanding.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/WindWaterSun1009.pdf

[TxRider]

35. well...

"What makes you think that fossil prices are going to rise at the glacial pace you suggest? For example, evidenced by China ad India's pace of increasing demand, it is probable that petroleum will be approaching $200 a barrel by 2020."

I have no idea when fossil fuel prices will outstrip the cost of alternatives. Never pretended to, but since they are a finite resource it is simply inevitable. People will not switch to alternatives until the cost drives them to do so, just human nature.

All the better it happen sooner, it means we'll reach the cost tipping point that much sooner.

I have watched us build out wind power on the largest scale of anywhere on the planet, starting back in the 1970's when I was young and really amping it up in the 1990's.

We have exhausted the grid here, and we have had brown out and black out due to the wind unreliability.

The grid has issues with supply and demand moving that wind power out through the grid in the winter.

It's just not "easy" and takes a long time to build such a large scale infrastructure. As I said it took over 100 years to build what we have.

It's only a matter of time until we switch to renewable alternatives, but it's not just simple decision to make and then it just happens. It takes decades to do it and mountains of money.

From the study you linked... Did you read it?

"With sensible broad-based policies and social changes, it may be possible to
convert 25% of the current energy system to WWS in 10-15 years and 85% in 20-30 years.
Absent that clear direction, the conversion will take longer, potentially 40-50 years."

So 85% in 20-30 years... Just as I estimated. And that is an optimistic projection.

I figure by that time oil prices will be double todays probably, but as we are the saudi arabia of coal, coal could still be relatively cheap, with taxes raising it's cost to whatever level consumers will tolerate. So cost of fossil fuel energy will be a driving factor.

And then what do we do when the weather makes for calm winds and overcast over the state? We'll still need backup.

[kristopher]

36. Well, well, well...

Your list of problems as you presented them:

The reason (we are unlikely to see a global civilization powered by windmills) is because it is expensive, and like it or not the wind sometimes does not blow just as the sun sometimes does not shine.We have the largest wind mill farms in the world here in Texas, but what happens on a 102 degree day when the wind stops blowing?

I can tell you what happens, the coal plants go up to max capacity.

What did Jacobson’s paper say about this?
As your comment below about broadening "wind" to "alternatives" indicates, you are really arguing against renewables in general. So, is this relevant to the question of whether renewables can or cannot meet the needs of a modern culture?
I’d say no, it is nothing more than an example of the goal restated as a claim that this goal cannot be met. As such, it would only be true if we limited the alternative energy infrastructure to wind. As you can see from the Jacobson paper, the entire portfolio of energy sources required to meet our needs is broad – just as our current grid is composed of a variety of sources of generation.

What would happen if we shut down the coal plants and did away with them? We would sweat and our food would thaw, old folks would die to the heat, etc. etc. brownouts, blackouts, etc.

That is what would happen if we transitioned to renewables? Really?
I’m having trouble with your intent on this statement, are you saying that would happen with no alternative energy structure – if we just shut them down now?
Or are you arguing against all renewables by presenting a statement based on wind alone and then going on to extrapolate from that to a (totally different scenario) of a system built on all renewables?
Either way, that would be very confused (or perhaps dishonest) if that is what you were doing.

Alternatives are not cheap enough, nor reliable enough, nor plentiful enough to replace what we have yet. Though they are gaining ground it will take years of money and work to get there.

Actually they pretty much are. Although the price at this exact moment favors fossil fuels in most cases, it is largely a product of policy more than technology and the economics of the technologies.
It is a simple concept that is true:
As you say the current grid isn’t built to maximize renewable value. However, if policies indicate a change is inevitable, the inflow of capital into manufacturing will reduce the price very, very quickly.
They are more than reliable enough if we design the grid around their capabilities. I find this the silliest argument of the bunch. The real threat to a reliable energy supply is that we must depend on a vast complex system to recover energy stored in fossil fuels. When source depletion, market manipulation and geopolitical competition are factored in, the ONLY sure and reliable energy supply we have is renewables. All that is required is for us to harness them.

Now what I wrote in response to your remarks above is this:

That is a short sighted view.
It is like saying building a home us nice but it doesn't have a roof.
Self evidently true but a useless, stand alone, observation about the decision to build or the process of building.

I still this is valid.


From your next post:

We demand reliable electricity. Not brown outs or black outs.
Wind does not provide that reliability. Unless you have some tech that will ensure 24/7/365 wind speed.
Neither does solar for most places unless you guarantee cloud free skies.

Again, what does Jacobson say about that?
It is false, isn’t it?

So you still need the coal power plants, and to have them able to take on the load.

Do you see how you are, like I pointed out in my first response, jumping time frames to use a true statement in circumstances where it ceases to be true? The discussion is about the ability of renewables to meet our needs, not about an early phase of the transition.

Not to mention building out the grid to support a distributed system of wind and solar will take years to get financed, planned and built out.
It's not a matter of psychology, it's a matter of money and expectations.

I agree with this but only because it accurately describes a transition phase that is inevitable. There is no conceivable way to displace all fossil fuels at once. However narrow truth is being stretched out of its zone of applicability and being applied to the concept of a COMPLETE system based on renewables. It is therefore false.

Now, most if not all of that is in the Jacobson paper.

…After all, it's taken us over 100 years to build our current electrical grid and power generation. Your not going to replace that in a few years, it's not physically possible.

Your conclusion about it taking some time was not disputed by me. In fact, it is the one thing I’ve given you credit for. Again, the problem I’ve tried from the beginning to point out is that you are taking a set of criticisms that apply to low level penetration of renewables into the grid, and are deducing from that what the energy landscape will look like when ALL of those renewables are working in concert on a grid designed around their relative strengths and weaknesses.
That is a RIGHT WING presentation of "facts" that is designed by RIGHT WING THINK TANKS to convince those only passingly familiar with the topic of renewable energy that it won’t work.

Now, you have taken the time to review Jacobson enough to find and embrace the one point that you were correct on and that I’d also noted; although the incomplete house might have been too oblique a reference, I admit. Yes it will take between 10-50 years, depending on the policy and the scope of the goal.
Just as your perspective has shifted across time to create erroneous conclusions, so to has your argument lacked consistent geographic focus. Be careful to segregate decisions about GLOBAL change and CHANGE IN THE U.S.; the two scenarios for rollout are not terribly similar.

May I suggest that your take a few days to read Jacobson’s paper and do some research at sources that specialize in renewable energy?

From Jacobson:

More well known to the public than the scientific studies, perhaps, are the "Repower America" plan of former Vice-President and recent Nobel-Peace Prize winner Al Gore, and a similar proposal by businessman T. Boone Pickens. Mr. Gore’s proposal calls for improvements in energy efficiency, expansion of renewable energy generation, modernization of the transmission grid, and the conversion of motor vehicles to electric power. The ultimate (and ambitious) goal is to provide America “with 100% clean electricity within 10 years," which Mr. Gore proposes to achieve by increasing the use of wind and concentrated solar power and improving energy efficiency ( www.wecansolveit.org/pages/al_gore_a_generational_challenge_to_repower_america/ ). In Gore’s plan, solar PV, geothermal, and biomass electricity would grow only modestly, and nuclear power and hydroelectricity would not grow at all.

Mr. Pickens’ plan is to obtain up to 22% of U.S. electricity from wind, add solar capacity to that, improve the electric grid, increase energy efficiency, and use natural gas instead of oil as a transitional fuel ( www.pickensplan.com/theplan/ ).

For all of these studies and plans, two key issues are: how feasible is a large-scale transformation of the world’s energy systems, and how quickly can such a transformation be accomplished? We address these issues by examining the characteristics of the technologies, the availability of energy resources, supplies of critical materials, the reliability of the generation and transmission systems, and economic and socio-political factors. Here we do not evaluate the impacts of WWS systems on climate change, air pollution, energy use, or water use and water pollution because these impacts already have been thoroughly examined in the literature (e.g., Jacobson, 2009).


Of course, the large-scale transformation of the energy sector worldwide would not be the first large-scale project undertaken in U.S. or world history. During World War II, the U.S. transformed motor vehicle production facilities to produce over 300,000 aircraft, and the rest of the world was able to produce an additional 486,000 aircraft ( http://www.taphilo.com/history/WWII/Production-Figures-WWII.shtml ). In the U. S., production increased from about 2,000 units in 1939 to almost 100,000 units in 1944. In 1956, the U. S. began work on the Interstate Highway System, which now extends for 47,000 miles and is considered one of the largest public works project in history ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System ). And the iconic Apollo Program, widely considered one of the greatest human accomplishments of all time, put a man on the moon in less than 10 years – the time frame of Mr. Gore’s Repower America plan. Although these projects obviously differ in important economic, political, and technical ways from the project we discuss, they do suggest that the large scale of a complete transformation of the energy system is not, in itself, an insurmountable barrier.

[IrateCitizen]

38. Historical circumstances matter

The concluding paragraph of Jacobsen's report, which you have excerpted, contains some pretty deep historical misunderstandings. Mainly, these concern the completely different historical circumstances concerning then and now.

During World War II, the U.S. transformed motor vehicle production facilities to produce over 300,000 aircraft, and the rest of the world was able to produce an additional 486,000 aircraft ( http://www.taphilo.com/history/WWII/Production-Figures-... ). In the U. S., production increased from about 2,000 units in 1939 to almost 100,000 units in 1944.

Of course, this time period also happened to coincide with the reality that there was vastly underutilized industrial capacity in the United States. When the speculative growth that had fueled the roaring 20s collapsed, consumer demand also collapsed, thus leading industries to shutter their factories. Furthermore, the natural resource base -- especially in regards to oil -- had hardly been tapped at that time. When WWII came about, it simply encouraged the revitalization of all of that spare industrial capacity, which combined with the concentrated national industrial policy necessitated by the demands of war (a coherent policy that has been completely lacking in all other times of our modern history), is what permitted us to produce so much war materiel.

Today, we have gutted our industrial base and shipped a good part of it to other parts of the world. We do not have the low-hanging fruit of abundant resources. We can't even get a coherent health reform bill through the Congress, let alone anything approaching a national industrial policy. Totally different historical circumstances, which have a very different impact on the feasibility of such plans.

n 1956, the U. S. began work on the Interstate Highway System, which now extends for 47,000 miles and is considered one of the largest public works project in history ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System ). And the iconic Apollo Program, widely considered one of the greatest human accomplishments of all time, put a man on the moon in less than 10 years – the time frame of Mr. Gore’s Repower America plan.

I'm going to lump these two together because they deal with a common historical anomaly -- that is, the place of the United States in the post-WWII world. When WWII ended, over one-half of GLOBAL industrial capacity was in the U.S., due to the fact that the other industrial powers of the world lay largely in ruins, while the U.S. mainland was untouched by the conflict. Concurrently, the Bretton Woods system guaranteed that the United States became the center of global finance, while the U.S. also became the world's leading creditor, taking that role over from a declining Great Britain.

Combine this with the fact that we had so much domestically-produced oil that the national policy was to actually try to find ways to burn it up -- and the automobile fit nicely into this picture. Additionally, pent-up consumer demand during WWII combined with the recent memory of the problems of underutilized industrial capacity helped fuel a period of economic expansionism never before seen in our nation's history, possibly even the world's. What does all of this have to do with the Interstate Highway System and the Apollo Project?

Basically, these two projects were a direct result of those historical circumstances. The favorable trade balance and overall state of affluence enjoyed by the United States is what allowed it to pursue these kinds of endeavors, because they literally required no hard choices to be made.

There is a gulf of difference between now and then. Ramping up the kinds of programs you repeatedly reference will require tremendous amounts of capital in order to have a chance at being successful. They will require a comprehensive, forward-thinking industrial and energy policy. Given our current status as the world's largest debtor nation, the hollowing out of our industrial capacity in order to better satisfy the financial sector, and the lack of focus on these matters from a political system more concerned with the next election than the next ten years, bringing all of these things to life does not appear likely. Most of all, to be successful in bringing them to life requires the making of hard choices, many of which would mean abandoning the imperial periphery in order to concentrate on the national center. Empires throughout recorded history do not provide a positive track record in this regard -- instead, they always spend greater resources trying to shore up the periphery and resume previous expansion in spite of diminishing returns, while the center rots away. Given the manner in which we are literally pissing billions upon billions of dollars away in Afghanistan and Iraq, with little sign of relenting, I'm not optimistic that we will pursue a different fate. Given the choice between reducing the military budget and pursuing the programs Jacobsen proposes in his paper, and pushing a greater proportion of our national resources toward the pursuit of yesterday's hegemony, all signs currently point to the latter. I'd like a reason to be more optimistic in this regard, but the current trends just don't give me much to be hopeful about.

[kristopher]

40. Going off on another tanget to try and hide that you were totally, completely wrong, eh?

You were just shown to be full of shit, now you are running full tilt down another sewer pipe.

I actually snipped that para from the body of the article (pg 2-3), so it's pretty clear you didn't read the anything. I'm sure that's just because you couldn't be bothered to actually trouble yourself with facts that conflict with the garbage you tote around between your ears.

Jacobson hasn't presented any "misunderstandings" and in fact couldn't have been more clear: "Although these projects obviously differ in important economic, political, and technical ways from the project we discuss, they do suggest that the large scale of a complete transformation of the energy system is not, in itself, an insurmountable barrier."


You'd have known that IF you'd have read the piece. But once more we have a poster that prefers bombast and misinformation over facts and reasoned discussion.

Your discussion of the "historical circumstances" of our technical capabilities and your conclusions are as fucked up as your remarks about renewable energy were.

[TxRider]

41. I think you misread

"What did Jacobson’s paper say about this?
As your comment below about broadening "wind" to "alternatives" indicates, you are really arguing against renewables in general. So, is this relevant to the question of whether renewables can or cannot meet the needs of a modern culture?
I’d say no, it is nothing more than an example of the goal restated as a claim that this goal cannot be met. As such, it would only be true if we limited the alternative energy infrastructure to wind. As you can see from the Jacobson paper, the entire portfolio of energy sources required to meet our needs is broad – just as our current grid is composed of a variety of sources of generation."

Your going off on a tangent that is irrelevant.

The original post is stating the reason we aren't moving to renewables is a psychological one.

I'm just stating it's not, we are building renewables at a brisk pace, but it will take decades to accomplish at best effort. You paper shows this clearly as any, and makes my point as well as I could make it.




"Your conclusion about it taking some time was not disputed by me. In fact, it is the one thing I’ve given you credit for. Again, the problem I’ve tried from the beginning to point out is that you are taking a set of criticisms that apply to low level penetration of renewables into the grid, and are deducing from that what the energy landscape will look like when ALL of those renewables are working in concert on a grid designed around their relative strengths and weaknesses.
That is a RIGHT WING presentation of "facts" that is designed by RIGHT WING THINK TANKS to convince those only passingly familiar with the topic of renewable energy that it won’t work."

While I could go on inanely about the issues you seem to think I disagree with you on, the arguments you think I am making for some purpose only you seem to understand is beside the point of the original post, and irrelevant to my post.

And while the paper you linked to, a draft, which clearly states "DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, COPY, OR DISTRIBUTE" is interesting to read, and states the case well, it's not relevant to the issue of whether moving towards that goal is matter psychology or whether it is a matter of a massive undertaking that will take at least 30 years of work and mountains of funding that we are already moving forward on at a brisk pace.

And we will not be rid of reliable power generation from coal plants etc. for decades even in the best case, and psychology has nothing to do with it.

I believe we can possibly go to 100% renewable energy, and should get there or as close as we can as soon as reasonably possible. It's a matter of national security, security of our economy, security for our environment and more. There is no reason not to do so. I have never stated otherwise.

If you want to argue the realities of that paper, or the what it will take to get there, that is another topic.

Oh and you might want to apologize to the other poster you went ballistic on thinking he was me, your looking pretty silly on that kneejerk there...

[GliderGuider]

42. Just to clarify my position a bit

I don't think psychology is "the" reason we won't get to a civilization powered by renewables before TSHTF. It's one of the impediments, along with the scale of the enterprise and the money required. As I said in the OP, the obstacles aren't technical - we've probably got enough technology to do the job.

I also think that human psychology holds an opportunity for facilitating the shift, especially if we can enlist the herding instinct in our favour. There's a movement that's spreading very rapidly throughout the world right now, described by Paul Hawken in his book Blessed Unrest. It now consists of over two million small, local, independent, grass-roots environmental, social justice and aboriginal rights groups. It's spreading globally, growing at 40% per year, and I think it's using our herding instinct and the fact that the threat is now immediate to enlist new members. If there is hope for large-scale change in the near future, I find it here.

However, the powers that be are not going to give in without a fight, and they have enlisted all of our civilization's Guardian Institutions, their knowledge of psychology and a lot of money to throw up barriers to change.

[TxRider]

43. I think you might miss an important aspect.

Herd mentality may be split on AGW and it's reality or effects.

But it is not split on the subject of importing our oil, and mountain top removal and many other aspects of fossil fuel energy that are almost universally despised.

I don't see that "guardian" institutions have much to lose, they will be building out the infrastructure and renewable energy systems, they will own it, they will charge us for our energy just like they do from fossil fuels.

As well there are in fact technical obstacles as well. Which are being solved in places like Sandia...

http://www.sandia.gov/Renewable_Energy/solarthermal/nsttf.html

http://www.sandia.gov/bus-ops/partnerships/tech-access/facilities/photovoltaic.html

http://www.jbei.org/

The issues will be solved, I don't see anyone saying we don't need to evolve to renewable energy, even climate change change deniers agree with that.

But the challenge is deep, from changing our educational system to develop the work force required, to refining the technologies, to funding and actually building out this huge infrastructure. I'm afraid some SHTF is going to happen before we can realistically do much about it, unless you can convince people to drop energy usage substantially, and shut the developing world down from developing.

What is holding humanity back in general is easy. Cost. Overall the herd will clamor for and use what is cheapest on the monthly energy bills. Make alternative energy significantly cheaper than fossil fuels, and the herd will move, with the largest thunder of footsteps in history.

[kristopher]

44. I misread nothing.

Your list of problems as you presented them:

The reason (we are unlikely to see a global civilization powered by windmills) is because it is expensive, and like it or not the wind sometimes does not blow just as the sun sometimes does not shine.

What did Jacobson’s paper say about this?

We have the largest wind mill farms in the world here in Texas, but what happens on a 102 degree day when the wind stops blowing?

I can tell you what happens, the coal plants go up to max capacity.

As you comment below broadening “wind” to “alternatives” indicates, you are really arguing against renewables in general. So, is this relevant to the question of whether renewables can or cannot meet the needs of a modern culture?
I’d say no, it is nothing more than an example of the goal restated as a claim that this goal cannot be met. As such, it would only be true if we limited the alternative energy infrastructure to wind. As you can see from the Jacobson paper, the entire portfolio of energy sources required to meet our needs is broad – just as our current grid is composed of a variety of sources of generation.

What would happen if we shut down the coal plants and did away with them? We would sweat and our food would thaw, old folks would die to the heat, etc. etc. brownouts, blackouts, etc.

That is what would happen if we transitioned to renewables? Really?

I’m having trouble with your intent on this statement, are you saying that would happen with no alternative energy structure – if we just shut them down now? Or are you arguing against all renewables by presenting a statement based on wind alone and then going on to extrapolate from that to a (totally different scenario) of a system built on all renewables?

That would be very confused (or perhaps dishonest) if that is what you were doing.

Alternatives are not cheap enough, nor reliable enough, nor plentiful enough to replace what we have yet. Though they are gaining ground it will take years of money and work to get there.

Actually they pretty much are. Although the price at this exact moment favors fossil fuels in most cases, it is largely a product of policy more than technology and the economics of the technologies.

It is a simple concept that is true:
As you say the current grid isn’t built to maximize renewable value. However, if policies indicate a change is inevitable, the inflow of capital into manufacturing will reduce the price very, very quickly.

They are more than reliable enough if we design the grid around their capabilities. I find this the silliest argument of the bunch. The real threat to a reliable energy supply is that we must depend on a vast complex system to recover energy stored in fossil fuels. When source depletion, market manipulation and geopolitical competition are factored in, the ONLY sure and reliable energy supply we have is renewables. All that is required is for us to harness them.

Now what I wrote in response to your remarks above is this:

That is a short sighted view.
It is like saying building a home us nice but it doesn't have a roof.
Self evidently true but a useless, stand alone, observation about the decision to build or the process of building.

I still this is valid.


From your next post:

We demand reliable electricity. Not brown outs or black outs.
Wind does not provide that reliability. Unless you have some tech that will ensure 24/7/365 wind speed.
Neither does solar for most places unless you guarantee cloud free skies.

Again, what does Jacobson say about that?
It is false, isn’t it?

So you still need the coal power plants, and to have them able to take on the load.

Do you see how you are, like I pointed out in my first response, jumping time frames to use a true statement in circumstances where it ceases to be true? The discussion is about the ability of renewables to meet our needs, not about an early phase of the transition.

Not to mention building out the grid to support a distributed system of wind and solar will take years to get financed, planned and built out.
It's not a matter of psychology, it's a matter of money and expectations.

I agree with this but only because it accurately describes a transition phase that is inevitable. There is no conceivable way to displace all fossil fuels at once. However narrow truth is being stretched out of its zone of applicability and being applied to the concept of a COMPLETE system based on renewables. It is therefore false.

Now, most if not all of that is in the Jacobson paper.

…After all, it's taken us over 100 years to build our current electrical grid and power generation. Your not going to replace that in a few years, it's not physically possible.

Your conclusion about it taking some time was not disputed by me. In fact, it is the one thing I’ve given you credit for. Again, the problem I’ve tried from the beginning to point out is that you are taking a set of criticisms that apply to low level penetration of renewables into the grid, and are deducing from that what the energy landscape will look like when ALL of those renewables are working in concert on a grid designed around their relative strengths and weaknesses.
That is a RIGHT WING presentation of “facts” that is designed by RIGHT WING THINK TANKS to convince those only passingly familiar with the topic of renewable energy that it won’t work.

Now, you have taken the time to find and embrace the one point that you were correct on and that I’d also noted; although the incomplete house might have been too oblique a reference, I admit. Yes it will take between 10-50 years, depending on the policy and the scope of the goal.
Just as your perspective has shifted across time to create erroneous conclusions, so to has your argument lacked consistent geographic focus. Be careful to segregate decisions about GLOBAL change and CHANGE IN THE U.S.; the two scenarios for rollout are not terribly similar.

May I suggest that your take a few days to read Jacobson’s paper and do some research at sources that specialize in renewable energy?

From Jacobson:

More well known to the public than the scientific studies, perhaps, are the “Repower America” plan of former Vice-President and recent Nobel-Peace Prize winner Al Gore, and a similar proposal by businessman T. Boone Pickens. Mr. Gore’s proposal calls for improvements in energy efficiency, expansion of renewable energy generation, modernization of the transmission grid, and the conversion of motor vehicles to electric power. The ultimate (and ambitious) goal is to provide America “with 100% clean electricity within 10 years,” which Mr. Gore proposes to achieve by increasing the use of wind and concentrated solar power and improving energy efficiency ( www.wecansolveit.org/pages/al_gore_a_generational_challenge_to_repower_america/ ). In Gore’s plan, solar PV, geothermal, and biomass electricity would grow only modestly, and nuclear power and hydroelectricity would not grow at all.

Mr. Pickens’ plan is to obtain up to 22% of U.S. electricity from wind, add solar capacity to that, improve the electric grid, increase energy efficiency, and use natural gas instead of oil as a transitional fuel ( www.pickensplan.com/theplan/ ).

For all of these studies and plans, two key issues are: how feasible is a large-scale transformation of the world’s energy systems, and how quickly can such a transformation be accomplished? We address these issues by examining the characteristics of the technologies, the availability of energy resources, supplies of critical materials, the reliability of the generation and transmission systems, and economic and socio-political factors. Here we do not evaluate the impacts of WWS systems on climate change, air pollution, energy use, or water use and water pollution because these impacts already have been thoroughly examined in the literature (e.g., Jacobson, 2009).


Of course, the large-scale transformation of the energy sector worldwide would not be the first large-scale project undertaken in U.S. or world history. During World War II, the U.S. transformed motor vehicle production facilities to produce over 300,000 aircraft, and the rest of the world was able to produce an additional 486,000 aircraft ( http://www.taphilo.com/history/WWII/Production-Figures-WWII.shtml ). In the U. S., production increased from about 2,000 units in 1939 to almost 100,000 units in 1944. In 1956, the U. S. began work on the Interstate Highway System, which now extends for 47,000 miles and is considered one of the largest public works project in history ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System ). And the iconic Apollo Program, widely considered one of the greatest human accomplishments of all time, put a man on the moon in less than 10 years – the time frame of Mr. Gore’s Repower America plan. Although these projects obviously differ in important economic, political, and technical ways from the project we discuss, they do suggest that the large scale of a complete transformation of the energy system is not, in itself, an insurmountable barrier.

[TxRider]

46. You have got to be kidding me

"You started out making false claims, got called on it and you are now trying to spin your way out of it. "

I made zero false claims, you even went off on someone else's post thinking it was a reply by me, good reading there pal. There is nothing to spin.

"Your words speak for themselves and are below.
Your list of problems as you presented them:

The reason (we are unlikely to see a global civilization powered by windmills) is because it is expensive, and like it or not the wind sometimes does not blow just as the sun sometimes does not shine."


Sorry but "(we are unlikely to see a global civilization powered by windmills)" is -your- words, not mine, talk about spin.

If you have to rewrite my sentence injecting your own words into mine in some pathetic attempt make a point, you might want to consider that you might possibly be misinterpreting the intent.

Which was simply that we are unlikely to see alternative energy take over our power production in the short term because it is more expensive than current fossil fuels, and more unreliable and will take decades to build out. As your linked paper itself states quite clearly. Do you deny these are real issues to overcome in increasing alternative energy production and infrastructure? Jacobson certainly doesn't.

Here are my exact words.... From the original post you started blathering on about.

"Alternatives are not cheap enough, nor reliable enough, nor plentiful enough to replace what we have yet. Though they are gaining ground it will take years of money and work to get there."

Did you miss the -yet- part?? That it is gaining ground but will take years of work and money? I fail to see what your blathering on about. Did you miss the part where that says we'll get there?

"Again, what does Jacobson say about that?
It is false, isn’t it?"

It isn't false at all, Jacobson lays it out better than I. As well as other issues and challenges that would have to be overcome. The whole paper is about the issues, the unreliability, the lack of grid, and possible ways to mitigate those issues. As of now none of those have been overcome, and overcoming them takes time and money and careful planning, and will slow development of alternative energy which is what the thread, and my point is about.

"Your conclusion about it taking some time was not disputed by me. In fact, it is the one thing I’ve given you credit for."

Surprising, it's seems it's also the only thing you actually understood, I couldn't care less about what you do or don't give credit for. You can't even keep straight who you are replying to.

The cost and time was the whole point I was making. Whatever else your twisted misinterpretation makes of the discussion or some incorrect assumption of some imaginary conclusion you believe I have reached past present or future is singularly in your own mind.

Your just way off base here. Telling another poster he's "full of shit" mistaking him for me, having to misquote me and add your own words to my sentences to attempt to make an argument.. Your getting pathetic here.

[kristopher]

47. I didn't misquote you.

I see that I did mistakenly respond to Irate but that was a subthread that isn't part the main discussion or of your posts 18 & 33 that I responded to.

The parenthetical additions were added for clarity. While brackets are usually used for interjecting clarifying statements, at DU they are a part of formatting code so we have to make do with parenthesis. I am quite sure that the parenthetical additions are an accurate representation of your meaning. If I'm wrong then explicitly state where why so that I can address the point.

I'm happy you are have come to be more realistic about the ability of renewables, but your original posts were not communicating the same thing you are now saying. Do I really need to post your words again?

[TxRider]

48. You didn't need to the first time

You were wrong from the start, your wrong now, and you just have too much ego to admit you jumped to a bad conclusion and made a fool of yourself.

Your "clarity" adds your words and intent to my statement that are not there.

You might want to check your knee before you let it jerk like that, going off half cocked on me in error and insulting another poster like that.

[kristopher]

49. Still trying to weasel out of it?

Here is the specific where I added info in parenthesis for clarity in your quote:
"The reason (we are unlikely to see a global civilization powered by windmills) is because it is expensive, and like it or not the wind sometimes does not blow just as the sun sometimes does not shine."

Are you saying that your statement "The reason is because it is expensive, and like it or not the wind sometimes does not blow just as the sun sometimes does not shine" was not a reference to GG's statement you were responding to which was essentially "we are unlikely to see a global civilization powered by windmills"?

You are yet again attempting to shift the discussion away from your words panning renewable energy's potential to solve our needs. I had thought you were just poorly informed, but your repeated attempts at glossing over your statements puts that in doubt and makes it look more like you did it with full knowledge that you were misrepresenting the truth.

Your list of problems as you presented them:

The reason (we are unlikely to see a global civilization powered by windmills) is because it is expensive, and like it or not the wind sometimes does not blow just as the sun sometimes does not shine.

What did Jacobson’s paper say about this?

We have the largest wind mill farms in the world here in Texas, but what happens on a 102 degree day when the wind stops blowing?

I can tell you what happens, the coal plants go up to max capacity.

As you comment below broadening “wind” to “alternatives” indicates, you are really arguing against renewables in general. So, is this relevant to the question of whether renewables can or cannot meet the needs of a modern culture?
I’d say no, it is nothing more than an example of the goal restated as a claim that this goal cannot be met. As such, it would only be true if we limited the alternative energy infrastructure to wind. As you can see from the Jacobson paper, the entire portfolio of energy sources required to meet our needs is broad – just as our current grid is composed of a variety of sources of generation.

What would happen if we shut down the coal plants and did away with them? We would sweat and our food would thaw, old folks would die to the heat, etc. etc. brownouts, blackouts, etc.

That is what would happen if we transitioned to renewables? Really?
I’m having trouble with your intent on this statement, are you saying that would happen with no alternative energy structure – if we just shut them down now?
Or are you arguing against all renewables by presenting a statement based on wind alone and then going on to extrapolate from that to a (totally different scenario) of a system built on all renewables?
That would be very confused (or perhaps dishonest) if that is what you were doing.

Alternatives are not cheap enough, nor reliable enough, nor plentiful enough to replace what we have yet. Though they are gaining ground it will take years of money and work to get there.

Actually they pretty much are. Although the price at this exact moment favors fossil fuels in most cases, it is largely a product of policy more than technology and the economics of the technologies.
It is a simple concept that is true:
As you say the current grid isn’t built to maximize renewable value. However, if policies indicate a change is inevitable, the inflow of capital into manufacturing will reduce the price very, very quickly.
They are more than reliable enough if we design the grid around their capabilities. I find this the silliest argument of the bunch. The real threat to a reliable energy supply is that we must depend on a vast complex system to recover energy stored in fossil fuels. When source depletion, market manipulation and geopolitical competition are factored in, the ONLY sure and reliable energy supply we have is renewables. All that is required is for us to harness them.

Now what I wrote in response to your remarks above is this:

That is a short sighted view.
It is like saying building a home us nice but it doesn't have a roof.
Self evidently true but a useless, stand alone, observation about the decision to build or the process of building.

I still this is valid.


From your next post:

We demand reliable electricity. Not brown outs or black outs.
Wind does not provide that reliability. Unless you have some tech that will ensure 24/7/365 wind speed.
Neither does solar for most places unless you guarantee cloud free skies.

Again, what does Jacobson say about that?
It is false, isn’t it?

So you still need the coal power plants, and to have them able to take on the load.

Do you see how you are, like I pointed out in my first response, jumping time frames to use a true statement in circumstances where it ceases to be true? The discussion is about the ability of renewables to meet our needs, not about an early phase of the transition.

Not to mention building out the grid to support a distributed system of wind and solar will take years to get financed, planned and built out.
It's not a matter of psychology, it's a matter of money and expectations.

I agree with this but only because it accurately describes a transition phase that is inevitable. There is no conceivable way to displace all fossil fuels at once. However narrow truth is being stretched out of its zone of applicability and being applied to the concept of a COMPLETE system based on renewables. It is therefore false.

Now, most if not all of that is in the Jacobson paper.

…After all, it's taken us over 100 years to build our current electrical grid and power generation. Your not going to replace that in a few years, it's not physically possible.

Your conclusion about it taking some time was not disputed by me. In fact, it is the one thing I’ve given you credit for. Again, the problem I’ve tried from the beginning to point out is that you are taking a set of criticisms that apply to low level penetration of renewables into the grid, and are deducing from that what the energy landscape will look like when ALL of those renewables are working in concert on a grid designed around their relative strengths and weaknesses.
That is a RIGHT WING presentation of “facts” that is designed by RIGHT WING THINK TANKS to convince those only passingly familiar with the topic of renewable energy that it won’t work.

Now, you have taken the time to find and embrace the one point that you were correct on and that I’d also noted; although the incomplete house might have been too oblique a reference, I admit. Yes it will take between 10-50 years, depending on the policy and the scope of the goal.
Just as your perspective has shifted across time to create erroneous conclusions, so to has your argument lacked consistent geographic focus. Be careful to segregate decisions about GLOBAL change and CHANGE IN THE U.S.; the two scenarios for rollout are not terribly similar.

May I suggest that your take a few days to read Jacobson’s paper and do some research at sources that specialize in renewable energy?

From Jacobson:

More well known to the public than the scientific studies, perhaps, are the “Repower America” plan of former Vice-President and recent Nobel-Peace Prize winner Al Gore, and a similar proposal by businessman T. Boone Pickens. Mr. Gore’s proposal calls for improvements in energy efficiency, expansion of renewable energy generation, modernization of the transmission grid, and the conversion of motor vehicles to electric power. The ultimate (and ambitious) goal is to provide America “with 100% clean electricity within 10 years,” which Mr. Gore proposes to achieve by increasing the use of wind and concentrated solar power and improving energy efficiency ( www.wecansolveit.org/pages/al_gore_a_generational_challenge_to_repower_america/ ). In Gore’s plan, solar PV, geothermal, and biomass electricity would grow only modestly, and nuclear power and hydroelectricity would not grow at all.

Mr. Pickens’ plan is to obtain up to 22% of U.S. electricity from wind, add solar capacity to that, improve the electric grid, increase energy efficiency, and use natural gas instead of oil as a transitional fuel ( www.pickensplan.com/theplan/ ).

For all of these studies and plans, two key issues are: how feasible is a large-scale transformation of the world’s energy systems, and how quickly can such a transformation be accomplished? We address these issues by examining the characteristics of the technologies, the availability of energy resources, supplies of critical materials, the reliability of the generation and transmission systems, and economic and socio-political factors. Here we do not evaluate the impacts of WWS systems on climate change, air pollution, energy use, or water use and water pollution because these impacts already have been thoroughly examined in the literature (e.g., Jacobson, 2009).


Of course, the large-scale transformation of the energy sector worldwide would not be the first large-scale project undertaken in U.S. or world history. During World War II, the U.S. transformed motor vehicle production facilities to produce over 300,000 aircraft, and the rest of the world was able to produce an additional 486,000 aircraft ( http://www.taphilo.com/history/WWII/Production-Figures-WWII.shtml ). In the U. S., production increased from about 2,000 units in 1939 to almost 100,000 units in 1944. In 1956, the U. S. began work on the Interstate Highway System, which now extends for 47,000 miles and is considered one of the largest public works project in history ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System ). And the iconic Apollo Program, widely considered one of the greatest human accomplishments of all time, put a man on the moon in less than 10 years – the time frame of Mr. Gore’s Repower America plan. Although these projects obviously differ in important economic, political, and technical ways from the project we discuss, they do suggest that the large scale of a complete transformation of the energy system is not, in itself, an insurmountable barrier.

[TxRider]

50. Not at all

I disagreed with GG's stance that psychology is preventing us moving forward with alternative energy, and proposed alternate reasons why we are moving more slowly than some think we should be.

Allow me to hand hold you through my post since your feeble mind cannot seem to follow...




I next presented typical problems, real problems you do not deny are true, that must be solved, in our progress to alternative energy. Maybe not stated as eloquently as a peer reviewed paper, but real issues to overcome nonetheless of cost and reliability as follows... Notice I do not limit my stance to wind, but speak of solar as well.

"The reason is because it is expensive, and like it or not the wind sometimes does not blow just as the sun sometimes does not shine.

We have the largest wind mill farms in the world here in Texas, but what happens on a 102 degree day when the wind stops blowing?

I can tell you what happens, the coal plants go up to max capacity.

What would happen if we shut down the coal plants and did away with them? We would sweat and our food would thaw, old folks would die to the heat, etc. etc. brownouts, blackouts, etc."





Then clearly I summarize at the end of my first post stating we will one day get to the point where alternatives replace what we have now. That for the reasons outlined above it will take decades to accomplish, because it cannot be done faster, not because of psychological reasons which is the point of the topic. As follows, in my words...

"Alternatives are not cheap enough, nor reliable enough, nor plentiful enough to replace what we have yet. Though they are gaining ground it will take years of money and work to get there."

This is pretty clear stuff, "to replace what we have yet." is obvious to those that can actually read and comprehend the written word of man to mean that we will get there at some point in the future.

This is also pretty clear stuff, "they are gaining ground it will take years of money and work to get there." Quantifies how long it will take in effort and funding to "get there", meaning to achieve 100% alternative energy.

That you seem to think I ever believed or supported the notion that it cannot ever be done is ridiculous on the face of the plain wording of my post. You were wrong, or you misread, and seem to be too self centered and egotistical to just admit it and let it go.


Now I made a few relevant points in there. Your position of "we are unlikely to see a global civilization powered by windmills" was not one of them, it was exactly what I was arguing against. To advance that you had to insert your words into mine to remake my statement into something it is not.

Is the dim light of realization starting to brighten in your mind yet?

I still have no idea what a house with no roof has to do with any of this.

[Nederland]

51. Don't waste your time

There are only two things you need to know before getting into a discussion with kristopher:

1) He is never wrong.
2) The Jacobsen report is gospel.

[TxRider]

52. ROFL

So maybe I should start a topic to dissect the validity of the Jacobson report?

It seems pretty solid on most points, but I see a few holes in it.

[kristopher]

55. So says our local climate change denier...

[kristopher]

53. This is why I love the internet.

Peoples's words are there for them to explain:

Your post:

TxRider Mon Dec-14-09 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
18. Ummm

"The reason we are unlikely to see a global civilization powered by windmills has nothing to do with whether such a thing is technically possible, and everything to do with whether the psychological framework that underpins our particular industrial civilization will permit that to happen."

The reason is because it is expensive, and like it or not the wind sometimes does not blow just as the sun sometimes does not shine.

We have the largest wind mill farms in the world here in Texas, but what happens on a 102 degree day when the wind stops blowing?

I can tell you what happens, the coal plants go up to max capacity.

What would happen if we shut down the coal plants and did away with them? We would sweat and our food would thaw, old folks would die to the heat, etc. etc. brownouts, blackouts, etc.

Alternatives are not cheap enough, nor reliable enough, nor plentiful enough to replace what we have yet. Though they are gaining ground it will take years of money and work to get there.

Now you say this:

Now I made a few relevant points in there. Your position of "we are unlikely to see a global civilization powered by windmills" was not one of them, it was exactly what I was arguing against. To advance that you had to insert your words into mine to remake my statement into something it is not.

Post you respond to:
"The reason we are unlikely to see a global civilization powered by windmills..."

Your reply:
"The reason is..."

How you can argue that /we are unlikely to see a global civilization powered by windmills/ isn't your meaning when you say "The reason is" is beyond belief.


You can squirm all you want but those are YOUR words.

[TxRider]

57. Of course they are my words

But they are also taken out of context of the entirety of the post.

In the context of the entire post, the position is quite clear and should have clarified any confusion on your part as to my intent. Or did you kneejerk before you even read that far?

Your line of attack stinks just as bad as deniers cherry picking out of context lines from the CRU e-mails does, and it's just as invalid.

Your are clearly jumping to a conclusion that is not warranted.

It would be one thing if the meaning was was not clarified in the end of the post, it would ambiguous as to my intent, but that isn't the case here as intent is clarified quite well.

[kristopher]

58. Bullshit.

Nothing is "clarified in the end of the post".

Your post:

TxRider Mon Dec-14-09 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
18. Ummm

"The reason we are unlikely to see a global civilization powered by windmills has nothing to do with whether such a thing is technically possible, and everything to do with whether the psychological framework that underpins our particular industrial civilization will permit that to happen."

The reason is because it is expensive, and like it or not the wind sometimes does not blow just as the sun sometimes does not shine.

We have the largest wind mill farms in the world here in Texas, but what happens on a 102 degree day when the wind stops blowing?

I can tell you what happens, the coal plants go up to max capacity.

What would happen if we shut down the coal plants and did away with them? We would sweat and our food would thaw, old folks would die to the heat, etc. etc. brownouts, blackouts, etc.

Alternatives are not cheap enough, nor reliable enough, nor plentiful enough to replace what we have yet. Though they are gaining ground it will take years of money and work to get there.

Now you say this:

Now I made a few relevant points in there. Your position of "we are unlikely to see a global civilization powered by windmills" was not one of them, it was exactly what I was arguing against. To advance that you had to insert your words into mine to remake my statement into something it is not.

Post you respond to:
"The reason we are unlikely to see a global civilization powered by windmills..."

Your reply:
"The reason is..."

How you can argue that /we are unlikely to see a global civilization powered by windmills/ isn't your meaning when you say "The reason is" is beyond belief.


You can squirm all you want but those are YOUR words and they make one of the favorite arguments that those opposing actions like cap and trade use.

Your words are not able to be spun.

[TxRider]

60. Your right.

My words are not able to be spun, as hard as you may try..

"Alternatives are not cheap enough, nor reliable enough, nor plentiful enough to replace what we have yet. Though they are gaining ground it will take years of money and work to get there."

Jacobson himself could have uttered them.

[kristopher]

61. No spin, just fact

TxRider Mon Dec-14-09 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
18. Ummm

"The reason we are unlikely to see a global civilization powered by windmills has nothing to do with whether such a thing is technically possible, and everything to do with whether the psychological framework that underpins our particular industrial civilization will permit that to happen."

The reason is because it is expensive, and like it or not the wind sometimes does not blow just as the sun sometimes does not shine.

We have the largest wind mill farms in the world here in Texas, but what happens on a 102 degree day when the wind stops blowing?

I can tell you what happens, the coal plants go up to max capacity.

What would happen if we shut down the coal plants and did away with them? We would sweat and our food would thaw, old folks would die to the heat, etc. etc. brownouts, blackouts, etc.

Alternatives are not cheap enough, nor reliable enough, nor plentiful enough to replace what we have yet. Though they are gaining ground it will take years of money and work to get there.

Now you say this:

Now I made a few relevant points in there. Your position of "we are unlikely to see a global civilization powered by windmills" was not one of them, it was exactly what I was arguing against. To advance that you had to insert your words into mine to remake my statement into something it is not.

Post you respond to:
"The reason we are unlikely to see a global civilization powered by windmills..."

Your reply:
"The reason is..."

How you can argue that /we are unlikely to see a global civilization powered by windmills/ isn't your meaning when you say "The reason is" is beyond belief.


You can squirm all you want but those are YOUR words and they make one of the favorite arguments that those opposing actions like cap and trade use.

Your words are not able to be spun.

[TxRider]

62. Wrong again.

I responded to...

"The reason we are unlikely to see a global civilization powered by windmills has nothing to do with whether such a thing is technically possible, and everything to do with whether the psychological framework that underpins our particular industrial civilization will permit that to happen."

I did not respond to

"we are unlikely to see a global civilization powered by windmills"

If you lack the intellectual acuity to distinguish the difference, there's not much I can do to help you.





I did not respond with "the reason is"..

I responded with, word for word...

"The reason is because it is expensive, and like it or not the wind sometimes does not blow just as the sun sometimes does not shine.

We have the largest wind mill farms in the world here in Texas, but what happens on a 102 degree day when the wind stops blowing?

I can tell you what happens, the coal plants go up to max capacity.

What would happen if we shut down the coal plants and did away with them? We would sweat and our food would thaw, old folks would die to the heat, etc. etc. brownouts, blackouts, etc.

Alternatives are not cheap enough, nor reliable enough, nor plentiful enough to replace what we have yet. Though they are gaining ground it will take years of money and work to get there."


Again when read in total clearly expresses my position that I expect alternatives to eventually replace what we have now as our energy source.

If you lack the mental acuity to comprehend that, again there's not much I can do to help you.



The only one squirming is you, trying to make some inane pathetic point from cherry picking a few words out of context both from the original quote I was responding to, and cherry picking just three words from my entire response to try to squirm some deluded misrepresentation from it.

The OP and others seem to have understood me quite clearly, and responded in an intelligent manner, pity your unable to do so. Seems to be a recurring theme with you.

[kristopher]

63. Very simple to settle

The reason for what?


You RESPONDED with "The reason is because it is expensive, and like it or not the wind sometimes does not blow just as the sun sometimes does not shine."


The statement you responded to is
"The reason we are unlikely to see a global civilization powered by windmills has nothing to do with whether such a thing is technically possible, and everything to do with whether the psychological framework that underpins our particular industrial civilization will permit that to happen."


As is normal in communication you omitted the clause that "the reason" is explaining.

Ex:
Statement 1: /The reason people hate to admit they are wrong is because they are prideful./

Statement 2: /No, the reason is because they are intent on spreading misinformation./

The response is not required to repeat the original clause that details what "the reason" is supporting.


The reason we are unlikely to see a global civilization powered by windmills is because it is expensive, and like it or not the wind sometimes does not blow just as the sun sometimes does not shine, is a precise rendering of the meaning of your communication.

[TxRider]

64. It's already settled.

Again...

"Alternatives are not cheap enough, nor reliable enough, nor plentiful enough to replace what we have yet. Though they are gaining ground it will take years of money and work to get there."

Your idol Jacobson could have uttered these words himself. Does that not state in no uncertain terms what my position is?


"As is normal in communication you omitted the clause that "the reason" is explaining."

Yes I did, "The reason is" is responding to "it has everything to do with whether the psychological framework that underpins our particular industrial civilization will permit that to happen." It is responding directly to his "reason is".

In order to make the argument that psychological reasons are not what is really holding us up, and to present other issues that are real and present not imagined that we are currently encountering today in building out the worlds largest wing power system which we have done in my state.

Reading that first sentence alone out of context of the rest of my post this may be ambiguous due to the way it was written I'll grant you. Reading my entire post though provides the clear context to it and clarifies my position fully.

It also should, for an intelligent person, clarify which part of the quote I was responding to, you seem to lack that mental acuity.

I intentionally ignored the assertion that it will never happen, I address that in my summary sentence as a separate statement opposing his "we will never see"" by stating I believe it will happen and we will see alternatives replace what we have now.

You claim I held a belief it would/could never happen. Does not the summary sentence of the post fly directly in the face of that assumption in a totally unambiguous manner? Yet you choose to limit your assertion to an ambiguous cherry pick of three words out of context.

You choose to apply your own intent to words that are ambiguous, to establish a belief you say I have which is in direct contradiction to completely unambiguous language in the rest of the post that states a clear position.

And you go on and on with it because your ego simply won't let you admit your incorrect kneejerk assumption that is plainly evident. You obviously went off half cocked without bothering to read my whole post, and you don't want admit it. Just like you went off on that other poster, without reading who he was, assuming he was me.


Should I have addressed both that I believe we will see it, and the reasons why it's slow in coming in the same first sentence? Maybe, but my position in the post that I believe it happen is quite clear.

[kristopher]

65. Are you really that dense?

Or do you just suffer from a total inability to speak and understand basic English?

The clause that /reason/ points to, the thing you are describing a reason for goes BETWEEN /reason/ and /is/.

What follows /is/ is the explanation of your point of disagreement.

The "yet" you so point to is nothing more than an escape hatch to avoid the finality of what would otherwise be an inappropriate absolute statement.

Like I said, if you have a different view than what you initially expressed, that is a good thing. But attempts to reinvent your original statements are dishonest hogwash - remember that this occurred over two posts. Your intent was CLEARLY to explain the reason why renewables are not helpful to our energy security and climate change goals by reciting a grab bag of Republican talking points.


Your list of problems as you presented them in those posts:

The reason (we are unlikely to see a global civilization powered by windmills) is because it is expensive, and like it or not the wind sometimes does not blow just as the sun sometimes does not shine.

What did Jacobson’s paper say about this?

We have the largest wind mill farms in the world here in Texas, but what happens on a 102 degree day when the wind stops blowing?

I can tell you what happens, the coal plants go up to max capacity.

As you comment below broadening “wind” to “alternatives” indicates, you are really arguing against renewables in general. So, is this relevant to the question of whether renewables can or cannot meet the needs of a modern culture?
I’d say no, it is nothing more than an example of the goal restated as a claim that this goal cannot be met. As such, it would only be true if we limited the alternative energy infrastructure to wind. As you can see from the Jacobson paper, the entire portfolio of energy sources required to meet our needs is broad – just as our current grid is composed of a variety of sources of generation.

What would happen if we shut down the coal plants and did away with them? We would sweat and our food would thaw, old folks would die to the heat, etc. etc. brownouts, blackouts, etc.

That is what would happen if we transitioned to renewables? Really?
I’m having trouble with your intent on this statement, are you saying that would happen with no alternative energy structure – if we just shut them down now?
Or are you arguing against all renewables by presenting a statement based on wind alone and then going on to extrapolate from that to a (totally different scenario) of a system built on all renewables?
That would be very confused (or perhaps dishonest) if that is what you were doing.

Alternatives are not cheap enough, nor reliable enough, nor plentiful enough to replace what we have yet. Though they are gaining ground it will take years of money and work to get there.

Actually they pretty much are. Although the price at this exact moment favors fossil fuels in most cases, it is largely a product of policy more than technology and the economics of the technologies.
It is a simple concept that is true:
As you say the current grid isn’t built to maximize renewable value. However, if policies indicate a change is inevitable, the inflow of capital into manufacturing will reduce the price very, very quickly.
They are more than reliable enough if we design the grid around their capabilities. I find this the silliest argument of the bunch. The real threat to a reliable energy supply is that we must depend on a vast complex system to recover energy stored in fossil fuels. When source depletion, market manipulation and geopolitical competition are factored in, the ONLY sure and reliable energy supply we have is renewables. All that is required is for us to harness them.

Now what I wrote in response to your remarks above is this:

That is a short sighted view.
It is like saying building a home us nice but it doesn't have a roof.
Self evidently true but a useless, stand alone, observation about the decision to build or the process of building.

I still see this as valid.


From your next post:

We demand reliable electricity. Not brown outs or black outs.
Wind does not provide that reliability. Unless you have some tech that will ensure 24/7/365 wind speed.
Neither does solar for most places unless you guarantee cloud free skies.

Again, what does Jacobson say about that?
It is false, isn’t it?

So you still need the coal power plants, and to have them able to take on the load.

Do you see how you are, like I pointed out in my first response, jumping time frames to use a true statement in circumstances where it ceases to be true? The discussion is about the ability of renewables to meet our needs, not about an early phase of the transition.

Not to mention building out the grid to support a distributed system of wind and solar will take years to get financed, planned and built out.
It's not a matter of psychology, it's a matter of money and expectations.

I agree with this but only because it accurately describes a transition phase that is inevitable. There is no conceivable way to displace all fossil fuels at once. However narrow truth is being stretched out of its zone of applicability and being applied to the concept of a COMPLETE system based on renewables. It is therefore false.

Now, most if not all of that is in the Jacobson paper.

…After all, it's taken us over 100 years to build our current electrical grid and power generation. Your not going to replace that in a few years, it's not physically possible.

Your conclusion about it taking some time was not disputed by me. In fact, it is the one thing I’ve given you credit for. Again, the problem I’ve tried from the beginning to point out is that you are taking a set of criticisms that apply to low level penetration of renewables into the grid, and are deducing from that what the energy landscape will look like when ALL of those renewables are working in concert on a grid designed around their relative strengths and weaknesses.
That is a RIGHT WING presentation of “facts” that is designed by RIGHT WING THINK TANKS to convince those only passingly familiar with the topic of renewable energy that it won’t work.

Now, you have taken the time to find and embrace the one point that you were correct on and that I’d also noted; although the incomplete house might have been too oblique a reference, I admit. Yes it will take between 10-50 years, depending on the policy and the scope of the goal.
Just as your perspective has shifted across time to create erroneous conclusions, so to has your argument lacked consistent geographic focus. Be careful to segregate decisions about GLOBAL change and CHANGE IN THE U.S.; the two scenarios for rollout are not terribly similar.

May I suggest that your take a few days to read Jacobson’s paper and do some research at sources that specialize in renewable energy?

From Jacobson:

More well known to the public than the scientific studies, perhaps, are the “Repower America” plan of former Vice-President and recent Nobel-Peace Prize winner Al Gore, and a similar proposal by businessman T. Boone Pickens. Mr. Gore’s proposal calls for improvements in energy efficiency, expansion of renewable energy generation, modernization of the transmission grid, and the conversion of motor vehicles to electric power. The ultimate (and ambitious) goal is to provide America “with 100% clean electricity within 10 years,” which Mr. Gore proposes to achieve by increasing the use of wind and concentrated solar power and improving energy efficiency ( www.wecansolveit.org/pages/al_gore_a_generational_challenge_to_repower_america/ ). In Gore’s plan, solar PV, geothermal, and biomass electricity would grow only modestly, and nuclear power and hydroelectricity would not grow at all.

Mr. Pickens’ plan is to obtain up to 22% of U.S. electricity from wind, add solar capacity to that, improve the electric grid, increase energy efficiency, and use natural gas instead of oil as a transitional fuel ( www.pickensplan.com/theplan/ ).

For all of these studies and plans, two key issues are: how feasible is a large-scale transformation of the world’s energy systems, and how quickly can such a transformation be accomplished? We address these issues by examining the characteristics of the technologies, the availability of energy resources, supplies of critical materials, the reliability of the generation and transmission systems, and economic and socio-political factors. Here we do not evaluate the impacts of WWS systems on climate change, air pollution, energy use, or water use and water pollution because these impacts already have been thoroughly examined in the literature (e.g., Jacobson, 2009).


Of course, the large-scale transformation of the energy sector worldwide would not be the first large-scale project undertaken in U.S. or world history. During World War II, the U.S. transformed motor vehicle production facilities to produce over 300,000 aircraft, and the rest of the world was able to produce an additional 486,000 aircraft ( http://www.taphilo.com/history/WWII/Production-Figures-WWII.shtml ). In the U. S., production increased from about 2,000 units in 1939 to almost 100,000 units in 1944. In 1956, the U. S. began work on the Interstate Highway System, which now extends for 47,000 miles and is considered one of the largest public works project in history ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System ). And the iconic Apollo Program, widely considered one of the greatest human accomplishments of all time, put a man on the moon in less than 10 years – the time frame of Mr. Gore’s Repower America plan. Although these projects obviously differ in important economic, political, and technical ways from the project we discuss, they do suggest that the large scale of a complete transformation of the energy system is not, in itself, an insurmountable barrier.

[TxRider]

66. Obviously you are...

Maybe I can make it simpler for your simple mind...

I responded to this...

"The reason we are unlikely to see a global civilization powered by windmills has nothing to do with whether such a thing is technically possible, and everything to do with whether the psychological framework that underpins our particular industrial civilization will permit that to happen."

I chose it because it was the shortest representation of the OP I could quote without quoting two pages of text.

It makes 2 statements.

#1) We are unlikely to see alternative energy replace fossil fuels

#2) The reasons are psychological.


I address #2) first and state that we in fact are progressing, and state the real reasons it is going slowly in opposition to the reason being psychological.

I then address #1) with my clear position that we will see alternatives take over, as the issues outlined in my response to #1 are overcome with hard work and money.

I did this in that order under the assumption the OP was frustrated at not not seeing more progress, and was trying to figure out why and proposing a reason, psychology. I do this by stating we are in fact progressing as fast as we realistically can, and state what is holding us back.

Then clearly stating that we would overcome those issues, and see alternative energy replace fossil fuel in time.

Only you seem to lack the mental capability to grasp this.


Answer this one question... Does the following state a clear position or not?

"Alternatives are not cheap enough, nor reliable enough, nor plentiful enough to replace what we have yet. Though they are gaining ground it will take years of money and work to get there."

It is that simple, your just being an jerk.

[kristopher]

67. aksed and answered

Or do you just suffer from a total inability to speak and understand basic English?

The clause that /reason/ points to, the thing you are describing a reason for goes BETWEEN /reason/ and /is/.

What follows /is/ is the explanation of your point of disagreement.

The "yet" you so point to is nothing more than an escape hatch to avoid the finality of what would otherwise be an inappropriate absolute statement.

Like I said, if you have a different view than what you initially expressed, that is a good thing. But attempts to reinvent your original statements are dishonest hogwash - remember that this occurred over two posts. Your intent was CLEARLY to explain the reason why renewables are not helpful to our energy security and climate change goals by reciting a grab bag of Republican talking points.


Your list of problems as you presented them in those posts:

The reason (we are unlikely to see a global civilization powered by windmills) is because it is expensive, and like it or not the wind sometimes does not blow just as the sun sometimes does not shine.

What did Jacobson’s paper say about this?

We have the largest wind mill farms in the world here in Texas, but what happens on a 102 degree day when the wind stops blowing?

I can tell you what happens, the coal plants go up to max capacity.

As you comment below broadening “wind” to “alternatives” indicates, you are really arguing against renewables in general. So, is this relevant to the question of whether renewables can or cannot meet the needs of a modern culture?
I’d say no, it is nothing more than an example of the goal restated as a claim that this goal cannot be met. As such, it would only be true if we limited the alternative energy infrastructure to wind. As you can see from the Jacobson paper, the entire portfolio of energy sources required to meet our needs is broad – just as our current grid is composed of a variety of sources of generation.

What would happen if we shut down the coal plants and did away with them? We would sweat and our food would thaw, old folks would die to the heat, etc. etc. brownouts, blackouts, etc.

That is what would happen if we transitioned to renewables? Really?
I’m having trouble with your intent on this statement, are you saying that would happen with no alternative energy structure – if we just shut them down now?
Or are you arguing against all renewables by presenting a statement based on wind alone and then going on to extrapolate from that to a (totally different scenario) of a system built on all renewables?
That would be very confused (or perhaps dishonest) if that is what you were doing.

Alternatives are not cheap enough, nor reliable enough, nor plentiful enough to replace what we have yet. Though they are gaining ground it will take years of money and work to get there.

Actually they pretty much are. Although the price at this exact moment favors fossil fuels in most cases, it is largely a product of policy more than technology and the economics of the technologies.
It is a simple concept that is true:
As you say the current grid isn’t built to maximize renewable value. However, if policies indicate a change is inevitable, the inflow of capital into manufacturing will reduce the price very, very quickly.
They are more than reliable enough if we design the grid around their capabilities. I find this the silliest argument of the bunch. The real threat to a reliable energy supply is that we must depend on a vast complex system to recover energy stored in fossil fuels. When source depletion, market manipulation and geopolitical competition are factored in, the ONLY sure and reliable energy supply we have is renewables. All that is required is for us to harness them.

Now what I wrote in response to your remarks above is this:

That is a short sighted view.
It is like saying building a home us nice but it doesn't have a roof.
Self evidently true but a useless, stand alone, observation about the decision to build or the process of building.

I still see this as valid.


From your next post:

We demand reliable electricity. Not brown outs or black outs.
Wind does not provide that reliability. Unless you have some tech that will ensure 24/7/365 wind speed.
Neither does solar for most places unless you guarantee cloud free skies.

Again, what does Jacobson say about that?
It is false, isn’t it?

So you still need the coal power plants, and to have them able to take on the load.

Do you see how you are, like I pointed out in my first response, jumping time frames to use a true statement in circumstances where it ceases to be true? The discussion is about the ability of renewables to meet our needs, not about an early phase of the transition.

Not to mention building out the grid to support a distributed system of wind and solar will take years to get financed, planned and built out.
It's not a matter of psychology, it's a matter of money and expectations.

I agree with this but only because it accurately describes a transition phase that is inevitable. There is no conceivable way to displace all fossil fuels at once. However narrow truth is being stretched out of its zone of applicability and being applied to the concept of a COMPLETE system based on renewables. It is therefore false.

Now, most if not all of that is in the Jacobson paper.

…After all, it's taken us over 100 years to build our current electrical grid and power generation. Your not going to replace that in a few years, it's not physically possible.

Your conclusion about it taking some time was not disputed by me. In fact, it is the one thing I’ve given you credit for. Again, the problem I’ve tried from the beginning to point out is that you are taking a set of criticisms that apply to low level penetration of renewables into the grid, and are deducing from that what the energy landscape will look like when ALL of those renewables are working in concert on a grid designed around their relative strengths and weaknesses.
That is a RIGHT WING presentation of “facts” that is designed by RIGHT WING THINK TANKS to convince those only passingly familiar with the topic of renewable energy that it won’t work.

Now, you have taken the time to find and embrace the one point that you were correct on and that I’d also noted; although the incomplete house might have been too oblique a reference, I admit. Yes it will take between 10-50 years, depending on the policy and the scope of the goal.
Just as your perspective has shifted across time to create erroneous conclusions, so to has your argument lacked consistent geographic focus. Be careful to segregate decisions about GLOBAL change and CHANGE IN THE U.S.; the two scenarios for rollout are not terribly similar.

May I suggest that your take a few days to read Jacobson’s paper and do some research at sources that specialize in renewable energy?

From Jacobson:

More well known to the public than the scientific studies, perhaps, are the “Repower America” plan of former Vice-President and recent Nobel-Peace Prize winner Al Gore, and a similar proposal by businessman T. Boone Pickens. Mr. Gore’s proposal calls for improvements in energy efficiency, expansion of renewable energy generation, modernization of the transmission grid, and the conversion of motor vehicles to electric power. The ultimate (and ambitious) goal is to provide America “with 100% clean electricity within 10 years,” which Mr. Gore proposes to achieve by increasing the use of wind and concentrated solar power and improving energy efficiency ( www.wecansolveit.org/pages/al_gore_a_generational_challenge_to_repower_america/ ). In Gore’s plan, solar PV, geothermal, and biomass electricity would grow only modestly, and nuclear power and hydroelectricity would not grow at all.

Mr. Pickens’ plan is to obtain up to 22% of U.S. electricity from wind, add solar capacity to that, improve the electric grid, increase energy efficiency, and use natural gas instead of oil as a transitional fuel ( www.pickensplan.com/theplan/ ).

For all of these studies and plans, two key issues are: how feasible is a large-scale transformation of the world’s energy systems, and how quickly can such a transformation be accomplished? We address these issues by examining the characteristics of the technologies, the availability of energy resources, supplies of critical materials, the reliability of the generation and transmission systems, and economic and socio-political factors. Here we do not evaluate the impacts of WWS systems on climate change, air pollution, energy use, or water use and water pollution because these impacts already have been thoroughly examined in the literature (e.g., Jacobson, 2009).


Of course, the large-scale transformation of the energy sector worldwide would not be the first large-scale project undertaken in U.S. or world history. During World War II, the U.S. transformed motor vehicle production facilities to produce over 300,000 aircraft, and the rest of the world was able to produce an additional 486,000 aircraft ( http://www.taphilo.com/history/WWII/Production-Figures-WWII.shtml ). In the U. S., production increased from about 2,000 units in 1939 to almost 100,000 units in 1944. In 1956, the U. S. began work on the Interstate Highway System, which now extends for 47,000 miles and is considered one of the largest public works project in history ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System ). And the iconic Apollo Program, widely considered one of the greatest human accomplishments of all time, put a man on the moon in less than 10 years – the time frame of Mr. Gore’s Repower America plan. Although these projects obviously differ in important economic, political, and technical ways from the project we discuss, they do suggest that the large scale of a complete transformation of the energy system is not, in itself, an insurmountable barrier.

[TxRider]

68. Your till squirming, it's simple

Answer the question... quit dodging.

Does the following state a clear position or not? Yes or no?

"Alternatives are not cheap enough, nor reliable enough, nor plentiful enough to replace what we have yet. Though they are gaining ground it will take years of money and work to get there."

It is that simple, your just being a jerk.


I am not making republican talking points, I am echoing the exact points laid out by your god Jacobson.

Points you completely fail to argue against.

[kristopher]

69. Asked and answered

Or do you just suffer from a total inability to speak and understand basic English?

The clause that /reason/ points to, the thing you are describing a reason for goes BETWEEN /reason/ and /is/.

What follows /is/ is the explanation of your point of disagreement.

The "yet" you so point to is nothing more than an escape hatch to avoid the finality of what would otherwise be an inappropriate absolute statement.

Like I said, if you have a different view than what you initially expressed, that is a good thing. But attempts to reinvent your original statements are dishonest hogwash - remember that this occurred over two posts. Your intent was CLEARLY to explain the reason why renewables are not helpful to our energy security and climate change goals by reciting a grab bag of Republican talking points.


Your list of problems as you presented them in those posts:

The reason (we are unlikely to see a global civilization powered by windmills) is because it is expensive, and like it or not the wind sometimes does not blow just as the sun sometimes does not shine.

What did Jacobson’s paper say about this?

We have the largest wind mill farms in the world here in Texas, but what happens on a 102 degree day when the wind stops blowing?

I can tell you what happens, the coal plants go up to max capacity.

As you comment below broadening “wind” to “alternatives” indicates, you are really arguing against renewables in general. So, is this relevant to the question of whether renewables can or cannot meet the needs of a modern culture?
I’d say no, it is nothing more than an example of the goal restated as a claim that this goal cannot be met. As such, it would only be true if we limited the alternative energy infrastructure to wind. As you can see from the Jacobson paper, the entire portfolio of energy sources required to meet our needs is broad – just as our current grid is composed of a variety of sources of generation.

What would happen if we shut down the coal plants and did away with them? We would sweat and our food would thaw, old folks would die to the heat, etc. etc. brownouts, blackouts, etc.

That is what would happen if we transitioned to renewables? Really?
I’m having trouble with your intent on this statement, are you saying that would happen with no alternative energy structure – if we just shut them down now?
Or are you arguing against all renewables by presenting a statement based on wind alone and then going on to extrapolate from that to a (totally different scenario) of a system built on all renewables?
That would be very confused (or perhaps dishonest) if that is what you were doing.

Alternatives are not cheap enough, nor reliable enough, nor plentiful enough to replace what we have yet. Though they are gaining ground it will take years of money and work to get there.

Actually they pretty much are. Although the price at this exact moment favors fossil fuels in most cases, it is largely a product of policy more than technology and the economics of the technologies.
It is a simple concept that is true:
As you say the current grid isn’t built to maximize renewable value. However, if policies indicate a change is inevitable, the inflow of capital into manufacturing will reduce the price very, very quickly.
They are more than reliable enough if we design the grid around their capabilities. I find this the silliest argument of the bunch. The real threat to a reliable energy supply is that we must depend on a vast complex system to recover energy stored in fossil fuels. When source depletion, market manipulation and geopolitical competition are factored in, the ONLY sure and reliable energy supply we have is renewables. All that is required is for us to harness them.

Now what I wrote in response to your remarks above is this:

That is a short sighted view.
It is like saying building a home us nice but it doesn't have a roof.
Self evidently true but a useless, stand alone, observation about the decision to build or the process of building.

I still see this as valid.


From your next post:

We demand reliable electricity. Not brown outs or black outs.
Wind does not provide that reliability. Unless you have some tech that will ensure 24/7/365 wind speed.
Neither does solar for most places unless you guarantee cloud free skies.

Again, what does Jacobson say about that?
It is false, isn’t it?

So you still need the coal power plants, and to have them able to take on the load.

Do you see how you are, like I pointed out in my first response, jumping time frames to use a true statement in circumstances where it ceases to be true? The discussion is about the ability of renewables to meet our needs, not about an early phase of the transition.

Not to mention building out the grid to support a distributed system of wind and solar will take years to get financed, planned and built out.
It's not a matter of psychology, it's a matter of money and expectations.

I agree with this but only because it accurately describes a transition phase that is inevitable. There is no conceivable way to displace all fossil fuels at once. However narrow truth is being stretched out of its zone of applicability and being applied to the concept of a COMPLETE system based on renewables. It is therefore false.

Now, most if not all of that is in the Jacobson paper.

…After all, it's taken us over 100 years to build our current electrical grid and power generation. Your not going to replace that in a few years, it's not physically possible.

Your conclusion about it taking some time was not disputed by me. In fact, it is the one thing I’ve given you credit for. Again, the problem I’ve tried from the beginning to point out is that you are taking a set of criticisms that apply to low level penetration of renewables into the grid, and are deducing from that what the energy landscape will look like when ALL of those renewables are working in concert on a grid designed around their relative strengths and weaknesses.
That is a RIGHT WING presentation of “facts” that is designed by RIGHT WING THINK TANKS to convince those only passingly familiar with the topic of renewable energy that it won’t work.

Now, you have taken the time to find and embrace the one point that you were correct on and that I’d also noted; although the incomplete house might have been too oblique a reference, I admit. Yes it will take between 10-50 years, depending on the policy and the scope of the goal.
Just as your perspective has shifted across time to create erroneous conclusions, so to has your argument lacked consistent geographic focus. Be careful to segregate decisions about GLOBAL change and CHANGE IN THE U.S.; the two scenarios for rollout are not terribly similar.

May I suggest that your take a few days to read Jacobson’s paper and do some research at sources that specialize in renewable energy?

From Jacobson:

More well known to the public than the scientific studies, perhaps, are the “Repower America” plan of former Vice-President and recent Nobel-Peace Prize winner Al Gore, and a similar proposal by businessman T. Boone Pickens. Mr. Gore’s proposal calls for improvements in energy efficiency, expansion of renewable energy generation, modernization of the transmission grid, and the conversion of motor vehicles to electric power. The ultimate (and ambitious) goal is to provide America “with 100% clean electricity within 10 years,” which Mr. Gore proposes to achieve by increasing the use of wind and concentrated solar power and improving energy efficiency ( www.wecansolveit.org/pages/al_gore_a_generational_challenge_to_repower_america/ ). In Gore’s plan, solar PV, geothermal, and biomass electricity would grow only modestly, and nuclear power and hydroelectricity would not grow at all.

Mr. Pickens’ plan is to obtain up to 22% of U.S. electricity from wind, add solar capacity to that, improve the electric grid, increase energy efficiency, and use natural gas instead of oil as a transitional fuel ( www.pickensplan.com/theplan/ ).

For all of these studies and plans, two key issues are: how feasible is a large-scale transformation of the world’s energy systems, and how quickly can such a transformation be accomplished? We address these issues by examining the characteristics of the technologies, the availability of energy resources, supplies of critical materials, the reliability of the generation and transmission systems, and economic and socio-political factors. Here we do not evaluate the impacts of WWS systems on climate change, air pollution, energy use, or water use and water pollution because these impacts already have been thoroughly examined in the literature (e.g., Jacobson, 2009).


Of course, the large-scale transformation of the energy sector worldwide would not be the first large-scale project undertaken in U.S. or world history. During World War II, the U.S. transformed motor vehicle production facilities to produce over 300,000 aircraft, and the rest of the world was able to produce an additional 486,000 aircraft ( http://www.taphilo.com/history/WWII/Production-Figures-WWII.shtml ). In the U. S., production increased from about 2,000 units in 1939 to almost 100,000 units in 1944. In 1956, the U. S. began work on the Interstate Highway System, which now extends for 47,000 miles and is considered one of the largest public works project in history ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System ). And the iconic Apollo Program, widely considered one of the greatest human accomplishments of all time, put a man on the moon in less than 10 years – the time frame of Mr. Gore’s Repower America plan. Although these projects obviously differ in important economic, political, and technical ways from the project we discuss, they do suggest that the large scale of a complete transformation of the energy system is not, in itself, an insurmountable barrier.

[TxRider]

70. 2 pages of reposted inane babble is not a yes, or a no.

So I'll take it as a plain refusal to answer.

[kristopher]

71. 2 pages looking at YOUR WORDS sentence by sentence.

Do you just suffer from a total inability to speak and understand basic English?

The clause that /reason/ points to, the thing you are describing a reason for goes BETWEEN /reason/ and /is/.

What follows /is/ is the explanation of your point of disagreement.

The "yet" you so point to is nothing more than an escape hatch to avoid the finality of what would otherwise be an inappropriate absolute statement.

Like I said, if you have a different view than what you initially expressed, that is a good thing. But attempts to reinvent your original statements are dishonest hogwash - remember that this occurred over two posts. Your intent was CLEARLY to explain the reason why renewables are not helpful to our energy security and climate change goals by reciting a grab bag of Republican talking points.


Your list of problems as you presented them in those posts:

The reason (we are unlikely to see a global civilization powered by windmills) is because it is expensive, and like it or not the wind sometimes does not blow just as the sun sometimes does not shine.

What did Jacobson’s paper say about this?

We have the largest wind mill farms in the world here in Texas, but what happens on a 102 degree day when the wind stops blowing?

I can tell you what happens, the coal plants go up to max capacity.

As you comment below broadening “wind” to “alternatives” indicates, you are really arguing against renewables in general. So, is this relevant to the question of whether renewables can or cannot meet the needs of a modern culture?
I’d say no, it is nothing more than an example of the goal restated as a claim that this goal cannot be met. As such, it would only be true if we limited the alternative energy infrastructure to wind. As you can see from the Jacobson paper, the entire portfolio of energy sources required to meet our needs is broad – just as our current grid is composed of a variety of sources of generation.

What would happen if we shut down the coal plants and did away with them? We would sweat and our food would thaw, old folks would die to the heat, etc. etc. brownouts, blackouts, etc.

That is what would happen if we transitioned to renewables? Really?
I’m having trouble with your intent on this statement, are you saying that would happen with no alternative energy structure – if we just shut them down now?
Or are you arguing against all renewables by presenting a statement based on wind alone and then going on to extrapolate from that to a (totally different scenario) of a system built on all renewables?
That would be very confused (or perhaps dishonest) if that is what you were doing.

Alternatives are not cheap enough, nor reliable enough, nor plentiful enough to replace what we have yet. Though they are gaining ground it will take years of money and work to get there.

Actually they pretty much are. Although the price at this exact moment favors fossil fuels in most cases, it is largely a product of policy more than technology and the economics of the technologies.
It is a simple concept that is true:
As you say the current grid isn’t built to maximize renewable value. However, if policies indicate a change is inevitable, the inflow of capital into manufacturing will reduce the price very, very quickly.
They are more than reliable enough if we design the grid around their capabilities. I find this the silliest argument of the bunch. The real threat to a reliable energy supply is that we must depend on a vast complex system to recover energy stored in fossil fuels. When source depletion, market manipulation and geopolitical competition are factored in, the ONLY sure and reliable energy supply we have is renewables. All that is required is for us to harness them.

Now what I wrote in response to your remarks above is this:

That is a short sighted view.
It is like saying building a home us nice but it doesn't have a roof.
Self evidently true but a useless, stand alone, observation about the decision to build or the process of building.

I still see this as valid.


From your next post:

We demand reliable electricity. Not brown outs or black outs.
Wind does not provide that reliability. Unless you have some tech that will ensure 24/7/365 wind speed.
Neither does solar for most places unless you guarantee cloud free skies.

Again, what does Jacobson say about that?
It is false, isn’t it?

So you still need the coal power plants, and to have them able to take on the load.

Do you see how you are, like I pointed out in my first response, jumping time frames to use a true statement in circumstances where it ceases to be true? The discussion is about the ability of renewables to meet our needs, not about an early phase of the transition.

Not to mention building out the grid to support a distributed system of wind and solar will take years to get financed, planned and built out.
It's not a matter of psychology, it's a matter of money and expectations.

I agree with this but only because it accurately describes a transition phase that is inevitable. There is no conceivable way to displace all fossil fuels at once. However narrow truth is being stretched out of its zone of applicability and being applied to the concept of a COMPLETE system based on renewables. It is therefore false.

Now, most if not all of that is in the Jacobson paper.

…After all, it's taken us over 100 years to build our current electrical grid and power generation. Your not going to replace that in a few years, it's not physically possible.

Your conclusion about it taking some time was not disputed by me. In fact, it is the one thing I’ve given you credit for. Again, the problem I’ve tried from the beginning to point out is that you are taking a set of criticisms that apply to low level penetration of renewables into the grid, and are deducing from that what the energy landscape will look like when ALL of those renewables are working in concert on a grid designed around their relative strengths and weaknesses.
That is a RIGHT WING presentation of “facts” that is designed by RIGHT WING THINK TANKS to convince those only passingly familiar with the topic of renewable energy that it won’t work.

Now, you have taken the time to find and embrace the one point that you were correct on and that I’d also noted; although the incomplete house might have been too oblique a reference, I admit. Yes it will take between 10-50 years, depending on the policy and the scope of the goal.
Just as your perspective has shifted across time to create erroneous conclusions, so to has your argument lacked consistent geographic focus. Be careful to segregate decisions about GLOBAL change and CHANGE IN THE U.S.; the two scenarios for rollout are not terribly similar.

May I suggest that your take a few days to read Jacobson’s paper and do some research at sources that specialize in renewable energy?

From Jacobson:

More well known to the public than the scientific studies, perhaps, are the “Repower America” plan of former Vice-President and recent Nobel-Peace Prize winner Al Gore, and a similar proposal by businessman T. Boone Pickens. Mr. Gore’s proposal calls for improvements in energy efficiency, expansion of renewable energy generation, modernization of the transmission grid, and the conversion of motor vehicles to electric power. The ultimate (and ambitious) goal is to provide America “with 100% clean electricity within 10 years,” which Mr. Gore proposes to achieve by increasing the use of wind and concentrated solar power and improving energy efficiency ( www.wecansolveit.org/pages/al_gore_a_generational_challenge_to_repower_america/ ). In Gore’s plan, solar PV, geothermal, and biomass electricity would grow only modestly, and nuclear power and hydroelectricity would not grow at all.

Mr. Pickens’ plan is to obtain up to 22% of U.S. electricity from wind, add solar capacity to that, improve the electric grid, increase energy efficiency, and use natural gas instead of oil as a transitional fuel ( www.pickensplan.com/theplan/ ).

For all of these studies and plans, two key issues are: how feasible is a large-scale transformation of the world’s energy systems, and how quickly can such a transformation be accomplished? We address these issues by examining the characteristics of the technologies, the availability of energy resources, supplies of critical materials, the reliability of the generation and transmission systems, and economic and socio-political factors. Here we do not evaluate the impacts of WWS systems on climate change, air pollution, energy use, or water use and water pollution because these impacts already have been thoroughly examined in the literature (e.g., Jacobson, 2009).


Of course, the large-scale transformation of the energy sector worldwide would not be the first large-scale project undertaken in U.S. or world history. During World War II, the U.S. transformed motor vehicle production facilities to produce over 300,000 aircraft, and the rest of the world was able to produce an additional 486,000 aircraft ( http://www.taphilo.com/history/WWII/Production-Figures-WWII.shtml ). In the U. S., production increased from about 2,000 units in 1939 to almost 100,000 units in 1944. In 1956, the U. S. began work on the Interstate Highway System, which now extends for 47,000 miles and is considered one of the largest public works project in history ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System ). And the iconic Apollo Program, widely considered one of the greatest human accomplishments of all time, put a man on the moon in less than 10 years – the time frame of Mr. Gore’s Repower America plan. Although these projects obviously differ in important economic, political, and technical ways from the project we discuss, they do suggest that the large scale of a complete transformation of the energy system is not, in itself, an insurmountable barrier.

[TxRider]

72. And still ducking the simple question

Does the following state a clear position or not? Yes or no?

"Alternatives are not cheap enough, nor reliable enough, nor plentiful enough to replace what we have yet. Though they are gaining ground it will take years of money and work to get there."

[kristopher]

73. Asked and answered

Do you just suffer from a total inability to speak and understand basic English?

The clause that /reason/ points to, the thing you are describing a reason for goes BETWEEN /reason/ and /is/.

What follows /is/ is the explanation of your point of disagreement.

The "yet" you so point to is nothing more than an escape hatch to avoid the finality of what would otherwise be an inappropriate absolute statement.

Like I said, if you have a different view than what you initially expressed, that is a good thing. But attempts to reinvent your original statements are dishonest hogwash - remember that this occurred over two posts. Your intent was CLEARLY to explain the reason why renewables are not helpful to our energy security and climate change goals by reciting a grab bag of Republican talking points.


Your list of problems as you presented them in those posts:

The reason (we are unlikely to see a global civilization powered by windmills) is because it is expensive, and like it or not the wind sometimes does not blow just as the sun sometimes does not shine.

What did Jacobson’s paper say about this?

We have the largest wind mill farms in the world here in Texas, but what happens on a 102 degree day when the wind stops blowing?

I can tell you what happens, the coal plants go up to max capacity.

As you comment below broadening “wind” to “alternatives” indicates, you are really arguing against renewables in general. So, is this relevant to the question of whether renewables can or cannot meet the needs of a modern culture?
I’d say no, it is nothing more than an example of the goal restated as a claim that this goal cannot be met. As such, it would only be true if we limited the alternative energy infrastructure to wind. As you can see from the Jacobson paper, the entire portfolio of energy sources required to meet our needs is broad – just as our current grid is composed of a variety of sources of generation.

What would happen if we shut down the coal plants and did away with them? We would sweat and our food would thaw, old folks would die to the heat, etc. etc. brownouts, blackouts, etc.

That is what would happen if we transitioned to renewables? Really?
I’m having trouble with your intent on this statement, are you saying that would happen with no alternative energy structure – if we just shut them down now?
Or are you arguing against all renewables by presenting a statement based on wind alone and then going on to extrapolate from that to a (totally different scenario) of a system built on all renewables?
That would be very confused (or perhaps dishonest) if that is what you were doing.

Alternatives are not cheap enough, nor reliable enough, nor plentiful enough to replace what we have yet. Though they are gaining ground it will take years of money and work to get there.

Actually they pretty much are. Although the price at this exact moment favors fossil fuels in most cases, it is largely a product of policy more than technology and the economics of the technologies.
It is a simple concept that is true:
As you say the current grid isn’t built to maximize renewable value. However, if policies indicate a change is inevitable, the inflow of capital into manufacturing will reduce the price very, very quickly.
They are more than reliable enough if we design the grid around their capabilities. I find this the silliest argument of the bunch. The real threat to a reliable energy supply is that we must depend on a vast complex system to recover energy stored in fossil fuels. When source depletion, market manipulation and geopolitical competition are factored in, the ONLY sure and reliable energy supply we have is renewables. All that is required is for us to harness them.

Now what I wrote in response to your remarks above is this:

That is a short sighted view.
It is like saying building a home us nice but it doesn't have a roof.
Self evidently true but a useless, stand alone, observation about the decision to build or the process of building.

I still see this as valid.


From your next post:

We demand reliable electricity. Not brown outs or black outs.
Wind does not provide that reliability. Unless you have some tech that will ensure 24/7/365 wind speed.
Neither does solar for most places unless you guarantee cloud free skies.

Again, what does Jacobson say about that?
It is false, isn’t it?

So you still need the coal power plants, and to have them able to take on the load.

Do you see how you are, like I pointed out in my first response, jumping time frames to use a true statement in circumstances where it ceases to be true? The discussion is about the ability of renewables to meet our needs, not about an early phase of the transition.

Not to mention building out the grid to support a distributed system of wind and solar will take years to get financed, planned and built out.
It's not a matter of psychology, it's a matter of money and expectations.

I agree with this but only because it accurately describes a transition phase that is inevitable. There is no conceivable way to displace all fossil fuels at once. However narrow truth is being stretched out of its zone of applicability and being applied to the concept of a COMPLETE system based on renewables. It is therefore false.

Now, most if not all of that is in the Jacobson paper.

…After all, it's taken us over 100 years to build our current electrical grid and power generation. Your not going to replace that in a few years, it's not physically possible.

Your conclusion about it taking some time was not disputed by me. In fact, it is the one thing I’ve given you credit for. Again, the problem I’ve tried from the beginning to point out is that you are taking a set of criticisms that apply to low level penetration of renewables into the grid, and are deducing from that what the energy landscape will look like when ALL of those renewables are working in concert on a grid designed around their relative strengths and weaknesses.
That is a RIGHT WING presentation of “facts” that is designed by RIGHT WING THINK TANKS to convince those only passingly familiar with the topic of renewable energy that it won’t work.

Now, you have taken the time to find and embrace the one point that you were correct on and that I’d also noted; although the incomplete house might have been too oblique a reference, I admit. Yes it will take between 10-50 years, depending on the policy and the scope of the goal.
Just as your perspective has shifted across time to create erroneous conclusions, so to has your argument lacked consistent geographic focus. Be careful to segregate decisions about GLOBAL change and CHANGE IN THE U.S.; the two scenarios for rollout are not terribly similar.

May I suggest that your take a few days to read Jacobson’s paper and do some research at sources that specialize in renewable energy?

From Jacobson:

More well known to the public than the scientific studies, perhaps, are the “Repower America” plan of former Vice-President and recent Nobel-Peace Prize winner Al Gore, and a similar proposal by businessman T. Boone Pickens. Mr. Gore’s proposal calls for improvements in energy efficiency, expansion of renewable energy generation, modernization of the transmission grid, and the conversion of motor vehicles to electric power. The ultimate (and ambitious) goal is to provide America “with 100% clean electricity within 10 years,” which Mr. Gore proposes to achieve by increasing the use of wind and concentrated solar power and improving energy efficiency ( www.wecansolveit.org/pages/al_gore_a_generational_challenge_to_repower_america/ ). In Gore’s plan, solar PV, geothermal, and biomass electricity would grow only modestly, and nuclear power and hydroelectricity would not grow at all.

Mr. Pickens’ plan is to obtain up to 22% of U.S. electricity from wind, add solar capacity to that, improve the electric grid, increase energy efficiency, and use natural gas instead of oil as a transitional fuel ( www.pickensplan.com/theplan/ ).

For all of these studies and plans, two key issues are: how feasible is a large-scale transformation of the world’s energy systems, and how quickly can such a transformation be accomplished? We address these issues by examining the characteristics of the technologies, the availability of energy resources, supplies of critical materials, the reliability of the generation and transmission systems, and economic and socio-political factors. Here we do not evaluate the impacts of WWS systems on climate change, air pollution, energy use, or water use and water pollution because these impacts already have been thoroughly examined in the literature (e.g., Jacobson, 2009).


Of course, the large-scale transformation of the energy sector worldwide would not be the first large-scale project undertaken in U.S. or world history. During World War II, the U.S. transformed motor vehicle production facilities to produce over 300,000 aircraft, and the rest of the world was able to produce an additional 486,000 aircraft ( http://www.taphilo.com/history/WWII/Production-Figures-WWII.shtml ). In the U. S., production increased from about 2,000 units in 1939 to almost 100,000 units in 1944. In 1956, the U. S. began work on the Interstate Highway System, which now extends for 47,000 miles and is considered one of the largest public works project in history ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System ). And the iconic Apollo Program, widely considered one of the greatest human accomplishments of all time, put a man on the moon in less than 10 years – the time frame of Mr. Gore’s Repower America plan. Although these projects obviously differ in important economic, political, and technical ways from the project we discuss, they do suggest that the large scale of a complete transformation of the energy system is not, in itself, an insurmountable barrier.

[GliderGuider]

74. TxRider, I see you have fallen afoul of Rule #1.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=221466&mesg_id=222536

Fun, isn't it?

FWIW, I understood you completely, and largely agree with you. I put up the OP not because I think it's THE answer to the question, "If we can do it, why aren't we doing it?" but because it's an aspect of the problem most people simply aren't aware of. There are many impediments standing in the way addressing not just climate and energy problems, but many other resource and structural problems as well. Some are technical, some political, some financial, some social and some spring from human nature. To propose solutions in any of our crisis domains without taking them all into account amounts to courting failure.

[TxRider]

75. Maybe I should foul rule #2 as well then

I believe I could poke a few reasonable holes in Jacobson's paper.

At least then Kris would be barking up the right tree in his arguments. And not just be reduced to posting non response babble.

I believe there is a psychological aspect, but I think it is more limited to short term price for the consumer. The average consumer is going to choose fossil fuel as long as it is cheaper.

Consumers already prefer renewables, but cost and ease outweighs renewable for most in day to day life. Fossil fuel is easy and cheap.

If we can present an alternative that is cheaper for the consumer, in terms of the price energy next month, I think all would easily choose it. To me that is the tipping point and bottom line.

Either through technology, or fiddling with tax and price structures, or waiting for fossil fuel to become more expensive through scarcity, or other means to arrive at that cost tipping point each have their own obstacles and good and bad points. Renewables are inevitable in the end though.

[GliderGuider]

76. "Renewables are inevitable in the end though."

Human beings have been warming themselves around wood fires for many tens of thousands of years. Basic renewable energy. It will be around long after this cycle of civilization has faded into obscurity.

[Nederland]

24. Reasons For Hope

I would agree that many of our current problems stem from defects or limitations of our brains, although with a slightly different take.

It was a transforming moment when evolution produced in human beings a non-biological means of passing on knowledge to the next generation. In all other species, the ability of a species to survive rests in the genes. Improvements in the ability to survive depended exclusively on the slow pace of evolution and the occurrence of random mutations that produced beneficial changes to the species. A species would only see its food supply expand to include leaves high above the ground if evolution gifted it with a longer neck or limbs more suited to climbing.

With humans, evolution produced an animal with a brain that was not only able to discover things that would improve its ability to survive, but also the ability to pass along those discoveries to the next generation. No longer limited to seeing improvements in the ability to survive come from the glacial pace of evolution, humans began to "progress" (defined by increasing the ability to survive and reproduce) at a rate that was orders of magnitudes faster than other species. The resulting progress also contained feedbacks that were exponential: discoveries that improved the ability of humans to survive resulted in a larger populations, which in turn increased the odds of more discoveries. The world of Archimedes contained only 100 million people, 67 times smaller than the human population today. As a result, we now see 67 times as many "Eureka" moments as we did back then. In fact we see even more than that because the existence of near instantaneous communications means that new discoveries are communicated to the world quickly, and discoveries that build upon them come at an ever faster rate as well. Unlike other species, human understanding of the world grows at an exponential pace.

What we are experiencing today is what I would call, tongue in cheek, "limits to growth". Probably by the 17th or 18th century, perhaps even earlier, the exponential discovery of new knowledge meant that a single individual could no longer claim to grasp the whole of human knowledge. Beyond this point in time the world would never see another Leonardo da Vinci--a person capable of making meaningful contributions to multiple disciplines. The inability to grasp the whole of human knowledge resulted in specialization, because new knowledge in any field could only be discovered by individuals who had a full grasp of the current knowledge of that field. Science, which was once split into a handful of categories like "chemistry", "physics", and "biology" is now split into hundreds of specialties. People spend half a lifetime to understand a tiny slice of reality just in the hopes that they can add a small piece of understanding to it.

You identified three reasons our evolutionary brains do not respond to the threat of AGW. I would add a fourth: we are not smart enough. The amount of time a person would have to spend to really understand all of the intricacies of climate change to the point where they could make an informed judgment is way beyond the general public's desire or ability. You yourself made this admission in a thread a few days ago. As a result, the debate about AGW devolves into a debate about authority, which is a lousy way of determining truth. The fact that a majority of scientists believe in AGW is irrelevant: truth is not decided by a majority vote. Even if it were, how would the public determine what "experts" to include in such a survey when they lack the understanding required to distinguish between all the people claiming to be "experts". The specialization of knowledge involved reminds me of a scene from "Good Will Hunting" where the brilliant Harvard professor says to genius janitor (Damon's character): "You are smarter than me, but there are only 6 people in the world that can tell the difference."

The reason for hope I alluded to in the title is that I belief this limitation will soon be resolved. Yes, our biological brains have reached their limits. Eventually the expansion of human knowledge will reach the point where no new discovers are possible simply because it will take more than a lifetime of learning to acquire the knowledge one needs to make a new discovery. Before that point is reached however, we will see the development of artificial intelligences with capabilities that far exceed biological ones. These intelligences will not only have perfect memory and computational abilities far beyond ours, they will also be absent the all too human quality of ego displayed in many of the Climategate emails. When we merge our own intelligences with these new ones, our inability to understand the science of AGW or any other field for that matter will be erased. Not only will we will have certainty regarding the correct path, and we will have the intelligence to develop solutions to the problem.

It is my belief that we shall see these advances well before we need them to survive.

[GliderGuider]

28. Best of luck with that.

I for one wouldn't like to live in a world devoid of human frailty.

[GliderGuider]

39. Here's another way of looking at these psychological effects.

It occurred to me this morning that I'm also talking about the influence of the id. The id in Freudian terms is the "part of the personality structure that contains the basic drives. The id acts as according to the 'pleasure principle', seeking to avoid pain or unpleasure aroused by increases in instinctual tension."

It's the psychological repository for our most basic drives, and will not take "no" for an answer. Our modern industrial culture devalues or even discourages the self-examination necessary to bring the workings of the id into consciousness. As a result, many of our decisions are driven by its unconscious, unrecognized and therefore unconstrained desires.

When we are faced with the possibility of large, uncomfortable changes (like the consequences of climate change and their threat to our safety and comfort) it is the pain-avoidance mechanisms of the id that come into play. Again, the unconscious nature of the reaction causes our ego to dress up the instinctual response in socially acceptable clothing.

The counterbalance to the id's uncontrolled libidinous urges is supposed to be provided by the inhibiting action of the superego (what we normally call our conscience, our "better nature"). When the threat to our personal well-being becomes sufficiently strong, however, the id (being primal and unconscious) tends to win out. As the threat of climate change becomes clearer we're seeing the id's influence appear in the increasingly frantic tone of denialism as well as beggar-thy-neighbour personal decisions and national policies.

Can the rational processes of the ego and the inhibitory influence of the superego combine to defeat the self-centered desires of the id in this crucial arena? They won't if we don't realize how we're being driven by our psychology.

[kristopher]

45. The psychological component

Would be part of the superstructure. You might consider whether a broader view could enhance your grasp of the relative importance of variables.


Superstructure

Structure

Infrastructure
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/cultural/anthropology/Harris.html

[TxRider]

54. To me it is much simpler

It goes along the lines of a parent preffering spending his money on food for his kid, or new sneakers, or even a new flat screen over paying a higher utility bill next month, or higher taxes next year.

When fossil fuel gets more expensive, and alternative energy is the immediate and obvious choice for a lower utility bill next month, they will choose it en masse.

Those wishing to advance alternative energy are challenged to create the situation where alternative energy is available and cheaper than fossil fuel. Create the situation where the choice is obvious and effect on the next utility bill clear.

[kristopher]

56. Simple explanations for simple people

Ask WHY the current price structure exists and you'll be making progress.

[TxRider]

59. You just don't get it.

I know why the current price structure exists. Why is irrelevant though in this circumstance.

The Joe public going to buy the kids shoes isn't concerned with you or your moral imperatives, or why the price structure is what it is, or whether global warming is real, or even who the president is. Joe citizen doesn't even vote for the most part. they are concerned with this months paycheck covering this months bills, and having a few nice things around a house they can make the mortgage payments on. Present him with a choice of cheaper bill next month using alternative energy and the battle is won. Tell him to choose alternative energy and suck up a higher bill next month and your pushing a boulder up a mountain.


Why is only an issue to those advancing alternative energy. And it is only useful to the extent it be understood and used in the struggle to present Joe citizen with a cheaper bill at the end of the month if he chooses alternative energy.

Why only matters to those who have to create the situation where Joe is presented with that choice.

The tipping point for alternative energy is when it's a)available to all the joe pubics out there and b) Going to save Joe public money over fossil based energy in the short term, like this month or next month.

Creating that situation can be done in any number of ways, but it needs to be done.