can someone please tell me why so many people use the all or nothing approach???

[LSK]

I keep seeing a pattern here. Someone will discuss wind or electric cars or ethanol or solar or nuclear and you will immediately have people saying "that will not solve the problem, it cannot replace everything".

Well nobody is saying that any given solution is a replacement for everything. However, the sum total of all solutions can get us off oil. One thing we can all agree on is that peak oil is near and carbon based energy forms have go to go.

Imagine a future such as this:

Your home has solar panels and wind generators on the roof. They keep the batteries charged at night. For those cloudy windless days, the home might have to use some energy powered from the local Nuclear power plant. Maybe you have a geo-pond that helps with your heating in the winter. Your car plugs in at night and you drive entirely on electric for 20 mile commute to the office. You run out to the store after work (10 miles) and then come home (20 more miles). 50 miles in one day and that is well within the range of batteries today. Maybe you have a hybrid electric/biodiesel minivan for weekend trips. Foods and goods are transported on biodiesel or E85 trucks.

You see, one technology does not have to replace everything. They can all COMBINE to replace our oil driven lifestyle.

If a technology isnt mature yet, why trash it? Why not ask, what can make this work?

[Warpy]

1. Well, I'd suggest a better storage method

like using surplus power for electrolysis during the day and using the hydrogen and oxygen to power a fuel cell in the back yard at night.

Batteries are cumbersome, have a relatively short life, and present disposal problems.

[LSK]

5. batteries, fuel cells, whatever holds electricity

Im open to whatever solves the problem.

[kestrel91316]

17. Flywheels actuall exist, too, I hear.

[Strelnikov_]

29. Not Really

Why A Hydrogen Economy Doesn't Make Sense
http://www.energybulletin.net/24093.html

In a recent study, fuel cell expert Ulf Bossel explains that a hydrogen economy is a wasteful economy. The large amount of energy required to isolate hydrogen from natural compounds (water, natural gas, biomass), package the light gas by compression or liquefaction, transfer the energy carrier to the user, plus the energy lost when it is converted to useful electricity with fuel cells, leaves around 25% for practical use — an unacceptable value to run an economy in a sustainable future. Only niche applications like submarines and spacecraft might use hydrogen.

. . .

Economically, the wasteful hydrogen process translates to electricity from hydrogen and fuel cells costing at least four times as much as electricity from the grid. In fact, electricity would be much more efficiently used if it were sent directly to the appliances instead. If the original electricity could be directly supplied by wires, as much as 90% could be used in applications.




Carrying the Energy Future
Comparing Hydrogen and Electricity for Transmission, Storage and Transportation
Patrick Mazza and Roel Hammerschlag
June 2004

http://www.ilea.org/articles/CEF.html

http://www.ilea.org/downloads/MazzaHammerschlag.pdf (.pdf)

Advanced EVs gain substantially more useful work than FCVs with the same amount of electrical energy. Using calculations from remote and localized electrolysis scenarios reported above, 38-54% of original source energy emerges from a vehicle fuel cell to propel the vehicle. By comparison, advanced batteries operate at cycle efficiencies of 87% or better. The remainder of the electric energy brought to the battery is lost as heat during charging or through self-discharge when the vehicle is allowed to stand unused for long periods of time. Assuming losses of 8% of the original electricity between generation and delivery to the vehicle, 80% of original source energy emerges from the battery. Fuel cells and batteries feed functionally identical electric drive trains, so the 80% battery cycle efficiency and 38-54% fuel cell efficiency are directly comparable.

. . .

Though the drive trains of FCVs and EVs can be nearly identical, EVs will suffer an efficiency penalty during acceleration because the batteries are heavier than the hydrogen fuel tanks. Direct modeling of EV drive train efficiency shows that this penalty is probably much less than detractors of EVs like to postulate. For instance Delucchi & Lipman calculate that a 480-kilometer EV weighing 1,700 kg (of which 510 kg are due to the battery) specified to accelerate from 0 to 60 in 9.3 seconds, still handily achieves more than seven times the fuel-to-kilometers efficiency of a gasoline car with equivalent performance. Delucchi, Mark, and Timothy Lipman. "An Analysis of the Retail and Lifecycle Cost of Battery-Powered Electric Vehicles." Transportation Research Part D 6 (2001): 371-404.

. . .

The EV’s clear, current advantage over the FCV is that the EV can be brought to market immediately. Even today's limited-production EVs are already capable of meeting most daily driving needs. Solectria’s Force, having a curb weight of only 1,100 kilograms with nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries is specified with a range of 140-160 kilometers. The RAV4 EV with NiMH batteries is specified at 200 kilometers. Nissan’s Altra EV, using lithium ion batteries, claims 190 kilometers. Brooks compares a Ford Focus FCV with a concept EV based on an altered Toyota Prius, powered purely by Li-ion batteries. The Focus has 320-kilometers range and a curb weight of 1,600 kg, the Prius 220-320 kilometers with a curb weight of 1,300 kg. Refueling the Focus requires the equivalent of 860 MJ, the Prius 140 MJ. Adding batteries to the Prius to bring its weight to that of the Focus would raise the driving range to 640 kilometers.

. . .

EVs can offer twice the useful work from the same electrical energy as ReH2-powered FCVs. A fleet of 10,000 FCVs might consume between 250 and 360 TJ of electricity each year. The same fleet of battery electric cars would consume 180 TJ. Advanced battery technologies hold solid potential to substantially overcome range limitations that have held back EV acceptance. PHEVs offer an option that merges the best of EVs, including very high efficiency, with the unlimited ranges and rapid fueling time of HEVs.

[Warpy]

33. Your article doesn't mention SOLAR energy as

energy for electrolysis.

I saw a working model for this system featured on PBS last fall. It featured a very small house with a bank of solar panels on the ground powering the house AND lysing water into hydrogen and oxygen. A fuel cell setup in back of the house powered the house at night.

It's a closed system and it works.

People who can think only in terms of fossil fuels providing energy for electrolysis are limiting themselves severely and not being quite honest about the possibilities for future energy needs.

[Strelnikov_]

36. “Ultimately, Hydrogen Has To Be Made From Renewable Electricity By Electrolysis"

Seems they are thinking about non-fossil sources to me.

I have done the due diligence, and in my opinion, absent new revelations/developments:

A) Fuel cells require a breakthrough (re: fusion, like maybe never) before they will be a viable mass consumer product.

B) In a renewable energy future, efficiency is key, and direct/battery electric appears to be the most efficient system. Hydrogen as an energy carrier is at best half as efficient as battery electric.

C) Battery electric vehicles are feasible today. Within 15 years, the overwhelming majority of personal transportation could be electric, reducing liquid fuels (petroleum) demand by 40%. Plug-in hybrids can bridge the gap in range until further engineering advances in battery technology mitigate the range problems with EV's.

D) Government mandate is required to force long haul commodity transport from the current truck paradigm back to rail through a 15 year program, with electrification of as much of the rail system as is feasibile as a goal.

E) With unloading of personal vehicles and long haul freight into the electron economy, the quantity of domestically produced liquid biofuels (diesel, ethanol) should be adequate for transportation applications that cannot be readily electrified.


Then we can start working on the natural gas crises.


Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation and Risk Management.
Hirsch, Bezdek, Wendling, February 2005

www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/The_Hirsch_Report_Proj_Cens.pdf (.pdf)

. . .

The Department of Energy is currently conducting a high profile program aimed at developing a “hydrogen economy.” DOE’s primary emphasis is on hydrogen for light duty vehicle application (automobiles and light duty trucks). Recently, the National Research Council (NRC) completed a study that included an evaluation of the technical, economic and societal challenges associated with the development of a hydrogen economy. (National Research Council. The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers and R & D Needs. National Academies Press. 2004.) That study is the basis for the following highlights.

A lynchpin of the current DOE hydrogen program is fuel cells. In order for fuel cells to compete with existing petroleum-based internal combustion engines, particularly for light duty vehicles, the NRC concluded that fuel cells must improve by 1) a factor of 10-20 in cost, 2) a factor of five in lifetime, and 3) roughly a factor of two in efficiency. The NRC did not believe that such improvements could be achieved by technology development alone; instead, new concepts (breakthroughs) will be required. In other words, today’s technologies do not appear practically viable. Because of the need for unpredictable inventions in fuel cells, as well as viable means for on-board hydrogen storage, the introduction of commercial hydrogen vehicles cannot be predicted.

. . .

In the 1990s electric automobiles were introduced to the market, spurred by a California clean vehicle requirement. The effort was a failure because existing batteries did not provide the vehicle range and performance that customers demanded. In the future, electricity storage may improve enough to win consumer acceptance of electric automobiles. In addition, extremely high gasoline prices may cause some consumers to find electric automobiles more acceptable, especially for around-town use. Such a shift in public preferences is unpredictable, so electric vehicles cannot now be projected as a significant offset to future gasoline use.

[GliderGuider]

37. "Then we can start working on the natural gas crises."

Have you sen this graph yet? It ought to scare the crap out of any North American who looks at it.



I used to think that Peak Oil was the boogeyman. I now think maybe Peak Gas is going to hit first and harder. As a Canadian, I do not look forward to winters without natural gas. An energy bank in Alberta is predicting a 10% decline in Canada's NG exports next year, driven by declining production and rising demand from the tar sands.

Somebody better come up with that magic bullet right smartly...

[Strelnikov_]

38. Yes, I Probably Misspoke. Barring Geopolitics, The Natural Gas Crises

will probably be the first one to hit.

I saw that graph when you put it up a few weeks ago, and it is troubling.


Thing is, we do have a bit of a 'magic bullet' for natural gas, and that is A) ground-source geothermal for heating/cooling, B) distributed solar electric (along with A) to mitigate demand for summer peaking power. Magic bullets that need leadership to effect a WWII-style transformation. Oh well, I did express some optimism, didn't I?

Don't see much in the press about how Russia recently did a FU on providing LNG to North America. Once the Maximum Leader's legions get done crusading, I figure any LNG possibilities from the Middle East will also be kaput. LNG seems to me to be a really, really dumb idea anyway, considering we do have alternatives.


You know, though, is any of it really going to matter? The direction things seem to be going in the Middle East, it is probably a 50/50 chance that the world loses access to these resources in the next five years, throwing the developed world into cardiac arrest. In other words, it's kind of hard to change your habits and get in shape after you died of complications from your first heart attack (then again, maybe '73 was the first, and '79 the 2nd, making US energy policy Dick Cheney).

. . .

I am sure you have seen this already. Really draws together the power plays being made. The recommendations and conclusions are along the lines of what many of us have talked about.

Bottom line, unless we see strong/effective leadership emerge in the near future, along with a complete change in course, we will be seeing a second great depression shortly.

Hysteria Over Iran and a New Cold War with Russia
William Clark
http://www.petrodollarwarfare.com/PDFs/Hysteria_Over_Iran_and_a_New_Cold_War_with_Russia.pdf

Shorter version:
http://www.energybulletin.net/24172.html

[Warpy]

48. Again, they're talking about trucks and I'm talking about homes

Quite possibly, since fuel cells are only efficient when they're large and run hot, the fuel cell storage will be a communal one from block to block or neighborhood to neighborhood. I don't see them as viable for transport in either cars or big rigs. I do see them run by electric companies who charge set fees for upkeep plus surcharges for "energy debt" for people who use more than they produce.

The day of long distance passenger vehicles is going to be over and mass transit by rail is going to have to take over. Fuel cells may be efficient in something as large as a railroad engine, but even that is doubtful. I do think we may see biofuels such as hemp oil and corn alcohols being used for both personal and long distance transport, but that's just a wild guess.

Fuel cell technology is here and now, as is electrolysis via surplus solar energy from home use. People who think fuel cells will ever be viable in personal transportation are dreaming.

My own short distance transport these days is an electric moped, but even they present the problem of battery life and disposal.

[Porcupine]

51. I hope you're not holding your breath.

The OP points out that there are invariably posts following some new niche solution to a power production or conservation problem that detract from it. The first post in reply is a demand for a hydrogen economy.

As has been pointed out many times here before:We have no way of building the infrastucture for a hydrogen economy. It's mythical. The technoloy DOES NOT EXIST!!! We have no political will to build a nuclear economy. We have no science that supports a "free energy" anything.

We have solutions that would allow us to economically build electric cars, biodiesel truck transport, electric trains and trollys. We can radically improve the energy efficiency of existing buildings. We can produce solar and wind powered electricity with reasonable cost penalties. None of this requires miracle breakthroughs or paving Nevada with solar panels and Arizona with algae ponds for biodiesel.

We could actually get real and start producing the solution.

[Deep13]

2. Makes sense to me.

Guess I was assuming that there is no one single answer. What I find frustrating is that no one seems willing to look at the real cause of energy needs: the fact that we are energy gluttons.

[kestrel91316]

19. People have apparently forgotten about the REDUCE part of

reduce, reuse, recycle.

[pnwmom]

3. Because black and white thinking is so much easier.

And it excuses lots of laziness.

[LSK]

6. sometimes it makes me want to scream

[Fovea]

4. The magic bullet

Oil was pretty much it.
They are looking for another substance to replace it.
Instead, they need to look at all the things it does and find hundreds of ways to replace petroleum.

You forgot to mention that one alternative is mass transit via rail. Mass transit coupled with light duty low environental impact vehicles such as bikes and trikes for the terminal mile or two will be an important part of America's future, if America is to have a future.

[GliderGuider]

7. Speaking as someone who is on the pessimistic side

My argument is a little more subtle than "all or nothing". I maintain that as oil depletes and the world warms we must and will use every technology available to us to combat the disruptions that will occur. However, we should also be prepared for the possibility that all the replacement technologies available today and in the foreseeable future (say the next 30 years) may not be enough to stave off serious problems for human civilization as a whole.

Oil has been the magic bullet for humanity. It has allowed us to develop a global civilization that is more complex, productive and interconnected than any in history. To expand our civilization takes energy. Producing that energy has a cost, which itself is best measured in terms of energy. The term for this measurement is Energy Return on Energy Invested. The multifaceted glory of oil is that it is very energy dense, is very easily transported, is easy to utilize, but most of all, it has a very high EROEI. We get back the energy of 40 barrels of oil for every barrel we use in the process of extracting and transporting it.

This one simple factor makes finding civilization-wide replacements for oil very difficult. If you replace a barrel of oil with its 40:1 EROEI with another process that has an EROEI of 4:1, you lose almost one quarter of your energy in the production process. If the replacement process has an EROEI of 1.5:1 (as is the case with most biofuels and even with oil from tar sands) you lose almost two thirds of your net energy. My examination of the replacements available for oil indicates that we will lose about a third of our net energy by doing so. This directly impacts our ability as a global civilization to maintain our growth, or even to maintain the status quo.

We will do everything possible to keep things running. Nobody is going to just sit back, shut off the lights and wait to die. But it doesn't help to have unrealistic expectations about the potential for replacing oil with higher energy-cost technology.

There is one other aspect to this crisis that we should all be more aware of. There are insights coming out of the field of ecology that have much to say about the situation our civilization is in. As a system gets more complex. productive and interconnected, it loses resilience. In a complex system, the parts of the system become strongly interdependent. A problem in one part can have ripple effects out into other pats of the system. In a resilient system this isn't a problem, because the system has mechanisms to contain the spread of problems. As a system loses resilience, these mechanisms become less able to cope with disruptions, and the system as a whole becomes more brittle. A problem in one part can no longer be contained, and as the mechanisms for coping with it break down the problem can cascade through the system.

This is the real dilemma that industrial civilization faces. Its very success has contained within it the seeds of its own destruction, as our increased connectivity (mainly due to cheap oil-fueled transportation) has made parts of our civilization on opposite sides of the globe intimately dependent on each other for their mutual survival. The problem this poses will not be fixed by a simple substitution of technology, because the root of the problem is woven into the very fabric of our civilization. If the linkages start to snap, we run a great risk of collapses of various kinds cascading around the globe causing unforeseen problems.

By substituting other sources of energy for oil (and, if we have any common sense at all, for coal as well) we may be able to stave off the inevitable contraction and reduction of complexity that normally accompany such ecological cycles of growth, overshoot and decline. We may be able to soften the impact as the decline begins. Nothing I've seen, however, tells me that we can escape the cycle permanently.

One thing I think we should do instead of trying to forestall the inevitable, is to put as much effort as we can spare into figuring out how to make sure that a truly sustainable civilization, with a firm grasp of the interconnectedness of Man and Nature, emerges from the far side of the coming decline. While it may be too late to prevent the coming dis-integration, we have a golden opportunity over the next twenty years to plan and build for a long term future on the other side. We still have the resources, communications and knowledge to do it, and some of our work should be directed toward this end. That may be the best thing we can leave our children, and their children's children's children.

[garybeck]

9. about your pessimistic side...

I wish you would just be objective and look at the facts. there is no question that renewable energy can supply ALL our power. no one disputes this, except those who haven't look at the facts. forget about optimism and pessimism. Just do a little research into the facts.

[GliderGuider]

10. My work with large systems has taught me one thing

The probability of introducing massive change into a brittle, highly interconnected system without crashing it are extremely low.

Worse, by substituting oil with a large array of renewable energy sources, alternative technologies and processes, we will be increasing the complexity and interdependence of our civilization and its processes, just at a time when we can least afford that. The problem is much more complicated than just having "enough energy". Our civilization was build to run on oil. Trying to re-jig all our processes to run on something else will be like pouring vegetable oil into your car's gas tank - the energy is there, but the system isn't designed to use it, and breakdowns will occur.

[garybeck]

11. it can be done in 10 years. there's a plan and it works.

i guess your statement was correct - you are a pessimist.

if you want to look into the facts and see how it could actually work check out http://apolloalliance.org

now about your statements:

"the energy is there, but the system isn't designed to use it, and breakdowns will occur"
this only shows you have not done any real research. the system is not designed to use any type of power. any type of energy production plant can feed into the existing system.

and

"by substituting oil with a large array of renewable energy sources, alternative technologies and processes, we will be increasing the complexity and interdependence of our civilization and its processes"
solar energy would not replace oil. solar energy would work on the electric grid, which does not use oil in signifant quantities. oil is mainly used for transportation, and this can be replaced with biofuels. the solutions do not add complexity. and regardless, if people didn't do things just because they were complex we wouldn't be communicating on the internet today.


peace

[GliderGuider]

13. We're talking at different levels here.

I've been where you are. Three subsequent years of broad investigation has convinced me that we will try our damnedest to cope with the crisis, and as usual that will improve things in some places and make them worse in others. Just because we can create complexity doesn't mean we can manage it.

[garybeck]

14. You've been where I am? I don't think so.

I've been doing this for a lot longer than 3 years my friend. 16 years ago when you had never heard of solar energy I was designing systems, thousands of them, that are in place and working all over the world today. I have written articles and books, taught classes, workshops and retreats, repaired systems, and installed systems. I have a 35 foot bus and a station wagon that run on vegetable oil. I've powered just about anything you can think of on renewable energy - including houses, movies and concerts, cars, irrigation systems, offices, compressors. I've lived in a passive solar house that required no energy for heating or cooling.

You've been where I am?

[GliderGuider]

23. You're right, I haven't done that kind of work with renewables.

I meant that more along the lines of having an optimistic assumption that a solution set to the problems of oil depletion and global warming exists within the framework of our current global lifestyle and growth imperative.

The more I've looked at the details, the less that assumption seems justified. Renewables will play a major role in alleviating local difficulties, in societies that can afford them. I no longer believe that they can scale to the point that we can run our civilization on them, at least not in civilization's current form. The reasons for this lack of scalability include the quality of the energy (e.g. the variability of wind and solar), competition for the substrate in the case of biofuels, high capital costs and the low EROEI of all the systems I've seen so far. Add to that the fact that what we have with Peak Oil is a transportation fuel problem, which at this moment electricity is poorly positioned to mitigate.

I admire your commitment to the cause of renewables. I simply can't share your optimism.

Tell me why you think nuclear power is so bad?

[JohnWxy]

26. Here you go Rip, some links:

Converting as little as 20 percent of potential wind energy to electricity could satisfy the entirety of the world's energy demands

VRB Power

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=76518&mesg_id=76581


Renewable fuels info (some research by legitimate institutions):

REnewable fuels can replace (given current technology) about 1/3rd of the gasoline demand. NOte that innovations to processes and ICEs (MIT (Direct Injection Engine - 30% better fuel economy), Iowa State Univ.(ultra-sound process=30% increase in alcohol yield), Monster Cane - 3X more ethanol, more drought resistant),Monster Cane) indicate this can be improved on to at least 48% of total gasoline supply.

Wind power potential: Converting as little as 20 percent of potential wind energy to electricity could satisfy the entirety of the world's energy demands

JohnW

[GliderGuider]

27. Rip? Whatever. Thanks.

There are some interesting tidbits in there.

[garybeck]

39. "Tell me why you think nuclear power is so bad?"

1) Uranium mining is a huge problem:
http://www.anawa.org.au/mining/problems.html

2) Nuclear power plants are a danger to today's society

3) Nuclear waste is a huge danger to society for generations to come.

need i say more?

[GliderGuider]

44. Well, you would need to say more if you wanted to convince me of your position.

I agree that uranium mining is a problem. Of course, so is gold mining and coal mining, but uranium does have a bad record due to radiation. BTW, the last two items on the list you linked (waste and weapons), while problematic, have nothing whatever to do with mining. Their inclusion on the list makes one suspect the authors of having an agenda...

How are nuclear power plants in and of themselves a danger to today's society? The theft of enriched uranium might be, but I hadn't heard that the power plants themselves were especially dangerous. Nobody has ever died from a power plant accident except for Chernobyl, and plants of that flawed design are no longer being proposed. Modern plants have pretty good safety records. What exactly is your concern?

If nuclear waste is isolated and contained, I think it poses much less of a danger to the "generations to come" than the CO2 from coal and gas-fired plants. Nuclear waste poses a hazard to people in the immediate vicinity if not protected, and has a long half-life, but I don't see how it poses a general planetary risk like CO2.

Frankly, don't bother answering this post. You are a nucleophobe, and your position on this subject is purely emotional. We will get nowhere discussing the topic.

You should really find out who James Lovelock is.

[JohnWxy]

21. That's a great site. I pasted their four point program for those interested.

If these four comprehensive initiatives were adopted as a baseline by every state in the nation, they would go far to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, develop clean homegrown energy resources, reduce energy waste, build more livable communities, and create good, family-supporting jobs that can never be outsourced. In particular:

The Apollo Energy Independence Act would reduce oil imports by up to 40 percent from projected levels and increase use of renewable bio-fuels to 25 percent of our total liquid fuel needs by 2025, if every state were to act as aggressively as it could. This initiative would make our nation more secure by reducing dependence on oil from the Middle East and other volatile regions, boost farm income, reduce gas prices by giving motorists more choices at the fuel pump, protect our economy by slashing our trade deficit, and save US auto manufacturing jobs by providing incentives to retool and build the more efficient cars and trucks that consumers now demand.


If adopted by all 50 states, the goals and incentives in The Renewable Power Investment Act would ensure that by 2025 our nation derives 20 percent of electric power from such renewable sources as the wind, the sun, and the heat just under the earth’s surface while reducing the environmental impacts of traditional power sources. This initiative would better distribute our power supply to make it more secure from natural disasters and terrorist attacks, stabilize costs for consumers, create good-paying jobs in renewable power manufacturing, construction, operations, and maintenance, and reduce global warming pollution.


The High-Performance Buildings for Community Redevelopment Act, if adopted by states nationwide, would create incentives for comprehensive energy efficiency retrofits of existing government offices, schools, hospitals and other public infrastructure over the next ten years while encouraging greater efficiency in new buildings, both public and private. The provisions of this act would provide new career opportunities in the building trades, boost manufacture of efficient HVAC systems and other energy savings technologies, leave more public dollars for public safety, health care, education, and other vital services, and improve air quality while reducing lung disease in some of our most polluted cities.


Apollo’s High-Performance Cities Act provides incentives for in-fill development and new transit projects to ensure more livable, productive, and energy efficient cities. If states adopted these initiatives to cover our nation’s 500 largest towns and cities, this act would create tens of thousands of good jobs in the construction, operation and maintenance of new transit systems as well as in the manufacture of related components, reduce traffic and commuting time, restore inner city neighborhoods, and save consumers money on their gas and electric bills.

[kestrel91316]

20. Work for change. Do everything you can personally do

to make a difference. and NEVER give up.

Dick Cheney was wrong. The American Way Of Life(TM) IS negotiable.

[Strelnikov_]

30. ..

Why bother

[GliderGuider]

34. Self delete

[oldhippie]

50. renewable energy can supply ALL our power. no one disputes this,....

..... except those who won't pay for it until all cheaper sources are unavailable. As I said down below, most people will pick the cheapest alternative from what is CURRENTLY available.

[The2ndWheel]

15. The diminishing returns of increased complexity

Complexity is fine, it's what we need, as long as it isn't in one bubble. We need real, actual diversity, not diversity within the dominant culture. More and more we have one way of doing things, one way of living, one way of thought.

It's the reason problems never go away, they just get more complex. We come up with more complex solutions, which creates more complex problems, which creates more complex solutions, etc, etc. We never get ahead. We can't, because we haven't cured death yet, and so entropy still wins. We all fight entropy everyday, it's why we have to eat. But as you said, our large scale system, when it falls to the process of entropy, it's not going to be pretty. We need more and more energy to keep the system going. We not only have to replace what we currently use in terms of energy, but demand for energy isn't going to go down. The more efficient we make the use of energy, the more people will use it. We have to pump ever increasing amounts of energy to keep things in order. If we stop, at all, we're in trouble. If we don't stop, we're just making the problem worse.

[GliderGuider]

25. Have you read Joseph Tainter?

His book "The Collapse of Complex Societies" goes deeply into the idea of the diminishing returns on complexity, and how that leads to collapse when the return eventually goes negative. As a system grows larger, the only way it can deal with challenges is to become more complex, and the cost of that complexity eventually imposes a limit to its growth. Given that the growth imperative of our civilization (and probably our genetic code, and possibly even the very nature of reproductive life itself) mandates continuous expansion, we will at some point be held to the same limits as all other complex, growing systems.

This notion just doesn't seem controversial to me. I'm not sure why so many feel affronted by it.

[The2ndWheel]

46. No, but I've read of the book

I keep meaning to pick it up, but then time ends up slipping by quicker and quicker.

"This notion just doesn't seem controversial to me. I'm not sure why so many feel affronted by it."

"Given that the growth imperative of our civilization (and probably our genetic code, and possibly even the very nature of reproductive life itself) mandates continuous expansion"

Seems like you know why.

The thing about us is that we have no counter-balance. We populate and consume like no other species, we fear no predator, we eradicate(or at least attempt to) every virus or disease(a lot of which comes from how we structure society) that is nature's way of balancing things out, we push death off further and further into the future, etc, etc.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do it. Who am I to say that? But either way we go, we're going to have problems. By continuing to do what we seem to be doing, it's as if we think there is some perfect state that we can reach. But obviously when we reach that state, we still can't stop, because to do so would mean a lack of that perfect state. So we must then improve on perfection.

Maybe we'll be able to do it. Maybe we'll finally break that 2nd Law, and turn the universe on its head. I'm not betting on it, but I would bet that we'll try.

[garybeck]

8. Where are people saying all or nothing?

I don't see it.

Most people who are informed about energy issues and the environment know the truth is there is no ONE answer. all the renewable energy sources in tandem, along with energy conservation, combined are the only solution.

[Ready4Change]

31. I see it, or at least what LOOKS like it.

It's usually used in opposition to an approach someone finds distasteful for some reason. Ie: not "This source will fill ALL needs so it's great." But rather "that source CAN'T fit all needs, so it's hogwash."

Pick your idea-poison:
1. Sun don't shine at night.
2. Winds don't blow all the time.
3. Some places aren't windy.
4. Not everyone has an ocean with waves next door.
5. Gotta grow crops to feed more people. Can't spare any for fuel.
6. Spent nuclear fuel is the most poisonous thing in existence, and it's forever.
7. Burning any coal is a bad idea, so burning it cleaner is insane.
8. Fusion is a pipe dream. It'll never produce extra power.
9. Cars=Death.
10. Too many People=Death.
11. Researching X or Y is a wast of funds that should be used to develop Z.

And finally:
12. It's all hopeless. We're doomed.

Like you, I think if we adopt some mix of 1-11, we can avoid 12. But to get there you gotta wade through a lot of naysayers.

[GliderGuider]

32. How about this?

1. We will put in of solar power, both thermal and PV.
2. We will put up tons of wind turbines.
3. We will put in lots of wave and tidal power.
4. We will produce biofuels, both crop- and waste-based.
5. We will build lots of new nuclear plants
6. We will build lots of coal plants, both traditional and clean.
7. We will keep funding fusion research, just in case.
8. We will modify our driving habits as gas get more expensive.
9. We will conserve and recycle like crazy.
10. We will start to encourage, and maybe even enforce, family planning and one-child families.

******************************

11. In the end, we are a competitive, reproductive species living on a sphere.
12. There isn't a rocket in the world that can outrun an exponential curve.
13. We as a species will survive. The civilization we have built will probably not - they never do.

So are we doomed? It kinds of depends on your definitions of "we" and "doom", doesn't it?

[garybeck]

40. ignorance is the partner of pessimism

this is not aimed at any particular person. but the items you list are all baseless and not related to facts.

it's been said, the truth will set you free, and in this case it's true. the problem is our schools don't teach about renewable energy and the curriculums are funded by the oil and coal industry.

if people were well informed they wouldn't have such misunderstandings about renewable energy. if Reagan didn't take the panels off the whitehouse roof and if they taught it in schools, people would be more optimistic and for a good reason.

[trekbiker]

12. you are exactly right, its a mix of energy sources

it always has been and it always will be. the percentages of each energy source contribution will change over time based on economics. Global warming may well override economics to some degree in the near future. but dont rule out fossil fuels, they will be with us as part of the overall energy mix for a long time to come.

[kestrel91316]

16. Two words explain it all: PAID TROLLS

[LSK]

22. I thought about that one too

[GliderGuider]

24. Paid trolls would be better at this.

I've seen what I'm pretty sure were paid trolls in action (even elsewhere on DU) and they tend to be slicker than two eels screwing in a bucket of snot.

[Strelnikov_]

28. So A Difference Of Opinion = 'Paid Troll'?

If anything, the 'paid trolls' are on the cornucopian side of the spectrum.

Or, maybe instead of being 'paid trolls', we 'pessimists' are people who have researched energy, contemplated the issues presented by the following two publications, and have come to the conclusion that due to the dearth of leadership and shared sacrifice in modern society, coming out of the looming energy smash in one piece is a long shot.


The Collapse of Complex Societies
http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/052138673X/ref=pd_rvi_gw_2/002-0291074-3815271

Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed
http://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Societies-Choose-Fail-Succeed/dp/0143036556/sr=1-1/qid=1167354729/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-0291074-3815271?ie=UTF8&s=books


I am afraid the partial collapse of industrial civilization, due to energy starvation, will place high-tech energy sources requiring complex economic integration out of our reach.

Sorry, but without competent leadership, all the brilliance of our Engineers and Scientists will be of little help.

As our fifth strand, we have to wonder why the kings and nobles failed to recognize and solve these seemingly obvious problems undermining their society. Their attention was evidently focused on their short-term concerns of enriching themselves, waging wars, erecting monuments, competing with each other, and extracting enough food from the human peasants to support all those activities. Like most leaders throughout human history, the Maya kings and nobles did not heed long-term problems, insofar as they perceived them.

. . .

Like Easter Island chiefs erecting ever larger statues, eventually crowned by pukao, and like Anasazi elites treating themselves to necklaces of 2000 turquoise beads, Maya kings sought to outdo each other with more and more impressive temples, covered with thicker and thicker plaster, reminiscent in turn of the extravagant conspicuous consumption by modern American CEO's. The passivity of Easter chiefs and Maya kings in the face of the real big threats to their societies completes our list of disquieting parallels.

From Chapt. 5, 'The Maya Collapses', from 'Collapse: How Societies Choose To Fail Or Succeed’ by Jared Diamond

[JohnWxy]

18. Many prefer to talk about the "big" idea and find taking a 'smaller' less momentous, practical

approach, quite unfulfilling to their more romantic sensibilities. They want to only discuss 'ultimate ' answers. Of course, from my perspective, there really are no "ultimate answers" to be found, anymore than there is a real Shangrila out there somewhere ("If only we could find it!").

A technology or a technique which yields some real improvement is worth embracing and developing. If it is not the complete or total answer to mankind's problems that is no reason to totally reject it. The "ultimate answer" people respond with contempt to 'less-than-total' answers yet have no better alternative to offer and when asked what do they have that's better, answer with possible developments to come in the future. But meanwhile, they would not deign to use the available real and present (though less than perfect) solution. This is impractical and not acceptable given our current situation (Global Warming accelerating).

I feel those who don't want to commit to anything unless it is an "ultimate answer" will probably still be debating the ultimate fate of mankind while other less philosophical types will be quietly working on this technology or that technique and gradually they will improve our situation. That we will win in the battle to stop Global Warming, I don't know the answer to that. But I know this - if we do NOT take some action and right away - then I can say we likely won't win that battle.


Renewable fuels info (some research by legitimate institutions):

REnewable fuels can replace (given current technology) about 1/3rd of the gasoline demand. NOte that innovations to processes and ICEs (MIT (Direct Injection Engine - 30% better fuel economy), Iowa State Univ.(ultra-sound process=30% increase in alcohol yield), Monster Cane - 3X more ethanol, more drought resistant),Monster Cane) indicate this can be improved on to at least 48% of total gasoline supply.

Wind power potential: Converting as little as 20 percent of potential wind energy to electricity could satisfy the entirety of the world's energy demands

[NNadir]

35. In principle, I would agree. On the other hand magical thinking causes a lot of

inaction.

I have certainly never called for the abandonment of solar electricity, but I do feel it is necessary to point out that the amount of energy it produces is a complete joke.

[lumberjack_jeff]

41. I know what you're getting at. Photovoltaic electricity is a small % of energy.

True enough.

But if you think about it, solar energy is *the* energy we use. The hydrocarbons locked in the crust have a biological origin, which had a solar origin. Passive solar has heated for centuries, and even biofuels are essentially liquid solar energy. Winds are driven by heat. A promising terrestrial energy source is OTEC (ocean thermal energy conversion) which drives generators by the temperature differential between warm surface water and that of the deep sea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_thermal_energy_conversion

This is solar energy too.

[NNadir]

45. Thank you for your enlightening discussion of primary energy.

I feel fully informed.

Let me correct any misapprehension I may have had when I said solar energy is a joke, I merely meant solar electricity is a joke.

[lumberjack_jeff]

47. Such a kidder. n/t

[garybeck]

42. excuse me?

what does this mean:

"but I do feel it is necessary to point out that the amount of energy it produces is a complete joke."

do you know anything at all about solar energy? Where is that statement coming from? Do you know how much power a solar panel produces?

there are hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses, even communities, that are run on solar electricity, and it works perfectly fine.

The only joke is your statement itself.

no offense, but get the facts straight before you say something is a joke.

what do you think this is:

there's nothing coming out of those cooling towers for a reason.

[NNadir]

43. Um do you know the difference between 3 and 913?

One hopes that you are posting this picture as a joke, but if not, I would submit that you know next to zero about energy.

[Dead_Parrot]

52. Nice photo

there's nothing coming out of those cooling towers for a reason.
Indeed. a constant 913MW vs 3Mw 6 or 7 hours a day.

BTW, Do you have a photo of one of the new fossil fuel plants they're building at Rancho Seco? or is the "Hey, where did 99.9% of our power go?" shot sufficient?

[oldhippie]

49. I think it's because.........

..... all those different energy sources have different costs at different times and different locations. It's human nature to select the ONE cheapest solution to your current problem. If right now gasoline is cheaper that hydrogen, then that is what 99% of the people are going to demand. If your car will run on either gasoline or ethanol, most people will choose the cheapest fuel. If nuclear energy is cheaper than wind energy, 99% of the people will choose nuclear, as long as it is available. Until the costs are equal, nobody needs a choice, they just go with the cheapest one. Excepting activists, of course.