2GreenEnergy: On a Hunt to Understand the Politics of Renewable Energy
I was speaking with my mother yesterday, a decided political conservative. During our talk, she noted gently, “Your blog is left of center, but not so far as to be revolting.” I got a terrific laugh out of that. How nice it is not to be considered revolting by one’s parents!
In any case, I don’t think of myself as left-wing, unless by that we mean “concerned” or “disillusioned”; I’m more than a little of both.
Thus the theme of all these reports I’ve written recently: tough realities. And perhaps the toughest of them all is getting at the truth here. In particular, I believe that we’re fed a stream of utter tripe from our corporate-owned media. I don’t have a lot of respect for the level of insight of the common American, but here, most Americans are spot-on correct: they rightfully distrust the mainstream media. As NaturalNews reports, a recent Gallup poll has found that 57 percent of us have little or no trust in the mainstream media to report full, accurate and fair news. This level of distrust in the media is the highest it has been since at least 1973.
But the tripe we get from the media is 100% essential to making sure we remain dedicated, robotic consumers — and this, in turn, is absolutely central to our way of life in the US. When George W. Bush spoke to us in the aftermath of 9/11, he didn’t ask us to pray, or read, or calm down; he asked us to shop. Get out there and spend money. He knew — and he was correct — that the American way of life is based fundamentally on buying things, using them, finding them inadequate, throwing them away, and then buying more newer and better things.
Forget about our energy consumption for a moment. Can anyone think that this practice itself is sustainable?
So, Mom, sorry to sound alienated, or left-wing, or whatever you may consider me. But I’m on a mission here — a quest for the truth. There is a reason that the US is doing such a miserably poor job at moving to clean energy — and such a good job at confusing and distracting its 300 million robo-consumers. And I’m on a hunt to find it. Call you again soon. I promise!
I think Bill McKibben at 350.org is on to something. Today is the 10-10-10 Global Work Party. I’m on my way to lend a hand, find out where the confusion is in the city of Pittsburgh, PA. The local grassroots movement here Citizens Climate Corps is having a Climate Action Fest as part of the 10-10-10 Global Work Party. http://citizensclimatecorps.org/climate-action-fest
I think this is a start in the right direction. And as all my colleagues in the EU concur, we need to expend more energy in the grassroots movements all over the planet, so at least the citizenry can feel like something is getting done.
Fantastic. Keep up the good work, Kimberly. We’ll miss you out here in California, but Pittsburgh has gained a terrific new friend.
The way I see it, there are several fundamental challenges that the progressive agenda faces. The first is that as we transition from an entrenched industry such as “oil” and the economic measurements that are attached to it, we stand to pull the carpet out from what analysts stake their claims on. So entrenched oil based economy, energy driven from its resource, and economic scrutiny or opinion is all based on a force that stands in the way of clean and renewable fuel. This entire situation shapes the opinions of analysts and media pundits who are paid by the old establishment through advertising dollars and managed by corporate owned media. So the second tier, mass media is inherently flawed. Now if the progressives had an alternative stronghold, that would be great…but they don’t. Keith Olberman, Rachel Meadows, Amy Goodman and Bill Mahar are not enough. Sorry if I spelled those names wrong. However, you see my point. Following this line of thought, there is no real connected dialog for the progressives to rally around and the politicians in DC are not fostering this unity. The problem, as Paul Ray would say, is that progressives are independent thinkers and that gets in the way of a unified front, the third on my list of challenges.
So if we could foster an alternative energy economy, rally the news and subsequent public opinion, and build a unified political front, we would be fine. Venture capital would then start to really support and fund these initiatives and the tides would turn. I think it’s coming, but just not fast enough.
I agree with you that it’s coming, but a lot of people are being hurt in the process. The hard truth is that we’re running out of cheap oil. This is not a political belief, but rather a stone cold and unalterable fact. And when its implications start to be felt, the shortages and resulting social chaos won’t be pretty.
Hey Craig!
Feel the same way as you. There is no question of being left-or right-
twisted. There is talk of using sound reasoning.
Has for years been trying to get industry, environmental organizations and politicians in dry manure. So
far it has not succeeded. Press the same problem.
Here is a formula on my energy solution. Here we use only water as a power source.
The water is in a closed system, and will be used for several years.
Let me call the device “Water-power cartridge. Calculate the volume needed for a plant with
annual equivalent of 4 TWH.
111m * 111m * 20m * 1000/100 * 0,746 * 0.25 * 24h * 365d/TW = 4 TWH / year
A real calculation example:
EU expects an increase in energy demand by 23% from current levels, the 4073 TWH
by 2030. Investment in renewable energy and backbone, is intended to 1,000 billion €
Situation in the EU is exactly like the rest of the Western world. Calculate and discuss
Action and expenses as if they are in another world from the one I
know.
By my calculations they will be able to look away from the main trunk road planned for
transfer of energy in Europe. Today’s technology all of which closes the ears and eyes, the
meet the EU `s energy needs at the local level.
New investment in clean electricity production equivalent to 23%, will have a maximum
price tag of 170 billion €. They saved 830 billion €, will certainly come in handy
the EU’s future budget.
Today, Europe and the United States a salary that can not be concluding cures for Asian countries.
How will it be when this part of the world on top of the wage difference,
invest in a cheap clean energy without CO2 taxes.
Time to start thinking. The hour glass is almost empty!
Relax, mom. Your son is on the “right” track. That is “conservation”, which is kind of conservative. When I see a celebration made out of blowing up an elaborate casino in Las Vegas just to plaster up an even more elaborate one in an arid land that uses more useless resources per capita than any other place I can think of, I know we have a long way to go as a nation to being conservative. Keep on truckin. Trish
Just found I may be left of center since I took the test http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz I was somewhat surprised that I was not on the Right. In that light I would like to share an article and my comment about it.
http://www.plugincars.com/exclusive-mercedes-interview-evs-are-not-silver-bullet-87841.html
To summarize Mercedes has explored many solutions to propelling vehicles around this planet. My take is below.
It is a horse race and Mercedes has a large stable of horses. They don’t have all the horses in the race. New developments are happening in batteries, fuel cells, hydrogen production, ultra capacitors, motor controls, and even internal combustion engines.
What is fairly clear is that the winning horse will have an electric drive for a heart. It won’t be a hay burner in the traditional sense but it may derive some of its electron fuel from biomass. Along with hydro, fossil, solar, wind, wave, geothermal or ?.
The big question is how are you going to provide the vehicle with electrons onboard in such quantities as to do the job of getting you from point A to point B in t time.
Our now ancient electric grid is getting smarter and more efficient all the time and is also expanding all the time. Transferring energy by wire has proven to be more efficient than tanker trucks and allows for many more outlets for distribution of that power. Electric power by wire also allows for many more sources to be included in the distribution of that power.
Oil companies are not pleased with the prospects of losing control of vehicle propulsion to so many possible sources of power. Strangely the electric grid operators are not too keen on losing control of the sources of electric power either.
Electricity is the future of vehicle propulsion, who provides the electrons in the future is the major debate. Will it be oil companies providing liquid fuel for hybrids or will they provide hydrogen for fuel cells? Will it be electric companies with hydro, coal, natural gas to charge batteries or to make hydrogen from electrolysis for fuel cells? Will it be wind farm operators making hydrogen? How about roof top solar panels that charge batteries?
The race is on and the bets are coming in fast and furious. The winning purse is very large and may be split between the top horses in the race instead of winner takes all.
We shall see. For now the race is rather fun to watch. End.
Now I would like to add a comment about your article.
Most of our imported energy comes in the form of oil for transportation. This is also the biggest source of our trade deficit which is a problem for National Security. Another weak spot in National Security is centralized electric power production. Centralized resources are always a National Security risk. So much easier for terrorists or foreign enemies to strike a significant blow when you put many eggs in one basket.
This of course is where renewable energy sources shine(pun intended). When your source of power is widely distributed it is MUCH more resilient to attack or even to catastrophic mistakes.
So much public interest is finally getting involved, it has taken far, far too long but is finally happening. So much research in so many different fields is starting to pay off. Politics is unfortunately one of the burdens that we must carry into the future as well as large and well funded status quo large corporations which do not change easily or quickly.
I am perhaps overly optimistic in thinking that the current power companies(oil, electric, natural gas) will start considering renewable energy as a synergistic asset that they can also participate in. My own power company, Pacific Gas & Electric, appears at times to be thinking along renewable lines. Unfortunately they see distributed power as an enemy forced upon them, instead of an opportunity for them and the country(the people).
Your premise that we have enough money to fight the wars and therefore have enough money to fund alternative energy is flawed.
We don’t have enough money to do either. In fact we are broke. We seem to be able to borrow a lot of money from China and other producer economies but that is not the same as “having money”. Just because we have checks in the check book does not mean that we can or should be writing them.
While alternative energy development is demonstrably a lot better than the black hole of war expenditures, being alive is a heck of a lot better than being dead.
The constitution of the U.S. mandates that the government protect us from enemies. I wish we could do it on the cheap. A few less $1K toilet seats maybe?
Private enterprise will need to step up to the plate on alternative energy. They will and they are. Some tax incentives go along way spur this change to renewables. Eventually they will have to stand on their own and be economically viable as well as socially preferred. Government can’t do it all.
Astute points here, Larry — as always.
Craig,
To make a real and lasting impact we must seek to do more than create new jobs and opportunities today, we must build the platform on which our economy can continue to grow for decades to come.
There is nothing more important to the present and future of our economy than energy. Any effort to address our economic problems will require a thorough understanding of this issue and willingness to confront our dependence on foreign oil and harness what domestic resources we have here in our own country.
In order to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, we must use all of our available domestic resources. We will eventually need everything that we can produce in this country, whether it is new sources of domestic oil, additional natural gas, more clean coal, solar, wind, nuclear…… all and any form of fuel to replace imported oil to stop the shipping of dollars overseas.
If our government commits to modernizing our nation’s power grid in the same fashion that we modernized our highways, we can make some serious progress in a relatively short time.
The greatest lie, is to keep lying. The greatest sin, is to keep sinning! I think this idea could be central to exciting peoples’ moral fears about our non existent energy policy we have today— it is not immoral to use fossil fuels today, but it is immoral to continue to use our childrens and grandchildrens future resources today thus, not allowing them a fighting chance for prosperity in the decades to come!
Although it’s true that we cannot continue using oil, it is not certain that electric cars are the way to. Perhaps they are, or perhaps there will be a mix of vehicle propulsion technologies which will coexist.
If we can produce abundant and inexpensive energy, such as with liquid fluoride thorium reactors (LFTRs), then we can make ammonia and use ammonia to operate internal combustions engines. Although the engines would be similar to our present gasoline engines, they would have to be designed somewhat differently to make them run well on ammonia. The problems with battery electric vehicles are that the batteries are expensive and provide a limited range; an ammonia fueled vehicle would not have those limitations, but the fact that it’s toxic is a problem. However, it is possible that future developments will get around the limitations of batteries.
Abundant and cheap energy would make it economical to generate hydrogen which could be used with fuel cells to power vehicles, provided that a practical way can be found to store adequate quantities of hydrogen. However, fuel cells can use hydrazine for fuel and adequate quantities of hydrazine can easily be stored. Hydrazine N2H4) is easy to manufacture, but the catch is that it is both toxic and mutagenic; it is also explosive.
So, I believe that at this time, it is unclear which vehicle propulsion technology or technologies we will end up using. In any case, city planning should be improved to reduce the need for transportation and public transportation should be improved to reduce the need to use private vehicles in an urban environment.
Mr. Shields, you might be considered more of a conservative if you’d discuss the nations where they strongly endorsed and supported alternative energy. Take Spain, for example; they went all out some years ago to promote various alternative energy sources to help economic development, especially jobs.
Then last year Spain’s own research showed that for every alternative energy job gained, they lost two “regular” energy jobs.
Maybe the reason people who run businesses are conservative is because they are not like governments — they can’t keep borrowing money like we are doing now, from China of all places. In fact, you know you’re on the wrong track when the Chinese Communists start criticizing you for so much spending.
Here’s why I do not get over-active promoting “alternative” energy. I do not agree with a lot of the science that’s being used to support spending so much money.
For example “climate change nee global warming” advocates keep claiming that carbon dioxide increase in the atmosphere has made temperatures go up. Well, make this simple test: From a reliable source of your choosing, get a line chart of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for the last 100 years — and it is increasing.
Then get a line chart of global temperatures over the last 100 years from a reliable source of your choosing — but not the UN’s IPCC report; that has admittedly been falsified. (Phil Jones the UN IPCC research director resigned and admitted that, to help his alarmists friends, they “tricked” the computer model so the results would show higher temperatures. Later Jones openly told the media that, “There has been no appreciable global warming for the past 15 years.”) So use an accurate line chart of global temperatures.
Lay one of the charts on top of the other. What you’ll find is …..
THERE IS NO CORRELATION BETWEEN CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE ATMOSPHERE AND (ACCURATE) GLOBAL TEMPERATURES. Yet the alarmists don’t listen.
The failure to insist on objective science is part of the problem with you folks who make your living in the “alternative” energy field. I do not make any money on either existing energy or alternative energy. Can you truthfully make the same statement?
Thanks for the comment. I tried to address it in this post: http://2greenenergy.com/global-warming-and-renewable-energy/6717/.
Regardless if co2 is proven to cause global warming or not, one thing is proven….peak oil in 2005 (hubberts curve). Oil production will continue to be less and less as we move forward year after year from this point forward. As a planet we must find new ways to power our global economy! One thing all scientist agree upon, what took 100 years to use one trillion barrels of oil, will only take 30 years to consume the next trillion barrels of oil!
http://www.todaysenergysolutions.us
Thanks for writing. Actually, when you say “scientists,” you mean “neutral and objective scientists.” I’ve been at conferences where the “scientists” hired by the petroleum industry get up and swear there is no end to our oil reserves. I’m serious.
mr.craig,
All the governments will pay more & realistic attention to green energies only when they realising the crude oil shortage and the prices reaching $150 and these dates are not far way. Now, the corporates are also watching the developments like oil production from algae, solar power plants, biodiesel, etc. and once they realise the potential they will definetly jump into the green energies to step up a world scale plants.
regds
shiva
I follow this, finding Robert Rapier and John Peterson worth reading in their specialties. My own take is to model a different lifestyle. Backyard intensive garden, a giant solar room on the south when some second hand glass panes showed up, and fans driving summer air through the basement and into the house. If you try the last, use a dehumidifier! Others as they reach pay-off prices. Not all renewables are identical, some pay off now.
As I see it every point that has been written thus far in the above, from the point that the era of plentiful oil is past us to the point that big business is determining our national policies, all points to the simple truth that Tam Hunt writes and expounds on in his writing about community supported energy. Communities are the answer to how to power vehicles with both electric power and biofuels. They just need the technology for community supported biorefineries that produce power during peak demand times and biofuels during off peak demand times. My company is working to provide the core “disruptive” technology for those community or county owned biorefineries just as Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak worked to provide the core “disruptive” technology (the desktop PC) for enabling distributed computing to spread around the world.
We might live in interesting times, but it is reasonably clear that our times will become more interesting. Being somewhat cursed with the thoughts of an engineer, I tend to see the media in terms of signal to noise ratio. Facts are there, hiding amongst the opinion and sensationalism, but the ratio has been going down and the facts are harder to discern. Since we are all different, some might have already fallen below the noise threshold in their view of events. I have little doubt how disconcerting that might be, hence feeding the ‘fear’ that is oft quoted in the polls.
I don’t know about the many readers of your site here – some seem quite positive. I must confess that I see us as being in what is close to an inexorable tide on the climate change front.
Simple observation: The US has about 250 years worth of coal reserves that are easily obtainable (in the context of those who are in that business). We have abundant natural gas reserves to the extent that the price of gas is so low, we are investing very little in bringing more online. We know that the 50+% of electricity generated from coal could easily be done with natural gas. It would cut into profits somewhere around 2 cents per kWh, and yet it is a non-starter. There are capital market issues involved, but they are not the stoppers. That, in and of itself, is the lesson of free markets. So, without externalities, it is completely reasonable (from a market perspective) to move forward with burning more coal, the worst carbon emitter of all fossil fuels. CCS remains a research topic as regards doing it at utility scale, so that’s still a non-starter as well.
Transportation really needs a fundamental revolution in the way it is viewed, and to a lesser degree how it is accomplished. Certainly I believe in electric vehicles, but did you ask me the question of whether they are a surrogate for our present driving context? Answer: No they are not. Commuting 50 miles per day (average) to simply do one’s job is insane, and we have embraced that as a kind of dogma. Telecommuting has been around since at least the late 80’s, but I don’t see significant movement in that direction. That is even more interesting to me in the context of America winding down its manufacturing activities year over year, since that is clearly one of the areas that one must show up to work.
Lastly, I submit to you a hypothesis that might be slightly controversial. My view of the trends in our industrialized society are that all jobs in all sectors are winding down. If you do a vertical study of any particular industry, it is creating more product with fewer people. Agriculture was the first. Most everything else is following. With a world population that continues to accelerate upwards, why is it that we think all people will have productive work? The standard retort is services, and I say give me a break. We can’t all sell hot dogs and clean each others houses. If you believe certain politicos, in some kind of strange theoretical universe we can all have PhD’s and think a lot. Not. You can easily surmise this, but I’ll say it anyway. Of course green energy is not going to create more jobs than the prior paradigm. Of course the net employment will go down.
Signal to noise ratio.
Greig- The core reason we are having such a hard time moving to a sustainable energy system is complacency. As long as gasoline is available and affordable at the pump, as long as the extreme weather events don’t destroy our local living conditions, but just some place on the far side of the world, we can go on living our video game lives and driving madly around on endless errands and consuming beyond our means. A few fools want to change the current complacency to something more expensive to preclude something that we haven’t SEEN happen yet. Remember ten years of isolationism while the storm clouds of world war two gathered before the shocking event of Pearl Harbor, shook us from our complacency and forced us to recognize the threat of Fascism. How many years of warning about islamic jihad were there before 911 shook us enough to force us to fight them in Iraq and Afganistan instead of in New York City?
What will have to happen is a Katrina storm that drowns Washington DC, a new dust bowl, or the fact of no gasoline at the pump, to get us off our asses and get us moving to sustainable energy. It does happen- $4.50 per gallon gas, collapsed Detroit and helped bring on the financial collapse around the world. Detroit responded with smaller and electric and hybrid autos and the congress with a higher CAFE rating.
All the information is there before us and most citizens are already in denial mode, hoping that all the dire predictions won’t come true. If a tornado is destroying the next town do you run to your own basement? Not likely, but when its heading for your town you do.
So don’t frustrate yourself unduly as most people won’t act until they need to. Unfortunately by the time the greenhouse creates a need to it will be too late. I can already hear the chorus of “Why didn’t you tell me” and “Why don’t you have the solution ready”
The current business as usual attitude will continue until another Pearl Harbor happens! John Gotthold
I’m afraid you’re 100% correct here, John. That certainly is the chorus of the Yes on Prop 23 measure in California: sure we have a problem, but it’s not as big or imminent as some of our others.
Nobody has reduced to a 30-second soundbite why if we raise gasoline prices, we will spend less in time, treasure and war casualties.
The problem needs to be framed as national security and pollution reduction, not global warming. Does anybody really believe that we can predict global climate changes?
It’s interesting that you bring this up. I asked that same question of Dr. Ramanathan, the guy generally credited with discovering global warming, when I interviewed him for my book. With what kind of accuracy can anyone predict events 3 decades hence? That really is his life’s work: modeling global climate change. He’s fairly convincing; I can tell you that.
Craig,
You don’t want to get me going on our manipulative press. I have actually accidentally been on site to witness several world events only to come home to see how our press has TOTALLY changed the report to fit their interests. This includes TV editing, cutting and pasting the film to change the whole picture 100%.
On completion of a tour of China, my wife and I asked an American couple residing in Hong Kong why everything we saw was 180 degrees from what we expected, their answer ~ “Because you read the American press.” They then suggested that we go out to the newsstand and get 7 papers from around the world and compare reporting on several subjects. We discovered
that they were right. In every case ~ it was 6 and 1.
That is why we are fighting an uphill battle in America.