The Enemy of a Progressive Energy Strategy: Ignorance
I did an interview last Friday morning for a consultant to the government of Israel who is amassing the viewpoints of folks in the clean energy industry. Apparently, Israel is on a mission to rid themselves of fossil fuels (especially oil, for obvious reasons) over a fairly short period of time, perhaps 10 years.
Bravo.
Of course, Israel’s contribution to the world energy scene will be largely symbolic; it will scarcely move the needle on a planet with huge consumers like China and the U.S. Yet what a wonderful and important symbol it will be — a beacon of hope that humankind really can make a change in the way in generates and consumes energy.
In the interview, I mentioned that I find it very credible that Israel can make this happen; there are many factors that come together that make them one of the best candidates on Earth for such a rapid migration.
One such factor is its extremely well educated populace. Ignorance is the enemy of a progressive energy strategy. Here in the U.S., very few of us understand the implications of our coming into a room and flicking a switch, or walking into our garage and turning a key. For Americans, energy has always been there. And the few interruptions, e.g., the Arab oil embargo in 1973, have been sufficiently brief to convince almost all of us, young and old, that cheap, abundant energy is our right. We’re soon to learn how incorrect that assumption is.
“Here in the U.S., very few of us understand the implications of our coming into a room and flicking a switch, or walking into our garage and turning a key.”
Probably that is correct. But how much energy used in the U.S. is used in homes compared with energy used elsewhere, such as by industry and commercial enterprises? I have not seen the numbers, but they must be available somewhere.
Buckminster Fuller (for those who haven’t heard of him he is the reknowned engineer/scientist who gave his name to Fullerenes and Bucky Balls) once said “there is no energy crises, just a crises of ignorence”, I’m inclined to agree with him.
Regarding Israel, they may well have an effect bigger than their size might suggest. If they crack the problems for their own energy supply they may well be selling their technology to the rest of the world.
That’s possible, but from what I’ve read, China is more likely to crack the energy problems. The Chinese, along with a few other countries, have committed themselves to developing the liquid fluoride thorium reactor to get it ready for production. It was an American invention and a prototype was successfully tested.
I strongly recommend reading the book “Super Fuel: Thorium, the Green Energy Source for the Future” by Richard Martin. It is readily available from the usual book sources. To have an adequate understanding of all our energy options and to be sufficiently well informed to comment on them, it is necessary to have a thorough knowledge of the liquid fluoride thorium reactor.
I just ordered the book you recommended. Thanks for the recommendation.
You’re welcome; I hope you find it helpful.
I’m not saying for certain that the LFTR is the best way to go, but from what I’ve read, it certainly looks as though it is. However, I think it would be too soon to abandon other possible nuclear technologies, except for the one we are currently using which has always made me uneasy.
Bucky F. also developed the geodesic dome, and he could spell. There are few problems with RE. Only a will to let go of earth extractive profit centers and be at peace.
Thanks, Rev. Phil, for mentioning the spelling errors (and the dome!) I am sure Bucky actually said “there is no energy crisis, just a crisis of ignorance”. Also, in the article we are commenting on, there is a typo in the text: “humankind really can make a change in the way in generates and consumes energy”. Should be “the way IT generates…”
” There are few problems with RE. ”
Quite so, but those few problems are so extreme that RE can never be a practical principal source of energy for most large prosperous countries.
The biggest problem is that RE is intermittent and we need continuous reliable power. That problem has not been solved.
Another problem is that RE requires more than 10 times as much concrete and steal as nuclear power requires.
Additionally, the land area required for RE is extreme.
Instead of totally ruling out nuclear power simply because we have chosen a bad nuclear technology, we should be working to prepare a better nuclear technology for mass implementation. Not doing so makes no more sense than it would have made to ban automobiles because too many people broke their arms while cranking them.
The banning of nuclear power will force us to continue to rely on fossil fuels; even our bad nuclear technology is far safer than fossil fuels. For information on a better technology, see the last paragraph of my 3 August post, above. No one unfamiliar with liquid fluoride thorium reactor technology is qualified to make statements condemning all nuclear power.
Frank,
How do you feel about molten salt for energy storage?
Molten salt works, but the volume of salt required to store enough energy to last even for a few days is so extreme that it just is not practical. To get high enough temperatures to make molten salt work requires concentrated solar power, i.e., mirror system. One problem with mirror systems is that they will work only with direct sunlight whereas PV solar power will work, although with reduced effectiveness, even on days that are somewhat cloudy.
Solar energy of the PV type is a good way to go in areas where connecting to the grid is impractical and lack of total reliability is tolerable. But I remain convinced that renewable sources of energy, with the exception of hydro power where it is practical, will never be a major source of power for large prosperous countries.
10 years is Too Long, especially when 12 Years have already passed.
Ignorance is a continuum and each of us occupies a site on that continuum. The ability of a democracy to make rational policies is determined by the distribution of the populace on the ignorance continuum. Political ads are geared toward a population skewed toward the complete ignorance end of this distribution. It is the responsibility of all of us including organizations like IEEE, DOE and NAS to help others move toward enlightenment while moving toward enlightenment ourselves. Progress toward enlightenment seems to be a diffusion process; hence, slow.
Re: the question about U.S. energy use by sector. Depending on what you sort for, you come up with roughly this: Residential = 20%, Commercial = 16%, Industry = 38%, Transportation = 26%. Those numbers vary a bit depending on the source and the year, but it’s in the ballpark. This does not capture subtleties like how much energy it takes to create energy, or the energy cost of food. Wikipedia has a pretty interesting entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States
I also had discussions with the fellow working for Israel. One thing I told him was that any transition should start by focusing on reducing energy volumes, not just switching energies. I took his company’s survey. Nothing in it about volumes. Seems Israel may consider switching all vehicle fuel to ngas, but I warned that ngas price and supply should not be assumed to remain stable long-term. In fact, I distrust ngas. This brings up a a 2nd thing to consider in any transition: be as diverse as possible. Otherwise, they’ll continue to energy-guzzle as before and end up relying on just 1 or maybe 2 energy sources.
Very True, Energy not consumed because of conservation and higher efficiencies is the best Alternative by not consuming some energy it becomes useable for other purposes.
Actually, we need to INCREASE energy volumes.
In Israel and surrounding areas, there are serious water shortages. One of the sources of conflict between Israel and its neighbors is that Israel, to increase the amount of water available to it, has reduced the amount of water available to its neighbors thereby limiting the availability of water for agriculture. The only solution seems to be the desalination of sea water, and that required enormous amounts of energy.
It is not only Israel and its neighbors that need to increase energy usage to desalinate sea water; the need to do so also exists in other parts of the world. Thus, we cannot solve world energy problems by increasing efficiency and doing with less, although that may be a small part of the solution. Lifting very poor nations out of poverty will also require greater energy usage.
Frank: You have quite successfully constructed an argument for renewable energy as applied in Israel. I’m not sure of Israel’s Thorium resource, but it’s likely to be quite small. However, Israel is not short of sunlight, nor of seawater.
The wonderful thing about fresh water is that it is easily stored, across the world, in huge reservoirs, both above and below ground. By harnessing solar power to desalinate seawater, you are converting transient ‘intermittent’ (though highly predictable) energy flows into a storable, useful resource.
You even admit further down this article that solar thermal collectors are ‘quite efficient'(!). At 80% they are close to their thermodynamic limit! Conventional boil-off distillation requires more heat than electricity. Reverse osmosis is a different kettle of fish requiring mechanical pressure over heat, but both technologies do not mandate the use of fossil or atomic energies.
I disagree with you that renewable energy will never become a major source of energy in prosperous countries. The intermittency of supply is only really exhibited by wind power. Solar power is variable, but predictable. Tidal power is predictable centuries hence. Geothermal and hydropower are restricted through geological/geophysical considerations rather than lack of resource. Recently Germany satisifed over 50% of its electricity demand with solar energy derived power (on a sunny summer’s day). That is a prosperous country, that is phasing out U-based fission power.
I live in the UK in a house which buys in only 30% of the UK household average energy, in London, because I have photovoltaics, solar thermal and burn wood in the winter. But the most cost-effective measure I took? 12 inches of insulation in my loft.
Collective vision and action can genuinely change behaviour. In 1769 James Watt invented the condensing steam engine and 40 years later had completely changed the way British people used energy. THe solar cell is barely 50 years old but the market and production volumes have been growing at 40% per annum for 2 decades. An exciting time to be alive.
Another thing not being discussed abt energy right now: military energy use. I tried once to get this data but it’s classified. Military forces of all our most industrialized countries, with USA being the leader, are absolutely huge energy guzzlers and pollutors! I think we would be shocked if we could learn how much fuel and related emissions are caused by US military forces around the world every year.
Quite so, and resource wars resulting from global warming will actually increase military demands for energy unless global warming can be held to tolerable limits.
We have had several discussions here about military use of energy and how the energy business and certain political parties and operatives are doing their utmost to thwart the military’s effort to at least reduce or if possible eliminate the use of fossil fuels. The U.S. Military understands very clearly what the implications are and is already working to mitigate them. They understand they are leaving themselves vulnerable and aiding and abetting the enemy.
Of course Israel has always been ahead of us in both education and the use alternative energy. When I was there in ’63 almost everyone I met spoke a couple languages in addition to Hebrew and solar hot water (without back up) was the norm.
Solar hot water systems use solar energy much more efficiently than other uses of solar energy, yet they have not been strongly promoted here in the U.S. They are common in some countries and work quite well.
The reasons western big orgs use Media is they need it. Media to direct the gullible minds of mass populous. Truth and reality will win in the end, I just hope that is not THE END. We have more solutions than troubles, just ignorance is so popular, and easy. .
For anyone who is interested, more on Israel’s oil-free initiative can be found here:
http://www.pmo.gov.il/English/PrimeMinistersOffice/DivisionsAndAuthorities/OilFree/Pages/OilFree2.aspx
Thanks, Becky. These people mean business. As opposed to the U.S., their government is not affected by hugely corrupt forces (i.e., the oil companies), and I believe they are going to be enormously successful in this undertaking.
Craig,
I have long wondered why the U.S. hasn’t considered oil dependency a strategic weakness. However, no politician has raised the issue. I don’t even think the members of the super secret congressional committees have seriously debated the issue because we have done nothing but create a greater dependence on the most imortant of all hydro-carbons.
When Iceland moved to develop a hydrogen based economy using the volcanic energy that is so abundant there to seperate the hydrogen from water, they went into bankruptcy. What forces were in play. I realize that the hydrogen conversion was not the technical reason for the bankruptcy; however, the fact is that their economy was strong until they attempted to move away from oil for their boats, buses, and automobiles. Now their conversion to hydrogen has been tanked.
The oil industry is so powerful it affected the auto industry; preventing such powers as GM and Ford from steadily increasing the gas milage and efficiency of their autos. No one will ever convince me their was not a natural market for light weight, efficient, well designed, cars that didn’t rely on oil. After all, the electric motor is more powerful than the gasoline engine; therefore, the motor heads would not have to give up speed and power but would rather have more of it.
Of course as always external events alter the balance of power and the course of history. I believe that more people are becoming seriously convinced that global warming is real and so are looking for efficient alternatives to the gasoline engine.
Jim Becker
Jim: I agree; you seem to have answered your own question. Please see the discussion following my piece on Israel’s transition from oil: http://2greenenergy.com/progressive-energy-strategy/31037/, in which I write: These people mean business. As opposed to the U.S., their government is not affected by hugely corrupt forces (i.e., the oil companies), and I believe they are going to be enormously successful in this undertaking.
As I recall, Iceland’s fiscal problems had nothing to do with energy policy, but were the result of fiscal mismanagement. The fact that these events occurred at the same time signifies nothing.