18 comments on Electricity: How Much? From Where? What Fuel?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
18 comments on Electricity: How Much? From Where? What Fuel?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
User login
Personnel
Classic posts
Archives
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
The Oil Drum: New York City archives
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
How come "which should be shrinking"? Let's suppose we make a tremendous conservation effort and manage to cut our electricity consumption by 20% (mind you this is a LOT) in the next 5 years. Question is what comes next? Another 20% the next 5 years? Is this realistic (ok, absent a nuclear war or bird-flu pandemic)?
The obvious conclusion is that efficiency/conservation is a short-term solution, especially for the elicticity where we don't really have what to replace it with. Meanwhile we'll have to be building something to meet future growth and replace NG and oil. Here I have my opinion about the ability of renewables to do it, which I've stated a lot of times.
It is just like with wind - until 5% penetration it is all good and everybody is happy. At 10% you already have problems and at 20% you find yourself pouring money in an endless well.
Clearly efficiency/conservation could only be some part of the solution and can buy us some time, but it will not be that much. I need to stress that I am talking about electricity generation. In transportation the wasted energy is such an astounding amount that I will not be surprised if we can cut it by half with only a minor effort.
Given what you have written here and on the last post, and the lack of alternative ideas you have put forth, do you assume that nothing that currently exists will work in the face of peak oil? What's your solution?
I must admit that 2 things formed my quite negative attitude towards your initial post. First of all for thousandth time I see the proposed solutions to our energy woes summurized in the words "efficiency, conservation, renewables" without mentioning or analyzing the limits and problems associated with each one of them.
Like I said conservation and efficiency have their limits. More importantly they can not be relied upon. You can make an estimate how much you would achieve by implementing this and that but you can not enforce everybody on the other end of the generation-consuption line to implement the measures you want. IMO you will be surprised how many people just don't care - even don't care what their bills are.
For the wind & solar generation I also see about 20% as a practical limit. Again question is what happens next?
The second thing that disturbed me in your post were the questions you quoted, which IMHO are a little below the level of this blog. What do I want, where do I want it... this is a typical case of questions asked in order to get politically correct answers. Such questions are the same type of crap the media is giving to the public to feed its constant immature "I want, I want" attitude. Of course if you ask the average person what he/she wants he/she will tell you that would very much want windmills located some 10 thousand miles away from his house. Or in the back of the Moon - even preferable. This is self-evident and asking it in the form of a poll to people, most of which understand little to nothing of electricity generation is a very shallow trick IMO. What if I wanted a hydroelectric plant near my house - does this mean that I can demand utilities to create an artificial river and a lake by my neighbourhood?
Regarding the solutions I defend, if I were given a hypothetical budget I would spread it out the following way:
- 50% for nuclear
- 30% for renewables
- 20% for encouraging efficiency and conservation
Like I was defending until now, points 2) and 3) are partial solutions and presenting a partial solution as an end-point is very dangerous IMO. Therefore we need something else as an energy source for the future, and nuclear is the obvious choice for me.This is not true, as ericr voiced as a comment on the previous post, who would not like windmills near his home. However, future energy needs will need to be met somewhere. "10 thousand" miles was not a choice in this hypothetical. Living within 50 miles of a nuclear plant is more common than people would think. I live within 50 miles of two nuclear plants.
I agree, it is staggering the number of people that are ignorant of conservation and the energy crisis this nation faces. However, the same way that you state that you cannot enforce everybody on the other end of the line to implement conservation measures, you cannot force the idea of new nuclear plants to be constructed in their neighborhoods either. It would be political suicide for a government official to propose new nuclear in their district.
I think this is a legitmate poll to ask "Joe Everyman":
would you rather see rolling blackouts (a form of forced conservation) or new nuclear power built within X (50? 100?) miles of your home. I don't know how the public would judge or answer this question, but it may be a situation that the country faces in the short term.
You propose 50% of your hypothetical budget for new nuclear, half of which will have to be spent convincing residents of the proposed area that it is a necessary to build it where they live.
So it is not a poll, but a poll with argumentation. I appreciate that of course, but my experience in arguments tells me that you can defend any thesis if you accept a given set of assumptions. I definately could not accept the assumptions layed out in the initial post and even in the question asked and I don't think it is correct or fair to continue on that basis.
That's why I used the exaggerated figure of "ten thousand miles away", because the instictive desire of everybody is to pick the option that least affects him/her and benefits him/her mostly, without balancing it with the consequences or even with the reality in general.
If I had to make a questionarie to Joe Everyone (whom I personally do not separate from) I would ask:
- Would you rather live by a nuclear plant and accept the minimal risk (hundred times lower than you to die in your car or from nose bleeding) for it to fail and emit radiation. The risks from radiation are... (btw much lower than it is percieved)... the waste will need to be stored which will cost... ta da ta da
- Live by wind mill farms, and accept with almost certainty that you will have to face power shortages in the near future, becoming ever worse with time going by. 99%-100% certainty of drastically increased energy costs (ok, now you will have to pay double or triple what you pay today, possibly rising with time). 90-95% certainty you will be subject to rationing or other forms of restrictions... A very great certainty your children will live worse than you etc. etc... (btw personally I dismiss the sound/landscape argument, as being too evaporative in face of shortages)
- Coal... also becoming more expensive... carbon dioxide... global warming... ruined landscapes... radioactive and other heavy metals emitted in the atmosphere, water and soils etc. etc.
An informed choice, that's what I'd try to offer. Anything else are half truths which are much worse than a complete lie. Like the good journalists very well know - answers are not that important, it is the question that matters.A) Conservation and efficiency gains can't reset our demand at a much lower level.
B) Taken together, a number of alternative energy projects (wind, solar, tidal, unconventional hydro, biomass, etc) can't get us past 20% of our needs and handle peak capacity issues.
C) Re-localizing energy production through distributed energy systems / batteries can't smooth out peak demand and reduce waste over the transmission lines.
Until we try these ideas in earnest, it's hard for me to support building additional supply. Specific to Nuclear, NY already gets about 30% of it's supply from that. Adding in conventional hydro and other renewables gets you to just about 50% from non-carbon sources. If we can reduce demand significantly and ramp up renewables, we could lower NY's dependence on fossil fuels from 50% to 20-25%. That's a much better place to start an analysis of how we would switch the remainder over to non-fossil fuels.
But I'm glad you've stated your affirmative case on what you would do besides conservation and renewables:
This post was meant to stir discussion on this and see what the full range of ideas are out there. I am willing to put forth my ideas and I welcome other constructive ideas. The negative attitude you met was that you were simply tearing down ideas without affirming your own. The point of this post was basically "pick your poison".
IMHO we should try to do as much as possible with conservation and renewables before adding more capacity on any non-renewables, including nuclear. In particular, we should try to shave off peak electrical demand during the summer months.
In my posts I tried to challange your assumptions, and of course this looked "distructive" for all people sharing them. I'm sorry but if we are going to discuss, first I need to know that we are on an even ground.
Regarding your point - I've thought about that too. It is beyond doubt that we can try and maybe succeed to patch things for quite a while. Probably by massive investments in wind mills and solar panels, by down-sizing and using more efficiently the energy we have, we could be able to meet both ends for a couple of decades (give or take) of declining fossil fuels.
In this 2 decades though, we will have to pray (and pray very hard) that somebody will finally come up with some breakthrough that will make renewable energy scalable enough, or with some other energy source that is better and less enviromentally destructive than the choices we have today.
I can not predict the future - we may or may not reach this breakthrough. Several points though:
First it is much more likely to happen if we are not in an emergency situation, and we live a little bit at large. Already resources are being redirected from research for the future to maintaining the status quo - a shining example - renewable energy funding now goes for maintaining our presence in Iraq. If we go for tightening the belts the same will start happenin on ever larger scale.
Second, even if someone in 20 years discovers room-temperature radiation-free cold fusion, there is a great chance that we will not have be able to build it, because all our efforts and resources will be directed at keeping up with our current needs.
And third if we don't reach this breaktrough this would mean that Olduvai was right and we will start descending with unpredictable consequences. Having a certain opinion about the nature of Homo Sapiens though I don't expect it to lead to anything positive... there are simply too many of us and I see us burning every bit of carbon, cutting every tree (and every neighbour's throat we can reach) on the way down. I don't want this to happen.
Of course I could be wrong with the timing. It is possible that it is too early (or too late?) for making this choice but... here I have to rely on my gut feeling which tells me it is never too early.
Short term or not, conservation and efficiency nonetheless roundly beats every other current alternative.
Yes, of course energy costs will rise. But until they reach a point they will make efficiency improvements viable our whole economy will be in such trouble that these nice things you are talking about will be the last on the list. If we have a 20% unemployment and runaway inflation, who is going to invest in insulations?
On the other hand if it is decided the taxpayers to subsidize efficiency improvements we are going to end with another government induced madness on our heads. We are already paying ever larger amounts for that wind generation madness. What will be next?
Conservation (or demand destruction) is much more likely to happen sooner or later, but it will not be pretty at all.
No matter how gloomy the future might be, we should try to develop the best possible course of action and spend our "creative energy" productively.
So no windpower for you, but will you just sit and wait until the world falls apart around you?
In the long run we need to switch to renewable energy, if it turns out the flux of that energy is not sufficient to maintain our current lifestyle we need to start rethinking that lifestyle now. An important aspects of that is a longer term view that will make efficiency improvements viable now rather than later (when it might be too late). Labeling such attempts beforehand as "government induced madness" is not productive at al.
I explained why, and also the positive side of my position in my answer to peakguy.