The Oil Drum

There are, apparently, a lot of existing technologies that can be used to distribute and condition power much more effectively and reliably than our current systems do (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.07/juice.html). However, these require an up-front investment and continuous reinvestment, which our deregulated energy companies are disinclined to do; they are busier watching quarterly profit-and-loss statements than figuring out how to deliver "nine-nines" (99.9999999) reliability.

As Amory Lovins points out, the end use is what matters, and focusing on end-use efficiency is a much better post-peak strategy than trying to push more energy into a system with huge transmission losses and inefficiencies. I just bought some more compact fluorescent bulbs to replace the last incandescent bulbs (I wonder why they are still being sold!); if they (as advertised) consume a quarter the electricity of the equivalent incandescent, then I can decrease my electrical consumption for lighting by 75% with no loss of amenity. And since there are are such huge losses in electrical generation and transmission, increasing efficiency at the point of use translates into huge "upstream" savings.

I was reminded of this by Tainter's comments at the "Peak Oil and the Environment" conference; I transcribed a section that caught my attention:

...[A high-gain system] yields high return on effort, and is typically so large as to seem inexhaustible. There is little incentive to conserve, and it would be counter-productive to do so. The resource is used profligately. And so the pesticide sellers treat the farmers the way we treat pools of petroleum; their strategy is to use and discard. In contrast, the resources in low-gain systems are scarce, and must be used conservatively. There is pressure for efficiency. Low-gain systems are often paradoxically impressive for their complexity of organization. The reason is that each unit of production in a low-gain system generates only a small surplus. To accomplish work, these small surpluses have to be aggregated.  This requires many channels to transmit the surplus energy, and correspondingly complex organization.

When I read Tainter's work, I wonder whether he distinguishes between "complex" and "complicated" systems. A number of system theorists do:

A complex system is a system with a large number of elements, building blocks or agents, capable of interacting with each other and with their environment. The interaction between elements may occur only with immediate neighbors or with distant ones; the agents can be all identical or different; they may move in space or occupy fixed positions, and can be in one state or multiple states. The common characteristic of all complex systems is that they display organization without any external organizing principle being applied. In the most elaborate examples the agents can learn from past history and modify their states accordingly. Adaptability and robustness is often the byproduct. Part of the system may be altered and the system may still be able to function.

...

What is complex and how does it differ from the merely complicated?

The most elaborate mechanical watches are called très compliqué. They are, as their French name implies, complicated. A Star Caliber Patek Phillipe has 103 pieces. A Boeing 747-400 has, excluding fasteners, 3x106 parts. In complicated systems parts have to work in unison to accomplish a function. One key defect (in one of the many critical parts) brings the entire system to a halt. This is why redundancy is built into designs when system failure is not an option (e.g. a nuclear submarine).

The stock market, a termite colony, cities, or the human brain, are complex. The number of parts, e.g. the number of termites in a colony, is not the critical issue. The key characteristic is adaptability. The systems respond to external conditions. A food source is obstructed and an ant colony finds a way to go around the object; a few species become extinct and ecosystems manage to adapt.

(Northwestern Institute of Complex Systems)

It seems that there are circumstances in which being more complicated -- i.e. the global system of oilfields, pipelines, terminals, tankers, refineries, etc. -- brings diminishing returns, but where greater complexity could create greater adaptability and robustness, i.e. dispersed generation by a great number of simple and solid-state renewable energy sources, networked through a super-reliable and efficient electrical grid.

I recommend Kevin Kelley's Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems, and the Economic Work as a good introduction to how complex systems work. On the darker side, the Global Guerillas site explores how complicated systems are vulnerable to deliberate infrastructure distruption.