DrumBeat: January 24, 2007
Posted by threadbot on January 24, 2007 - 10:05am
Topic: Miscellaneous
U.S. wind power seen growing by a quarter in 2007
Wind power generation in the United States will grow 26 percent in 2007, after increasing by 27 percent in 2006, the American Wind Energy Association said on Tuesday.In 2006, 2,454 megawatts of new wind generating capacity was installed, with $4 billion invested, the AWEA said. Only natural gas generating plants accounted for more new power generation capacity last year.
The state of our energy is dangerous
Gas prices may be coming down to earth, but for how long? Unfortunately, America’s economic and energy security is more vulnerable than ever. Incredibly, our reliance on foreign oil is now at a dangerous all-time high of 60 percent, almost double what it was during the 1970s energy crisis.The inconvenient truth is that we continue to pay a high price for decades of no-growth environmentalism. Special interests’ ongoing obstructionist lawsuits, restrictive environmental regulations and unreasonable laws all undermine America’s energy independence.
America (finally!) begins to embrace alternative energy
PROVO, UTAH - Well hallelujah!Are we Americans at last awakening to the probability that unless we change our ways, at some uncertain time in the future, there will be an energy crisis?
Put the brakes on anti-car drive
Let's hope Mayor Dave Cieslewicz and Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk summon the good sense to take the report they have received from the Peak Oil Task Force and file it under "T."For twaddle.
Uganda: Government Lists 71 Power Sites
In a strategic move to solve the energy crisis that has crippled the economy, the government has identified and assessed at least 71 potential small-scale hydropower sites across the country.
Dam Development: Murder, Repression and Environmental Destruction in Honduras
It would appear that the preferred tactic when it comes to mega-projects is to obtain financing first and deal with the environmental permit later. So the whole process becomes merely a bureaucratic one, involving political, not environmental decisions.
European Union announces new energy strategy
The European Commission published a white paper on the future of energy policy within the European Union on January 11. Although largely presented by the EU and in many media commentaries as an attempt to cut greenhouse gas emissions, the new energy strategy is driven primarily by the need for the European powers to reduce their dependence on unstable oil and gas imports.
The business of climate change: Why some firms want caps on emissions
FOR a country that is often cast as evil incarnate when it comes to the environment, America has amassed an impressive array of green credentials of late. Even the National Football League plans to offset the greenhouse gases generated by this year’s Super Bowl in February.
Contradictions seen in alternative energy plan
President Bush's proposals to reduce U.S. gasoline consumption by 20% in 10 years include more specific and ambitious new goals than in previous White House statements, but they also appear to rely on assumptions about energy markets, politics and technology that some experts say are debatable, and include some apparent contradictions.
Global environment fund gives money to dirty fuel
The world's biggest fund for environmental projects is investing for the first time in a non-renewable, polluting fuel -- coal -- in what it says is a new pragmatic approach to the energy needs of the developing world.
In West Africa the biggest new cause of deforestation in many regions is to grow biofuel. The land rush to establish biofuel plantations in developing nations is one of the most intense the world has ever seen. Literally millions of square miles could be turned into biofuel plantations in the tropics, and the impact this will have on global rainfall and global temperatures is incalculable - it is surely comparable to anything caused by anthropogenic CO2.
Minister wants debate on biofuel ethics
The rapid global expansion in biofuel production from agricultural feedstocks means that the world will soon need to start debating the ethics of burning food crops, according to Swedish farm minister Eskil Erlandsson.
Australia should lead the energy revolution
Australia is at the forefront of the devastating impact of climate change and must undergo an energy revolution to survive, says Australian scientist and author Tim Flannery.
New energy bill could put steam in geothermal plans
In northern Nevada, the hard work of pulling scalding water from 4,000 feet below ground and turning it into power for Las Vegas could become a little easier with the help of a new energy bill in Congress.
The heroes and villains of fuel economy: ForbesAutos.com details the most, least fuel-efficient vehicles
Vinod Khosla's Marshall Plan for rural India
The daily drumbeat of biofuel headlines has made Vinod Khosla -- co-founder of Sun Microsystems, former Kleiner-Perkins venture capitalist, and ethanol evangelist/entrepreneur extraordinaire -- a hard man to ignore of late. But Khosla's massive bet on renewable energy as the answer to climate change and peak oil (and big profits) may not even be his most ambitious scheme to remake the world. In 2002, Khosla co-wrote a paper with development economist Atanu Dey sketching out a plan to boost economic growth in rural India. It's hard to think bigger than a bid to upgrade the living standards of some 700 million people -- as the paper notes, one out of 10 people on this planet is a rural Indian.
If Tesco and Wal-Mart are friends of the earth, are there any enemies left?
The superstores compete to convince us they are greener than their rivals, but they are locked into unsustainable growth.
Oil chief emerges with climate warning
FORMER fossil fuel mogul John Schubert says the nation has reached a "tipping point" on climate change, with overwhelming public acceptance of the problem making it impossible for business and government to ignore it any longer.
There is an assumption made here that we have never fully defended, but simply taken for granted, and I have noted it in some of the criticism we've recently recieved, so it's high time to address the topic in a straight-forward fashion. The assumption is: Political power is a type of complexity, and thus it is a function of energy.
Automakers cool to Bush plans to cut gas consumption
...Bush has also called for a five percent improvement in overall fuel economy, a move that could require heavy investments in research and development and threaten popular but gasoline-guzzling vehicles like General Motor's Hummer.
Biggest threat to drinking water? Rust
More than 170,000 public water systems are at work to keep tap water flowing into American homes and meeting the standards of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974.But after the extensive purifying process, water ends up in your glass after traveling through pipes laid under city streets 50, 60 or 100 years ago.
Internal Rifts Cloud Democrats' Opportunity on Warming
The House Democrats had not quite finished their "100 hours" agenda when they met in the Capitol basement Thursday morning, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) was already looking ahead. As her colleagues ate bagels and turkey sausage, she warned that their next challenge would be a lot tougher than popular issues such as student loans and ethics reforms. For her next act, she planned to take on global warming.
Bush focus on oil imports marks failure on climate, say greens
"He remains delusional," was the view of Greenpeace's Steve Sawyer after Bush called for production of domestic oil and crop-made ethanol fuel to be ramped up to ease US dependence on energy imports.
Washington's sudden climate change
Proposals to cut greenhouse gases are flying around Washington like confetti in a hurricane, with President Bush tossing out his ideas in Tuesday night's State of the Union message. What's needed in this debate is full disclosure on the difficulty of the task.
Tokyo climate change meeting eyes post-Kyoto rules
Senior officials from advanced and developing countries met in Tokyo on Wednesday to start work on a follow-up agreement to the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.
Ethanol Production Booming on Demand
The energy agenda in Washington has been long dominated by oil interests, but in a reversal of political fortunes, these days it is Big Oil fighting to preserve its tax incentives and the ethanol industry that is adding new ones.
Suppose we reach the administration's ultimate target of 60 billion gallons in 2030. That would offset less than half of the projected increase in annual oil use. Here's why. First, it's necessary to convert the 60 billion gallons into barrels. Because there are 42 gallons in a barrel, that means dividing by 42. Further: Ethanol has only about two-thirds of the energy value of an equal volume of gasoline. When you do all the arithmetic, 60 billion gallons of ethanol displace just under 1 billion barrels of gasoline. If that merely offsets increases in oil use, it won't cut existing import dependence or greenhouse gases.
Lack of Budget Could Hurt Nuclear Energy Revival, Official Says
Blair accused of nuclear waste 'cover-up'
Scientists claim committee's conclusions were manipulated for political gain.
Are Saudis waging an oil-price war on Iran?: Falling fuel costs probably not a coincidence, oil traders say
Oil traders and others believe that the Saudi decision to let the price of oil tumble has more to do with Iran than economics.Their belief has been reinforced in recent days as the Saudi oil minister has steadfastly refused calls for a special meeting of OPEC and announced that the nation is going to increase its production, which will send the price down even farther.
Oil surges on U.S. plan to boost emergency stockpile
Oil jumped over 4 percent to $55 a barrel on Tuesday as the United States announced plans to build up its emergency crude reserves and as colder weather pushed up demand in the world's top consumer.
Efforts to lower Hawaii gas prices snarl
More than eight months after Hawaii suspended its first-in-the-nation cap on gas prices, the latest attempt to lower motorists' bills is stuck in neutral.
The weekly trip to your local gas station may be costing you more than you think. In fact, so-called "hot gas" is costing consumers like you and I billions of dollars every year. Is this just an oversight, or a scheme devised by gas stations to milk consumers of more money?
Belarus to demand Russia pay rent for land under gas, oil pipes
Belarus will demand that Russia pay rent for land under pipelines that it uses to pump its oil and gas to Europe, the country's president said at a government meeting Tuesday.The ex-Soviet state tried to instate a transit levy on Russian oil passing through its territory at the beginning of the year, in retaliation for new charges imposed by Moscow, but relented after Russia halted crude supplies.
Alexander Lukashenko said, "Without fuss or ambitions, we will take corresponding measures in line with international law, and will demand that they pay us."
EU gets cold feet on capping car emissions
A Commission proposal on reducing cars' carbon-dioxide releases has been delayed because commissioners are unable to agree on whether targets should be binding for manufacturers.
Industry leaders and lawmakers are collaborating to curb emissions. Is the logjam over global warming finally starting to break?
Automakers highlight fuel-efficient cars
Automakers highlighted their work to develop clean and fuel-efficient technologies at the Washington Auto Show on Tuesday, hours before President Bush outlined an energy agenda that could shape the industry's future.
Berlin told it faces triple threat if nuclear energy phase-out continues
Germany will miss its CO2 emission targets, face rising electricity prices and become "dramatically" more reliant on Russian gas if it keeps to its policy of phasing out nuclear energy, a new study warns.
Devon Energy to Exit West Africa
"The significant growth opportunities we have developed onshore in North America and in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico are providing compelling rationale for redeploying our financial and intellectual capital in these areas," commented Devon's president, John Richels. "As a result of the West African divestitures, we will sharpen our focus in North America. At the same time we will be concentrating our international operations in Brazil and China, where we have established competitive advantages."
Indonesian mud volcano caused by drilling, say scientists
A mud volcano that has erupted in Indonesia, forcing the evacuation of thousands of villagers, was most probably caused by drilling for gas, according to the first published scientific study into the phenomenon.
OT - David Matthews
A couple of days ago I posted that I would no longer read any of his posts. Judging by the responses I read recently, it was a wise decision.
I would skim some "low value" posters in the past, but refusing to read is a unique honor I reserved for Mr. Matthews.
However, even reading responses to his posts is tiresome. May I respectfully recommend this strategy to other valued posters (almost all of you).
Best Hopes,
Alan
My request for Super G is to add an "Ignore" flag that a reader could select for a given poster. Any comment by that poster (or reply thereto by others) would be omitted from display for a user who chooses to ignore said poster. This would achieve Alan's goal but also cut down on the clutter.
I second that motion. TOD has taken a decided turn for the worse the last couple of months. Three very rude and prolific posters are dominating the DrumBeat. We need either more aggressive moderation (banning) or an ignore button.
Personally, I would prefer banning of abusive posters. The bad manners of a few, if tolerated, can become contagious.
TOD's Drupal software has a built-in comment rating system that could easily be enabled. Sites such as Slashdot and DailyKos have used comment rating for years and it has helped keep the trolls from dominating the discourse.
Having a dissenting opinion is not being 'rude'. When people learn the difference, they might add such a function.
I think David Mathews is both new to this, so going through the mental furniture-rearranging that one goes through upon learning about Peak OIl, and sensing the consistant channel of thought on here - unintentional - of, "How Do We Keep The Party Going?"
Now, I say unintentional because I think on an intellectual level most of us understand that easy motoring is not going to keep going indefinately, no matter what kind of weird fuel we come up with, the Earth can't take it. But, the idea of going back to a non-easy-motoring lifestyle frankly scares the holy crap out of modern people. I've lived very very low on the socioeconomic chain, little or no electricity, very few calories, etc., and I still think it's a daunting thought. Especially since my family's poverty was against a backdrop of a society where The Machine was taking care of most of them fine, and at the very least we got to live on the crumbs from the richer ppl's tables. What about a society where everyone's poor in the conventional sense? Most ppl younger than say 40 have never been really hungry, never walked miles daily as a simple process of getting from Point A to Point B, never fished for sustenance or sewed up their clothes to remain decent. The idea of doing so, at a very deep level, scares the hole bejesus out of them. Add to that the brainwashing, and it is deep, that if one does not have a connection to the Internet and lots of electrical stuff in general, one is suffering deeply.
So there's a deep channel of thought here, of trying to think up ways to keep the party going. Even though anyone who thinks about it knows the party's not going to keep going.
This does not mean TOD is in the pocket of the oil co's. I find it really neat that we have so many petroleum industry ppl here, so many hard-science types, it really says something that Peak Oil has been defined and is promulgated by the very people whose livlihood has been milking the oil teat. They know what they're talking about.
TOD is not an oil co. front, the vast majority of ppl here are not oil. co shills, and at least at the conscious level, none of us want the impossible, earth-killing oil party to keep going. It just seems like that at times, especially to a new person.
My suggestion to Matthews is to just sit back, relax, and read here for a while, let the pieces settle into place, learning about Peak Oil is pretty overwhelming at first, things are not going to change much over the next 6 months or a year, and just sit back and soak up the info.
I'm sorry, but I must respectfully disagree with you on this. The problem with many people on TOD is that they have a set of preconcieved notions. Whether this was instilled in them via outside influences or listening to someones 'rant', most people hear bad news and witness some supporting evidence and automatically assume the worse.
The search stops there.
On Peak Oil, if they look a little closer and maintain an open mind, they can easily spot hundreds of potential solutions to this liquid fuel crisis. Just because the future doesn't include FFs doesn't mean that in some ways it wont be remarkably similar to today.
Hothgar, solutions on paper are nice, but you do not consider the complexity and limitations to each potential solution and of all current potential solutions combined (silver bbs) given that TimezUP.
And considering our "dear leaderz" are not up to the task of actually getting started on the problem let alone recognizing it (consider our clueless senator's and the silly babysteps proposed by the politically impotent, typical Politician we call a president).
"Just because the future doesn't include FFs doesn't mean that in some ways it wont be remarkably similar to today."
The "future" world will be remarkably similar to today's world in many ways... what is going to change very dramatically is the Ratio between populations living similar to today's First Worlders vs those living similar to today's Third World (including and especially the somalias etc).
Hope you find a "good pocket" to live. No such thing as "safe" - only "safer" (except when playing tag of course).
Oh please. From the way you act, you have already given up, and without even trying. What if someone had a design for some magical fusion device on paper. Would you still dismiss it outright? For reference, we do have a source of power 'on paper' that can satisfy all our energy needs: they're sometimes called 'wind', 'solar', 'hydro', 'geothermal', 'nuclear', 'electrification', 'biofuels', 'conservation'.
But clearly, they are so complex and have such high limitations that we shouldn't even try! Better go get in that drivers seat of your SUV!
I hear its about to take a trip to the nearest mall...
Hothgar, you ask if I would dismiss a "magical fusion device on paper" ?? It depends - How much energy do you get from this magical device while it is still "on paper" ? When would you get it off paper and into REALITY and at what cost and using what resources and would it be available for service before declining oil production begins killing the world economy???
You can imagine or project whatever you want but then you have to deal with reality of actually producing and deploying the system. As long as you stay "on paper" virtually anything might seem possible - "infinite possibilities" without considering probabilities or limitations posed by reality. We need realistic solutions now, not imaginary solutions on paper to hope for someday, and to waste time and energy on in futile pursuit in the present.
As for the simplistic view on wind, solar, hydro (and what energy source is 'electrifiction" ??) etc, - as I said above, you ignore the limitations of each and the complexity of the system you are trying to service (world energy needs). Each will contribute and play a role to some extent but they will not run this civilization as it's structured now.
And playing with imaginary hype with imaginary numbers "on paper" is not "trying." It's intellectual masterbation to relieve your anxiety over reality.
Hello fleam,
I do believe in Peak Oil, fleam. There is no dispute between myself and the Peak Oil concept. I am also in favor of Peak Oil, too. Humankind doesn't suffer from too little energy, but rather from too much. Humans have modified the Earth in terrible ways and created a mess. There is also a problem of overpopulation, poverty, extreme injustice, exploitation, violence and perpetual warfare on the Earth.
All of these behaviors indicate that Homo sapiens is a self-destructive anti-natural suicidally-inclined animal. In other words: Human nature is the primary problem afflicting the Earth. And ... Peak Oil is a blessing, the real sin is humankind's addiction to oil and all of the other fossil fuels.
I am in favor of ending the oil, electricity, fossil fuel, and technological age. Humankind has already done enough harm, humankind has already done too much harm. Under these circumstances the best choice for the species is for humans to just stop. This generation should make whatever sacrifices are necessary to protect the future health & well-being of humans a century, a millennia from now.
In other words: The American Way of Life, (and all technology and industry), must end. And it will end, too. Whatever we do not voluntarily sacrifice Nature will take away from us in the most harsh and painful manner possible. Humankind's extinction is approching with each passing day, we need to live within the context of the knowledge that all these things are passing away.
The Oil Drum seems involved in a perpetual lobbying effort on behalf of the oil industry. The prominent voices of the Peak Oil effort have explicitly lobbied on behalf of the oil industry. There are far too many people here who have their careers, income, wealth, investments and retirement tied up in the success of the oil industry.
In other words: The Oil Drum is not an objective source regarding Peak Oil, the oil industry, environmentalism or geopolitics.
There is plenty of useful and relevant and technically precise information at The Oil Drum. But the price of all this good information is a perpetual lobbying and public relations effort on behalf of the oil industry.
And one more thing: Matthew Simmons is no hero. He is a lobbyist for the oil industry. He is not beyond using fear to provoke the general public into sacrificing ANWR and the Gulf Coast on behalf of the oil industry.
Environmentalists should keep these facts in mind when seeking to respond to the Peak Oil problem. The primary oil-industry proponents of Peak Oil are all explicitly anti-environmental and pro-pollution. They are also pro-consumerism and extremely nationalistic (in the worst possible way). They are often pro-militaristic and they do not particularly care how many impoverished people are killed in the process of seizing and exploiting the natural resources of other nations.
In other words: The Peak Oil movement behaves very much like an enemy of environmentalism.
I wish it were not so.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
Hello Alan,
It's alright, it's ok. If Alan doesn't want to read my posts that is fine with me. All that I care about is that he keeps on thinking about me. My name in on his mind, his thoughts are a unsettled, maybe he's a little angry, and certainly he has heard some things that he really didn't want to hear.
Such is life.
I'd feel terrible for anyone who actually did read every post on a blog such as The Oil Drum. There's got to be more to life than this.
I don't read every post nor do I read every poster. For example, Westexas original presentation of his ExportLand model was enough to convince me. The argument on behalf of Exportland are imminently reasonable. But after I have read one presentation of that model I could safely ignore every new post from Westexas which was repeatedly presenting the same model.
Here is another example, Robert Rapier and Westexas happen to get into the same argument virtually every day. The first time that they engaged in their argument, Robert Rapier's viewpoint was successful. I agreed with his argument and believe that it is still valid. But since that time these two people have engaged in the very same argument dozens of times and -- it is worth noting -- Robert Rapier has won each and every time. So I can safely ignore the arguments that they engage in because I already know the subject matter, the two viewpoints, and who will win.
Then there are a whole set of posters who seem to exist and also seem to not really exist at the same time. These phantom individuals also have a habit of engaging in the same arguments about the same subjects every day. There must be a set of three or six arguments which people at The Oil Drum argue about every day. These phantoms serve to provoke the argument and sometimes what they say have merit and other times they appear to engage in arguments simply out of boredom or fun.
Finally, there are a set of anonymous posters who apparently use The Oil Drum's forum as a means of venting their most obscene, perverse, offensive or otherwise passive-aggressive thoughts. In some cases these individuals seem to possess more than one identity and some have said as much.
So, Alan, if you are spending your time reading all of these posters instead of my own, suit yourself. It is your life and your time. I really don't particularly care what you do or do not do.
But it is evident that plenty of people have listened to what I have said and that people do remember my comments from long ago & far away.
There's more to life than oil, automobiles, consumerism and nationalism. That much is certain. There's more to life than yesterday, today, and tomorrow, too. The Universe is very large and very ancient, Homo sapiens are a transient phenomenon of the present moment. A tregedy is unfolding upon the Earth but in the long run everything will turn out fine because Nature still remains in control over life's destiny. Humans dream of immortality but Nature actually possesses eternity. So much for humankind.
Klaatu barada nikto!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaatu_barada_nikto
Yet there are no menacing aliens threatening to destroy the Earth, nor ever were. There is only one animal which is busy destroying the Earth and exterminating all of the life on this planet: Homo sapiens.
Too bad for the Earth. Humankind is the violent monster that consumes everything and leaves a desolate lifeless planet in its wake.
Has oil made you wealthy, Westexas? Look at the mess which your wealth has generated. Should future generations thank you for hell that they will inherit?
As a reply to the issue of disruption I am posting here what I posted on the Drumbeat of the 23rd but was at the absolute bottom and the thread had grown stale and dated.
It was a reply to Seadragon on the same subject.
**********************************************************************
Seadragon,
You can only successfully ban someone who plays by some standard of fair play and rules. Its obvious that a disrupter or poser(one who assumes others identities) is not going to play fair. They just come back with another ID and continue on. Sometimes they assume many IDs, each backing up the others.
If the owners of a site choose not to invoke moderation, as is their right, then its usually up to the membership to use peer pressure to deny the disrupter the usage of the site. This can work since the disrupter has essentially lost his audience.
If something is not done eventually the website is destroyed and most worthy folks will have left in disgust.
Sometimes fighting fire with fire works and sometimes other means works, like ignoring the disrupter. Eventually they move on. If they don't they tend to attract others of their kind.
Any successful website will find itself subject to this kind of activity since it affords them a ready audience. Soon enough their agenda is recognized even by the most lenient of members. Members who say that they(the disrupters) have the RIGHT to express themselves only gives them then the opportunity to foist their rather obvious views on the others or else make ridiculous debates and destroy decent dialogue by the other members. Whole threads are hi-jacked just so the disrupter can cause dissension and create angst thereby satisfying his desires. He feels important then and might bring in other cronies by feeling successful at his tactics.
Threads should stay on topic but name calling and disruption is their game. Sarcasm reigns supreme. The content is lost and in disarray.
I realize Drumbeat is different. I assume it was set up so members could express themselves. If its worth having then its worth fighting to keep. And to keep civil and within bounds , by the members if no one else.
Moderation is very time consuming. Its very contentious. It does not always work. It can drive good members away. Sometimes a disruptive poster will respond and clean up his act. I myself have many times wandered far afield and had to be reminded to not do so.
The owners of the site have the ultimate authority. Sometimes thay can direct the way the site is operated without ironclad rules. Ultimately the quality of the membership is what makes the difference. Once it starts downhill though its hard to stop or control.
I have created many websites for communications purposes. I no longer do that. The payback was finally not worth the effort. Even watching and tracking the Apache logs became tiresome. Having paid the costs in both time and money I finally had to close the site/s. Many with large numbers of members.
There was some talk on yesterday's open thread about how to introduce others, in their ignorance and dubiousness, to the concept of Peak Oil, and to impress upon them its seriousness. It seems to me, based on my experience, that at a certain point it becomes necessary to throw up one's hands and quit trying, as the endeavor tends to produce far more frustration than success. The only remedy is to sit back quietly and be proven correct over time by the unfolding of events.
My greatest success in introducing others to the Peak Oil concept has been through what I call a tangential approach. For example, when I'm teaching sailing (which is what I do a lot of in the summers) the topic of the excellence of sailing as an activity that does not burn gasoline comes up, and from there it is easy to make the transition to Peak Oil--or abrupt climate change.
I always conclude with the humorous/serious observation that to save the world we should sail more and introduce others to sailing.
Note that if Peak Oil is presented as doom and gloom, it is a hard sell: "Give up any thought of happiness in your life!" No, I think that emphasis on sailing and certain indoor aerobic activities is a much better approach to getting people to think and act constructively.
"There was some talk on yesterday's open thread about how to introduce others, in their ignorance and dubiousness, to the concept of Peak Oil, and to impress upon them its seriousness. It seems to me, based on my experience, that at a certain point it becomes necessary to throw up one's hands and quit trying, as the endeavor tends to produce far more frustration than success. The only remedy is to sit back quietly and be proven correct over time by the unfolding of events.
This is something I've noted before and believe to be true, though I don't have any proof to offer: When you talk about peak oil (anything, really), though the person may not "get it" while you're talking to them about it (or even worse just dismiss you offhand), what you say appears to be taken into the brain anyway and stowed away for a later time such that when the things that you've talked about start to come up, that information is still lurking there and the response time is going to be much faster than if their brain had not been keeping that knowledge simmering around on some mental back burner.
What you say gives me hope. I teach CIS in a community college and part of the curriculum in all my classes is to introduce Peak Oil, as being aware of energy availability issues is essential for any educated professional or manager. When discussing the subject, I'm aware that there is a lot of wisdom available in the world's religions for communicating a truth that others are unable to hear:
Buddhism speaks of detachment--doing without doing.
Hinduism has the Bhagavad Gita, where Krishna teaches how to act without expecting a result.
Christianity teaches to give without letting the other hand know what you're doing, so you expect nothing in return.
My spirit completely agrees with PhilRelig who suggests we, "sit back quietly and be proven correct..." Professionally and ethically, though, I continue the effort although there is little to show for it--if I've done my job right, at some point when they need the information, they may have a fragmented memory that will be helpful. When I think about effective teachers, I am reminded that I learned most from "who they were" than what they "said."
The best way to talk to the semi-uninitiated about peak oil is to speak with brief kernels of wisdom that make them think. I spoke with some guys who were replacing my AC a few months ago. We talked around the subject, but not directly to it. More people know the score than you might imagine.
I understand and can relate to phil's frustration. I agree with you, don and substrate - keep it brief, avoid the "scary stuff" and just hope you plant the seed of thought. Then let people ask questions if and when they have interest.
Understanding "peak oil" and how it will affect our world takes a lot of time and mental/emotional energy for most people. And everyone has to work through the "stages of grief" in their own time.
Hi P, Don and others,
Well, I have had many talks with people from the "semi-uninitiated" to the full-on (initiated as well as full-on "un-" - and beyond) - and I thought I had it down. After a recent email exchange though, I received the following. I'd welcome suggestions for a reply and comments: (please, no expletives):
Here goes:
"Let me re-phrase my
question, and I'd appreciate a concise answer:
Every hour, 4 x 10^14 Joules of solar energy strikes the earth.
Every year, the world's population consumes 3 x 10^14 Joules of energy.
Given that more energy strikes the earth in an hour than mankind uses in
a year, why do you believe that humanity will not be able to solve the
energy problems caused by decreasing petroleum supply through
innovation?"
(did you email "infinite improbability overdrive" ???).
Ask him how many of those joules of solar energy he thinks we can capture starting now and the time it will take to capture enough to offset the energy loss with declining world oil production.
Ask him What cost in energy and materials to build and deploy the infrastructure made for the capture, storage and distribution of that energy (include the electrical grid updates necessary).
Be sure to include all the cost of all resources and energy used for production and placement of all parts of that infrastructure, as well as resources and time consumed for construction of production facilities, transportation support, etc.
Assume Peak is Now. And consider the world at competition for the resources to build and maintain said infrastructure while oil production is declining. But for the fun of it, also Assume peace on earth and good will toward man-thingy throughout the buildout phase. Even assume no effect on the rest of the world's economy that relies on and competes for the same resources and energy.
Ask hime what the percentage increase was for silcon last year.
Tell him to quite making childishly naive assumptions off of back of mental napkins.
It depends on what you mean by "solve." Life is always a tangle of problems, with folks fighting and starving and suffering and dying. This has been the nature of reality for longer than anyone can know. However many problems we "solve," we really just trade one bunch of problems for another. Whether the new set is preferable to the old set, that might depend on the perspective.
Biology, the web of life on earth, has evolved over billions of years to harvest the energy of the sun. We've done a great job of figuring out how to extract the energy stored away by that process. But to harvest the flow more effectively, that is a monster challenge.
I suspect it is a reductionist way of thinking that gives some people a very high confidence in our capability to control the world. We have split atoms and nuclei practically down to the quarks. What mysteries could possibly remain?
But in fact, systems can often behave in ways for which an understanding of the components is not very helpful. Computers are a nice example. You can build a computer out of simple logic gates. But the behavior of the computer can be exceedingly difficult to predict. Living systems are even more complex. That Biosphere project in Texas was a notable failure. They tried to build a moderate sized system that could be almost completely closed except for sunlight coming in, a system that could sustain human life. The experiment didn't last very long!
The arguement that plenty of energy lands on the earth is about as silly as the argument that overpopulation is not a problem because all the people on earth could comfortably fit in the state of Texas. It's true, if we could pave the planet with photovoltaic panels, we could generate enough electricity to supply energy to keep everyone decently comfortable. Some problems: 1) how to manufacture so many photovoltaic panels, 2) paving the planet with photovoltaics might cause lots of wierd other problems, like killing all the life.
The thing is, humanity is a very complex system! Even if a solution is possible, that is no guarantee at all that folks will use it. After all, if you think about it, war is completely unnecessary. Think about all the suffering caused by war! If people were really so capable of solving problems, why can't we just stop killing each other? But the fact is, we are suffering from a kind of collective insanity. We behave in a non-optimal fashion!
So why won't it be easy to solve the energy problem with solar energy?
1) the technical problem: it isn't clear how we could ramp up any technology to a global scale without creating global scale havoc, e.g. pollution from the all the silicon factories etc.
2) the political problem: even if the technical problem could be solved, somehow there needs to be a deployment strategy so that people somehow just find it in their own best interest to make the necessary investments and arrange their lives to make the solution happen. Just who could possibly do what to steer the inconceivably complex system of humanity to behave as dictated by the solution... seems a harder problem to solve that the technical problem!
I am no fatalist! I think that what we do really matters, that the kind of world we will experience in the future depends crucially on our present actions. I have great confidence that people will continue to innovate in remarkably creative ways. The basic parameters of life will continue in the future just as they have throughout the past... people will grow food, reproduce, educate children, get sick, and die. We'll keep trading old problems for new.
Whether folks will keep travelling across half the globe for vacations, or wear t-shirts indoors and eat fresh strawberries when it's sub-zero outside, that I have my doubts about! If you look at the range of cultures around the world throughout history, it is very extraordinary how much energy we consume in the USA! The general way of things is reversion to the mean. "This time is different" are the quintessential famous last words.
One concise answer would be "Time and resources". The current pace of technological innovation, which is incredible, has been possible because of the cheap and easy access to oil allowing far more specialists, construction of specialised materials etc. Assuming we have, at most, twenty years of that left do we have the time, or the willpower, to increase factors of efficiency in solar panels to the required levels.
Another would be to dispute the energy usage mentioned. 3x10^14J sounds like it doesn't include energy used in creating life itself, warming the planet and the other uses the world puts solar energy to without our intervention.
I would answer with a(some) simple question(s).
If so much energy strikes the earth every day, why is the world's transportation infrastructure built around energy from other sources? Why did we begin using fossil fuels in the first place? What advantages did they bring (to those already bathed in this orgy of energy)?
If your mark does not understand the advantages that fossil fuel brought, and why it brought it (to those already bathed in this orgy of energy), how can they expect to understand the issues about replacing it?
If the mark considers these questions, there maybe some progress.
Alternatively, you may consider the story about the gold in the ocean. Apparently, there is enough gold suspended in the world's seawater to give 9 pounds to every person on the planet. Surely this is a solution to world poverty? Or perhaps not.
This is perhaps useful transition into the topic of resource density, depending upon the person involved.
I would start by saying that the question is an excellent and insightful question. Then I would turn the question around and ask
"Given that more energy strikes the earth in an hour than mankind uses in a year, why do you think that humanity has been unable to solve the energy (and geopolitical) problems caused by decreasing petroleum supply given that the scientific knowledge of how to convert sunlight into power has been known for over 100 years now? What makes you think that our slowness in adopting solar power will change fast enough going forward?"
Hi Sendoil, JimK, Andy, Dot and GoingGreen,
Thanks for the validation, smiles (my own) and suggestions. (My correspondent is a recent grad of an Ivy League school, in case this helps set the stage.) I appreciate your support and I'll keep you posted as the conversation (hopefully) progresses. (Perhaps at some point, I can pass along some of your comments.)
And yes, I'd actually started a previous exchange by saying his question was excellent -(it was a slightly different question at that point.)
Aniya,
First I'd do a little research of my own on solar (and wind), rather than peppering the poor person with a lot of open ended questions. Please see my post in a later article. The truth is that renewables are perfectly adequate, and most people who are really "devotees" of PO know very little about them.
2nd, let me answer your question a little bit.
Solar comes in many forms. We use it for 98% of our heating and take it for granted (the outside temperature would be several hundred degrees below zero without it) and it's not that hard to design homes that reduce that final 2% to .2%. Solar thermal is perfectly good for water heating, and used that way by millions around the world. It's just a little more complicated than a nat gas water heater, and a tiny bit less convenient, that's all. Electrical generation using concentrating solar thermal is only a little more expensive than fossil fuels.
PV has been around for 150 years, but it has been steadily improving the whole time. Now, it's still somewhat more expensive than fossil fuels. Still, it's doubling in size every 2 years, and is a $10B industry.
It is certain that PV will continue to fall in cost. Lately it's price has plateaued due to demand increasing even faster than supply, but costs have continued to fall. Improvements are certain in both cell and installation costs.
In the US the roof area for residential buildings alone would be enough to provide 100% of our current electrical demand.
Those who question the above simply don't know the industry. I would ask them to provide at least a little evidence for their skepticism, rather than simply accept their skeptical questions.