A brilliant analysis IMO. The author recognizes that food is stored solar energy and lays out the thesis that energy vulnerability contributed to Rome's fall. It's easy to see the foreign parallel with the USA. Less obvious to some is the internal parallel in the USA. California is the de facto center of culture and science, the source of much innovation and progress. It is also an energy island, partly of its own making, just at the central government has isolated itself from the larger world with its energy policies. IMO much of the anti ethanol rhetoric found here comes from California and its realization that it may be so vulnerable as to lose power to the hinterlands. The Midwest is held in contempt just as Rome viewed the barbarians as uncultured and backwards. From its de facto control of science it develops arcane and irrelevant theories like EROEI to maintain its position of power. But the barbarians know the center energy island is vulnerable and keep up the pressure. Over time the power shifts. The bright side for California is that there is still a Rome and there will always be a California, just not as arrogant and powerful.
Right. 1 unit consumed to produce 100 units (99 net) in the early days of oil. 1 unit consumed to produce (maybe) 1.3 units (0.3 net) for corn ethanol. No relevance whatsoever. Sheesh!
There is a perspective on eroei that renders the fossil-fuel-proportion argument irrelevant in objective discussion. Instead of considering individual fuels, consider the _average_ eroei of fuels available to civilization. This average eroei is currently about 10. (Robert Kaufman), about the same as the current eroei of fossil fuels.
The implications of a much lower average eroei are clear and stark. The eroei is the ratio of the energy obtained to the energy that must be dissipated to obtain it. If the average eroei of all energy sources is 10, then out of every 10 units of energy we produce, we get to keep 9 units of energy for uses other than energy production (or 0.9 out of 1). If the average eroei of all energy sources is 3, then out of every 3 units of energy we produce, we get to keep 2 units of energy for uses other than energy production (or or 0.67 out of 1).
Consider what this means for total energy production. The society with an eroei of 10 produces 1.1 units of energy for each 1 unit of energy needed for purposes other than producing energy. The society with an eroei of 3 produces 1.5 units of energy for each 1 unit of total energy needed for purposes other than producing energy, 1.5/1.1 = 1.36, 36% more total energy production per unit of energy needed for purposes other than producing energy than the society with an eroei of 10.
Maybe I'm just a total idiot, but this appears to be a rationalization that eroei of newer fuels is irrelevant because the rest of society's non-energy producing eroei will make up for whatever the eroei is for newer non-fossil fuels.
That may be true if the energy producing eroei remains positive. But what makes you think that civilization is going to increase its non-energy producing eroei ENOUGH to make up for a declining energy producing eroei? Nice comfy theory, but where is the data?
And once net energy producing eroei becomes negative, is that still okay as long as society can make up for it in other areas? It all nets out? This sounds like gobble-de-goop rationalization to me. I hope you feel better, but I don't.
You can eternally run faster to stay in place, but that sounds pretty tiring to me.
Hi. As a new TOD member, I can't seem to find a
way to message posters, but I'd be interested in
being in touch with the several who hie from the
big isle, where I'm planning to move for PPO-
related reasons.
If the net energy flow into civilization decreases (due to a declining average eroei), and this is not compensated by efficiency gains in energy consuming activities, civilization will decline.
EROEI of less than 1 works for me. All energy is not equal. Some are dispatchable others are not. Some are easily transported others are not. I'll trade 100 units of "lousy" energy for 99 units of "quality" energy and do very well.
We can choose energy units or petroleum units or economic units ($) to compare input and output. If we use economic units (and we have a free market) we will see the best use of resources. Markets aren't free but they are still smarter than the politicians that everyone seems willing to turn their lives over to.
I'll trade 100 units of "lousy" energy for 99 units of "quality" energy and do very well.
Welcome to the real world where you will never get anywhere close to that deal. Anyway, EROEI is more the issue with the initial production (or harvesting) of the 100 units of "lousy" energy. If that gets less than one, then it matters not how much money you throw at it.
Are you saying that an EROEI of 0.99 is too good of a deal in the real world? I use "lousy" and "quality" as relative terms. Energy production at any step of the process can make sense if the EROEI is less than one. Fuel should be characterized on several dimensions (BTUs, weight, volume, stability/volatility, transportability, etc.). To say that the relative values of fuel can only be represented by BTUs ignores other elements of value. The monetary value of fuels is the market's attempt to balance all of these characteristics.
Oh, please. One of the biggest debunkers of ethanol is from Cornell, hardly in California. There are no energy islands in America. California, unlike some other parts of the country, recognizes that the globe, not just California, is in trouble, and is taking steps to pursue alternative energy sources. Any ethanol rhetoric found here comes from places like Montana (Rapier) and elsewhere. This has nothing to do with California. Your analysis reflects some sort of weird, reflexive hate of California that has nothing to do with reality.
As far as stored solar energy in the form of food, most of the country is heavily dependent on California, not the reverse.
Seriously, though, it's not yet, but it could be: You've got a relatively low population density, a 12-month growing season, a climate suitable for sugarcane, and really, really good soil in some areas. And recently, a political climate that is taking alternative energy seriously.
The volcano is not really a problem, except that land overrun by lava takes a long time to become fertile again. So it could be bad news for farmers. And it can be heck on infrastructure, but they've sort of adapted to that. Lava used to destroy miles of roads, because it would hit the highway and then just follow it down to the sea. Now they design the roads on the Big Island with periodic dips, so the lava will flow across the road rather than along it, and destroy only small segments. (They do the same thing elsewhere in the world, in areas prone to flooding.)
Hawaiian volcanos have fairly low-pressure, liquid magma. They don't explode like Mt. St. Helens. I remember one time when the lava was crossing a highway. Everyone ran to go see. My uncle brought a trowel and was scooping up the hot lava and dropping coins in it, making souvenirs. Everyone was begging to borrow it.
The point that you are making is good, and the contrast with Mt. St. Helens is meaningful, but volcanoes are very unpredictable beasts. Explosive eruptions have occurred on Hawai'i. Large blasts simply don't appear to be the most common outburst from volcanoes built up from less-viscous (and therefore less-steam-trapping) sources of magma.
Don't worry, once the aggressive homosexual pirates seize the Kona side and go to battle with the aggressive lezbian pirates who will have seized the Hilo side, people will stay away.
A good friend whose wife works for the University of Hilo, and who contributed to the excellent tome, "Atlas of Hawaii," relayed the information that their geologists expect the next eruptions to be violent, similar to Mt. St. Helens, only they expect it to be the volcanoes on the WEST side of the island, not Kilauea. He said they expect the whole side of the island from North of Kona to Hawaiian Ocean View Estates at the south end to be blown to kingdom come. Now of course, if this happens, the immense VOG cloud and toxic fume clouds will likely kill everything on the island, so being on the east side won't help much. But for a few seconds, it might be the most incredible experience of a lifetime to see mother nature at work. Ultimately, she RULES and we are but her pawns.
So I recommend that everyone stay away, and 2/3 those that are here need to consider leaving.
I've been trying to feed one politician per day to Pele. When we had the big earthquake last fall, I really thought Pele was angry that we hadn't fed her nearly enough corrupt politicians as they just kept oozing out of the woodwork. It's so hard to get them to cooperate as you drag them to the point of offering.
Politicians and weathermen = Volcano food!
I remember St Helens...we live south and the ash was plenty thick enough but not like the downwind folks - egads. I have a jar of ash and it still smells of sulfur - 17 years later.
Depending on the winds, there are days when we get some pretty hefty whiffs. It is quite unpleasant and I usually leave. That will get more difficult as peak oil ensues.
Might make the argument for Texas also. Its got its own grid, it still produces oil and NG(plus has refineries for both), and has coal. The beginnings of a Wind industry are coming into place, and out west are large swaths of desert lands ripe for solar farms. I'd have to double check but I believe there are also some potential uranium mines out in the coastal plains that operated in the 1950s, but closed down later due to lack of demand and the political climate surrounding it.
Growing seasons are pretty long and due to the simple fact its large, can grow a variety of crops ranging from food stuffs such as wheat, corn, rice, and many types of fruits and vegatables as well as industrial crops such as cotton.
Population Density is about 90 people per square mile though certainly some areas are more weighted while others have less than 1 person per square mile.
Granted Texas is plugged into the rest of the American infrastructure, but if I had to place a bet on which continental state could go it alone with minimum impact, I'd put my money on Texas in a heart beat.
Texas is HORRIBLY HOT in the summer. Like being in a toaster oven. Texas also has the problem of the depletion of the Aquifer and not much in the way of other water sources. There is even talk of the return of the Dust Bowl.(and I'm not talking football) Do you realize how much of texas is just plain desert?
A toaster oven is being nice... Along the gulf coast its more like a steamer. A dry heat would be so much more preferable. But we also have the energy infrastructure to handle that AC load in the summer. The reverse logic also works, btw... in the winter we require very little energy for heating and frankly I'd be more worried about freezing to death than being heated to death.
That said, West Texas does indeed have water supply issues, but then almost nobody lives out there. East Texas is hill country with lakes, rivers, decent rainfall, and forests. Its not like the whole state is a desert.
All that said, I didn't say Texas was problem free, just that from an energy and food standpoint we are in pretty good shape(compared to many of the neighboring states).
My position remains unchanged, I'd put my money on Texas in a heart beat.
Do you realize how much of texas is just plain desert?
Do you realize how much solar and wind potential that could be?
Do you realize that should we get to the point where "you're putting you're money" on indiviidaul localities that means globalization will have broken down?
And with that will go the 5,000 mile supply chains necessary for your solar and wind machines?
True. That was driven home for me when we drove past the wind farm at South Point, in Hawaii, a couple of years ago.
It's only 20 years old, but most of the turbines are no longer working. They're missing blades, or just aren't spinning. They're just rusting hulks.
And Hawaii doesn't have any natural sources of steel or aluminum to build replacements.
Texas does have oil (still), and that will probably help. And I think being connected to the rest of the world is, overall, a good thing. The immigration may well be going the other way across the border.
It's weather that's the biggest concern for Texas, IMO. Not just the heat, but the changes that global warming will bring. Drier, in areas that are already pretty dry. And hurricanes.
That's very true and the climate here is extremely harsh on anything made of metal. It's almost astounding how quickly metal becomes part of the earth again...
I remember when you posted this photo (or one similar to it) about a year or so ago. It certainly made an impression on me, as the wind debate here in Vermont is a lively one, and all we usually see are photos of brand-spanking new turbines, not derelict ones.
How did these turbines, which must have been the subject of much fanfare when they were built, end up in such a terrible state? Was there simply not enough electricity resulting, not enough infrastructure to get the power where it mattered, a financial collapse of the owners? Or... what? Surely replacement parts could be shipped in?
I'm not sure what happened. From the timing, I suspect the project was born out of the oil crises of the '70s. When oil got cheap, there was probably not much interest in maintaining the turbines.
Last I heard, they were going to raze them all, and replace them with newer, more efficient ones. (Probably inspired by the recent spike in oil prices.) But they were only going to do it if they could get tax credits, and that wasn't guaranteed. It wouldn't be profitable without the tax credits.
Hawaii is very environmentally-minded, and they're always willing to try renewable energy. But it never really seems to work out. The wind farms are only profitable if they are subsidized. The ocean thermal plant has been shut down. The geothermal plant was supposed to be one of many, but has been so expensive and caused so many problems that they are no longer planning to build any more.
When I was growing up, we had a solar water heater. But when my parents built their dream home in a better neighborhood, they didn't bother with solar. Without the tax credits, it wasn't worth it. And the solar heater was kind of a pain, too.
I guess this is why I have so many doubts about alternate energy. Even in Hawaii, which is in many ways ideal for renewables, they don't compare to oil. Which, in Hawaii, has to be shipped in. The economy depends on tourism, and there's lot of concern about oil spills...yet nothing compares to oil. Lots of sun, lots of wind, geothermal coming out the wazoo, no need for heating or air conditioning, really, and yet...they still can't get off the fossil fuels.
Maybe if oil gets really, really expensive, that will change. Or maybe the costs of the alternates will also increase, as the cost for raw materials, transportation, etc., increase with the price of oil, and we'll be chasing that receding horizon.
The problem is the tax on carbon, or the lack of same.
Wind is competitive if there is a carbon tax. The same is true of nuclear. It's not so much that coal is cheap, it's that coal doesn't pay the freight for the damage it does.
On solar water heaters, they work fine in many climates *if* you have a backup, for the cloudy periods.
For example in Greece I would say 90% have solar water heaters. And it's plenty cold in Greece in winter.
My brother worked on some of the early windmills in California in the 1980s.
There were a couple of problems plaguing the industry at that time. (1) Designs that were for lack of better term pure crap. Expensive to build, inefficient, undependable, expensive to repair and with significant parts availability issues. (2.) Operators that did not have either financial stability or the desire to make an economic return. Many wind farms were sold as tax shelters by people whose interests were almost exclusively in selling tax shelters and leaving no finger prints while doing so.
Why are the pictured machines sitting there rusting. Hard to say in this particular case but the problems generically are not hard to foresee if you wanted to pick up distressed wind farms on the cheap. Legal hassles up the wazzou with liens and ownership issues, uncertain state of repair, and at the end of the day machines that are probably inefficient, undependable, expensive to repair and with significant parts availability issues.
Worth remembering that that is also true of coal power stations, or diesel ones.
ie every technology brings with it a requirement for social and economic infrastructure.
Lots of oil fired capacity brought into Africa in the 60s and 70s sits rusting. Yet solar cells sell very well in places like Kenya: the grid power supply is expensive and unreliable, and a good solar collector can last 40 years.
you hit upon the kicker here leanon.
many of the mass scale wind and solar projects pitched here, would take 20 years to build. meaning at the late stage of construction one would have to go back and replace the turbines/pannels o
A brilliant analysis IMO. The author recognizes that food is stored solar energy and lays out the thesis that energy vulnerability contributed to Rome's fall. It's easy to see the foreign parallel with the USA. Less obvious to some is the internal parallel in the USA. California is the de facto center of culture and science, the source of much innovation and progress. It is also an energy island, partly of its own making, just at the central government has isolated itself from the larger world with its energy policies. IMO much of the anti ethanol rhetoric found here comes from California and its realization that it may be so vulnerable as to lose power to the hinterlands. The Midwest is held in contempt just as Rome viewed the barbarians as uncultured and backwards. From its de facto control of science it develops arcane and irrelevant theories like EROEI to maintain its position of power. But the barbarians know the center energy island is vulnerable and keep up the pressure. Over time the power shifts. The bright side for California is that there is still a Rome and there will always be a California, just not as arrogant and powerful.
irrelevant theories like EROEI
Right. 1 unit consumed to produce 100 units (99 net) in the early days of oil. 1 unit consumed to produce (maybe) 1.3 units (0.3 net) for corn ethanol. No relevance whatsoever. Sheesh!
Ethanol: work harder, not smarter.
EROEI is irrelevant as long as its positive - which it is.
The Petroleum Input Ratio or PIR is all that matters there after.
...and we have an infinite amount of land to grow things.
There is a perspective on eroei that renders the fossil-fuel-proportion argument irrelevant in objective discussion. Instead of considering individual fuels, consider the _average_ eroei of fuels available to civilization. This average eroei is currently about 10. (Robert Kaufman), about the same as the current eroei of fossil fuels.
The implications of a much lower average eroei are clear and stark. The eroei is the ratio of the energy obtained to the energy that must be dissipated to obtain it. If the average eroei of all energy sources is 10, then out of every 10 units of energy we produce, we get to keep 9 units of energy for uses other than energy production (or 0.9 out of 1). If the average eroei of all energy sources is 3, then out of every 3 units of energy we produce, we get to keep 2 units of energy for uses other than energy production (or or 0.67 out of 1).
Consider what this means for total energy production. The society with an eroei of 10 produces 1.1 units of energy for each 1 unit of energy needed for purposes other than producing energy. The society with an eroei of 3 produces 1.5 units of energy for each 1 unit of total energy needed for purposes other than producing energy, 1.5/1.1 = 1.36, 36% more total energy production per unit of energy needed for purposes other than producing energy than the society with an eroei of 10.
Maybe I'm just a total idiot, but this appears to be a rationalization that eroei of newer fuels is irrelevant because the rest of society's non-energy producing eroei will make up for whatever the eroei is for newer non-fossil fuels.
That may be true if the energy producing eroei remains positive. But what makes you think that civilization is going to increase its non-energy producing eroei ENOUGH to make up for a declining energy producing eroei? Nice comfy theory, but where is the data?
And once net energy producing eroei becomes negative, is that still okay as long as society can make up for it in other areas? It all nets out? This sounds like gobble-de-goop rationalization to me. I hope you feel better, but I don't.
You can eternally run faster to stay in place, but that sounds pretty tiring to me.
Hi. As a new TOD member, I can't seem to find a
way to message posters, but I'd be interested in
being in touch with the several who hie from the
big isle, where I'm planning to move for PPO-
related reasons.
Great discussion in this string, BTW.
email me if you like, at dj@hawaii.rr.com
best
An easier way to say this is:
It's all about energy flow
If the net energy flow into civilization decreases (due to a declining average eroei), and this is not compensated by efficiency gains in energy consuming activities, civilization will decline.
JoulesBurn
I think that depends upon how you define civilization, almost the opposite statement seems to be the case.
Gandhi on Western Civilization, "I think it would be a good idea"
EROEI of less than 1 works for me. All energy is not equal. Some are dispatchable others are not. Some are easily transported others are not. I'll trade 100 units of "lousy" energy for 99 units of "quality" energy and do very well.
We can choose energy units or petroleum units or economic units ($) to compare input and output. If we use economic units (and we have a free market) we will see the best use of resources. Markets aren't free but they are still smarter than the politicians that everyone seems willing to turn their lives over to.
Welcome to the real world where you will never get anywhere close to that deal. Anyway, EROEI is more the issue with the initial production (or harvesting) of the 100 units of "lousy" energy. If that gets less than one, then it matters not how much money you throw at it.
Are you saying that an EROEI of 0.99 is too good of a deal in the real world? I use "lousy" and "quality" as relative terms. Energy production at any step of the process can make sense if the EROEI is less than one. Fuel should be characterized on several dimensions (BTUs, weight, volume, stability/volatility, transportability, etc.). To say that the relative values of fuel can only be represented by BTUs ignores other elements of value. The monetary value of fuels is the market's attempt to balance all of these characteristics.
Oh, please. One of the biggest debunkers of ethanol is from Cornell, hardly in California. There are no energy islands in America. California, unlike some other parts of the country, recognizes that the globe, not just California, is in trouble, and is taking steps to pursue alternative energy sources. Any ethanol rhetoric found here comes from places like Montana (Rapier) and elsewhere. This has nothing to do with California. Your analysis reflects some sort of weird, reflexive hate of California that has nothing to do with reality.
As far as stored solar energy in the form of food, most of the country is heavily dependent on California, not the reverse.
Thank you.
There are no energy islands in America
Hawai'i. :)
Seriously, though, it's not yet, but it could be: You've got a relatively low population density, a 12-month growing season, a climate suitable for sugarcane, and really, really good soil in some areas. And recently, a political climate that is taking alternative energy seriously.
"Relatively low" is many times the number that it supported in the days of the ancient Hawaiians. And they were up against Malthusian limits.
Also, I suspect that it's unwise to pin all your hopes on a small island chain who's largest landmass is an active volcano...
-best,
Wolf
Yep, but that fits in with those that don't want to die slowly. Kaboom and it's over in short order.
The volcano is not really a problem, except that land overrun by lava takes a long time to become fertile again. So it could be bad news for farmers. And it can be heck on infrastructure, but they've sort of adapted to that. Lava used to destroy miles of roads, because it would hit the highway and then just follow it down to the sea. Now they design the roads on the Big Island with periodic dips, so the lava will flow across the road rather than along it, and destroy only small segments. (They do the same thing elsewhere in the world, in areas prone to flooding.)
Hawaiian volcanos have fairly low-pressure, liquid magma. They don't explode like Mt. St. Helens. I remember one time when the lava was crossing a highway. Everyone ran to go see. My uncle brought a trowel and was scooping up the hot lava and dropping coins in it, making souvenirs. Everyone was begging to borrow it.
You'd never do that at Mt. St. Helens.
The point that you are making is good, and the contrast with Mt. St. Helens is meaningful, but volcanoes are very unpredictable beasts. Explosive eruptions have occurred on Hawai'i. Large blasts simply don't appear to be the most common outburst from volcanoes built up from less-viscous (and therefore less-steam-trapping) sources of magma.
Take a look at: Explosive Eruptions at Kilauea Volcano, Hawai'i?
-best,
Wolf
Now darnit Leanan, I'm trying to scare everyone away.
Don't worry, once the aggressive homosexual pirates seize the Kona side and go to battle with the aggressive lezbian pirates who will have seized the Hilo side, people will stay away.
You forgot, "not that there's anything wrong with that," and change the z to s.
That's a relief.
A good friend whose wife works for the University of Hilo, and who contributed to the excellent tome, "Atlas of Hawaii," relayed the information that their geologists expect the next eruptions to be violent, similar to Mt. St. Helens, only they expect it to be the volcanoes on the WEST side of the island, not Kilauea. He said they expect the whole side of the island from North of Kona to Hawaiian Ocean View Estates at the south end to be blown to kingdom come. Now of course, if this happens, the immense VOG cloud and toxic fume clouds will likely kill everything on the island, so being on the east side won't help much. But for a few seconds, it might be the most incredible experience of a lifetime to see mother nature at work. Ultimately, she RULES and we are but her pawns.
So I recommend that everyone stay away, and 2/3 those that are here need to consider leaving.
I've been trying to feed one politician per day to Pele. When we had the big earthquake last fall, I really thought Pele was angry that we hadn't fed her nearly enough corrupt politicians as they just kept oozing out of the woodwork. It's so hard to get them to cooperate as you drag them to the point of offering.
Politicians and weathermen = Volcano food!
I remember St Helens...we live south and the ash was plenty thick enough but not like the downwind folks - egads. I have a jar of ash and it still smells of sulfur - 17 years later.
Depending on the winds, there are days when we get some pretty hefty whiffs. It is quite unpleasant and I usually leave. That will get more difficult as peak oil ensues.
Malthus was wrong--he made everything up. Seriously.
See the real story: http://www.monthlyreview.org/1298jbf.htm
Might make the argument for Texas also. Its got its own grid, it still produces oil and NG(plus has refineries for both), and has coal. The beginnings of a Wind industry are coming into place, and out west are large swaths of desert lands ripe for solar farms. I'd have to double check but I believe there are also some potential uranium mines out in the coastal plains that operated in the 1950s, but closed down later due to lack of demand and the political climate surrounding it.
Growing seasons are pretty long and due to the simple fact its large, can grow a variety of crops ranging from food stuffs such as wheat, corn, rice, and many types of fruits and vegatables as well as industrial crops such as cotton.
Population Density is about 90 people per square mile though certainly some areas are more weighted while others have less than 1 person per square mile.
Granted Texas is plugged into the rest of the American infrastructure, but if I had to place a bet on which continental state could go it alone with minimum impact, I'd put my money on Texas in a heart beat.
Texas is HORRIBLY HOT in the summer. Like being in a toaster oven. Texas also has the problem of the depletion of the Aquifer and not much in the way of other water sources. There is even talk of the return of the Dust Bowl.(and I'm not talking football) Do you realize how much of texas is just plain desert?
A toaster oven is being nice... Along the gulf coast its more like a steamer. A dry heat would be so much more preferable. But we also have the energy infrastructure to handle that AC load in the summer. The reverse logic also works, btw... in the winter we require very little energy for heating and frankly I'd be more worried about freezing to death than being heated to death.
That said, West Texas does indeed have water supply issues, but then almost nobody lives out there. East Texas is hill country with lakes, rivers, decent rainfall, and forests. Its not like the whole state is a desert.
All that said, I didn't say Texas was problem free, just that from an energy and food standpoint we are in pretty good shape(compared to many of the neighboring states).
My position remains unchanged, I'd put my money on Texas in a heart beat.
Do you realize how much solar and wind potential that could be?
Shhhh! Do you want them to come here?
Do you realize that should we get to the point where "you're putting you're money" on indiviidaul localities that means globalization will have broken down?
And with that will go the 5,000 mile supply chains necessary for your solar and wind machines?
No, I didn't think so.
True. That was driven home for me when we drove past the wind farm at South Point, in Hawaii, a couple of years ago.
It's only 20 years old, but most of the turbines are no longer working. They're missing blades, or just aren't spinning. They're just rusting hulks.
And Hawaii doesn't have any natural sources of steel or aluminum to build replacements.
Texas does have oil (still), and that will probably help. And I think being connected to the rest of the world is, overall, a good thing. The immigration may well be going the other way across the border.
It's weather that's the biggest concern for Texas, IMO. Not just the heat, but the changes that global warming will bring. Drier, in areas that are already pretty dry. And hurricanes.
That's very true and the climate here is extremely harsh on anything made of metal. It's almost astounding how quickly metal becomes part of the earth again...
Leanan,
I remember when you posted this photo (or one similar to it) about a year or so ago. It certainly made an impression on me, as the wind debate here in Vermont is a lively one, and all we usually see are photos of brand-spanking new turbines, not derelict ones.
How did these turbines, which must have been the subject of much fanfare when they were built, end up in such a terrible state? Was there simply not enough electricity resulting, not enough infrastructure to get the power where it mattered, a financial collapse of the owners? Or... what? Surely replacement parts could be shipped in?
The wind turbines migrated across the island on their own.
=)
All joking aside, Leanan you must expand. I'm curious too.
I'm not sure what happened. From the timing, I suspect the project was born out of the oil crises of the '70s. When oil got cheap, there was probably not much interest in maintaining the turbines.
Last I heard, they were going to raze them all, and replace them with newer, more efficient ones. (Probably inspired by the recent spike in oil prices.) But they were only going to do it if they could get tax credits, and that wasn't guaranteed. It wouldn't be profitable without the tax credits.
Hawaii is very environmentally-minded, and they're always willing to try renewable energy. But it never really seems to work out. The wind farms are only profitable if they are subsidized. The ocean thermal plant has been shut down. The geothermal plant was supposed to be one of many, but has been so expensive and caused so many problems that they are no longer planning to build any more.
When I was growing up, we had a solar water heater. But when my parents built their dream home in a better neighborhood, they didn't bother with solar. Without the tax credits, it wasn't worth it. And the solar heater was kind of a pain, too.
I guess this is why I have so many doubts about alternate energy. Even in Hawaii, which is in many ways ideal for renewables, they don't compare to oil. Which, in Hawaii, has to be shipped in. The economy depends on tourism, and there's lot of concern about oil spills...yet nothing compares to oil. Lots of sun, lots of wind, geothermal coming out the wazoo, no need for heating or air conditioning, really, and yet...they still can't get off the fossil fuels.
Maybe if oil gets really, really expensive, that will change. Or maybe the costs of the alternates will also increase, as the cost for raw materials, transportation, etc., increase with the price of oil, and we'll be chasing that receding horizon.
The problem is the tax on carbon, or the lack of same.
Wind is competitive if there is a carbon tax. The same is true of nuclear. It's not so much that coal is cheap, it's that coal doesn't pay the freight for the damage it does.
On solar water heaters, they work fine in many climates *if* you have a backup, for the cloudy periods.
For example in Greece I would say 90% have solar water heaters. And it's plenty cold in Greece in winter.
Great series of posts, Leanan, full of excellent points.
Thank you.
My brother worked on some of the early windmills in California in the 1980s.
There were a couple of problems plaguing the industry at that time. (1) Designs that were for lack of better term pure crap. Expensive to build, inefficient, undependable, expensive to repair and with significant parts availability issues. (2.) Operators that did not have either financial stability or the desire to make an economic return. Many wind farms were sold as tax shelters by people whose interests were almost exclusively in selling tax shelters and leaving no finger prints while doing so.
Why are the pictured machines sitting there rusting. Hard to say in this particular case but the problems generically are not hard to foresee if you wanted to pick up distressed wind farms on the cheap. Legal hassles up the wazzou with liens and ownership issues, uncertain state of repair, and at the end of the day machines that are probably inefficient, undependable, expensive to repair and with significant parts availability issues.
Wind power can work, but it has to be done right.
Worth remembering that that is also true of coal power stations, or diesel ones.
ie every technology brings with it a requirement for social and economic infrastructure.
Lots of oil fired capacity brought into Africa in the 60s and 70s sits rusting. Yet solar cells sell very well in places like Kenya: the grid power supply is expensive and unreliable, and a good solar collector can last 40 years.
you hit upon the kicker here leanon.
many of the mass scale wind and solar projects pitched here, would take 20 years to build. meaning at the late stage of construction one would have to go back and replace the turbines/pannels o