The whole "home energy improvements aren't economic" thing is just silly, IMHO. Sure, in the terms a mortgage grifter would understand I'd never "recoup my investment" in putting up a turbine here to drive a ground loop cooling system. But if we take a tumble as a civilization, which seems to be a when rather than an if, this house will be warm or cool while the economic will freeze or swelter.
Its too late to pack the survival kit after one is already stranded on the desert island ... P&L used to mean profit and loss, but I'd like to suggest that peas and lentils will be the new meaning in a post peak world.
The difference, of course, is that for the vast majority of people, the idea that civilization will collapse any time soon is ridiculous. Might as well prepare for an invasion by Martians. Heck, in the US, there are probably more people preparing for the Rapture than preparing for a Mad Max future.
As A Southern Christian I will vouch for that comment. It pains me to see so many people that have plainly just not taken the time to Look into their Bibles and read further. But then again I am a Lutheran by "demonation" yes that is misspelled for a reason. There should only be One Christian Chruch and there is, but God is the one counting the heads not the local Ushers.
Every time a person dies IMHO(Humble) there is a Rapture event. But I digress.
I am a eat your yard kind of plant grower. But that also means I am out there looking for every edible plant from here to kentucky, or in my case everywhere I can walk. Which currently with a hurt ankle and a bad knee is only about 5 miles per day. But as they get stronger I have a walking radius of about 10 miles I figure in my max city walking. 2 weeks ago it was 6 miles of radius. God willing and my own stubborn streak I will be up to the 10 mile radius in about 3 weeks.
Survival is not on the minds of anyone much, expect the trully Homeless, which I work with everyday. The General public is just not geared to survival. That is where folks like us will come in handy later in the years to come. Sharing Our hard earned skills, if the end does not bring war and famine on the scales it could bring.
God Grant you peace.
God Grant you Love of your fellow man.
God Grant you Faith and Trust.
Write in Candidate for President 2008.
Free Right Now party. No donations.
No wage over Lowest wage in the land.
Term limits for congress, 2 for Senate, 3 fo
I'm no Christian and I don't believe in a God or Santa Clause and I also don't feel the need to profess by beliefs or non beliefs in every post I make.
Would you be offended if I proclaimed in every post that there was no God?
Apart from that I recognize that you are a sincere, good and righteous person and I admire you for understanding their plight and willingness to help the less fortunate when the affects of PO and GW become entrenched.
What does offend me though are those who have their acres and bunkers in the hills, with food stored for years and continually push entirely unrealistic options for the survival of everyone, they even tell us how they will defend their property but complain about the price of bullets.
They argue electric cars, solar panels on every roof and wind mills by the millions will save the day, logistics is never mentioned or considered. They tell us what they have, and what they have achieved, inferring how smart they are. They tell us what can be done but never, never tell us how it will happen.
They are truly representative of the overall psychopathic human race, their creed is FYJ and they live by it.
A bunker mentality will not save many. Community cooperation is the only defence against a world of scarce energy and food. Not that I think enough cooperation will eventuate, I just hope it will.
There's a difference between money spent for entertainment and money spent as an investment. If your hobby is solar tech, then installing solar panels is "worth it" even if you never save any money.
A new plasma TV is money spent for fun. No one expects to recoup their expense. Designer outfits...can be an expense, can be an investment. If it gets you a rich husband or wife, worth the money! ;-) Or more prosaically, "dressing for success" still counts in a lot of workplaces. The right clothes can mean the difference between getting a promotion or not getting one. (A friend of mine used to work for IBM. She went in on Christmas Eve a few years back, when there was hardly anyone around. She never dealt with the public, and thought it would be okay to wear jeans and a nice button-down shirt, just for that day. Wrong. Her boss saw her, called her into his office, and told her, "You're a brilliant engineer. It would be really tragic if you threw your career away because of the way you dress.")
Granite countertops can be worth the money, too, if they help your house stand out. A friend of mine was trying to sell her house in Shaker Heights, Ohio. There were something like 500 similar houses in the area for sale. The houses that were selling were the ones that had details like granite countertops or stainless steel appliances.
... the study from the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors shows that some of the measures, such as solar panels to heat water, would cost £5,000 to install but reduce average bills by only £24 a year and would take about 208 years to pay back.
The RICS data shows that putting in all eight measures, including insulation, condenser boilers and double glazing, would cost £23,547. This would knock only £486 off fuel bills and would take 48 years to recoup.
I had one immediate reaction when reading this: the Chartered Surveyors live in a parallel universe which differs from mine on 3 main points:
There is no inflation
Energy prices don't rise (i.e. not faster than inflation)
There will be no energy shortages
Now, the last two points can be forgiven, what could they know? But assuming zero inflation reeks of something a smitten less than good faith.
The first example is so absurd, we'll leave that alone. Looks like such an insane use of solar panels that somewhat lower taxes would be useless.
At 3% inflation, prices double every 23 years. So in the second example, which mentions a 48 years recoup period, savings, in the last years, would be over 4 times the £486 quoted. I don't want to do all the calcs (they should have though), but the recoup would take about 20 years instead of 48, I'd guesstimate.
In the real world, of course, we will see sharply higher energy prices (rising faster than inflation) even within the next 20 years, and the UK will see severe shortages. Solar panels, double glazing, all of these, can be expected to get more expensive too.
The only thing that would make true sense for a country like the UK (if not all countries) is to lower the sales tax to 0%, and provide loans to homeowners at the same 0%. If energy prices rise at double inflation, 6%, for a doubling every 11.6 years, it would be by far the best investment a government could ever hope to make. And the sooner the better!
Instead, the UK government pushes for more nuclear projects. And that may well be why we'll never see them do what makes more sense. Even though the projected costs for clean-up of older nuclear is now projected at between £73-100 billion, another 16% more than last year's projection, before it's even started. Government equals industry, politics equals economics.
Using less energy is an enormous threat to our economic system, and we'll have to break through the resistance inherent in the system. Down the line, less energy means less growth potential, and without growth the system dies.
In any case, the Chartered Surveyors should not issue these silly reports.
Even though the projected costs for clean-up of older nuclear is now projected at between £73-100
Did they hire Enron to do it? We just closed four reactors in Bulgaria, for euro 200 mln. a piece. With the money you site we could close the whole world nuclear industry plus change.
I don't doubt that if government beurocrats are given opportunity they will balloon costs to the sky - we've seen this happening in Yucca Mountain already, where $6bln. was spend just to investigate whether they could dig one hole in the ground. My advice: change your government.
the Chartered Surveyors live in a parallel universe which differs from mine on 3 main points
4 points - in our universe, present money is worth more than future money.
When a government bond can get you a risk-free-as-it-gets 5%/yr return, that £23,547 will be £244,919 in 48 years, and the energy-saving improvements will never pay for themselves (at current rates).
The only thing that would make true sense for a country like the UK (if not all countries) is to lower the sales tax to 0%, and provide loans to homeowners at the same 0%.
Don't be silly - you know such loans would overwhelmingly be spent on non-energy-related things.
Using less energy is an enormous threat to our economic system
Not really - smaller cars, shorter commutes, and 40mph electric vehicles can already take care of most of our oil dependency.
And "energy" isn't the problem here - it's oil. As much as people may not like it, there's plenty of coal around.
There is, however, a severe shortage of atmosphere in which to dump the combustion byproducts into.
True. I'm simply attacking the pernicious misconception that a shortage of liquid fuels means a shortage of energy, and the world's large reserves of coal are the most obvious way to do that. Other alternatives are preferable, but if energy shortages get bad enough to "break our economic system", coal will be there to make sure society doesn't crumble for lack of energy.
By preference, of course, that won't be necessary.
So instead society collapses due to environmental disaster and climate change? Wow, big improvement there, Pitt. Excuse me if I don't find your argument compelling.
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Dr. Albert Bartlett Into the Grey Zone
Excuse me if I don't find your argument compelling.
No, you simply fail to understand what I'm saying.
I'm not arguing in favour of coal; I'm simply saying (a) peak oil is not peak energy, and (b) a rapid decline in oil availability is likely to lead to increased coal consumption, unless alternatives improve enough to take up the slack.
Alternatives (including conservation) would be preferable, obviously.
re: "a shortage of liquid fuels means a shortage of energy"
A few Qs, though:
1) Don't we have to define this a little more precisely to know what "a shortage of liquid fuels" does actually mean? Or, what the actual results will be?
As a subset of total energy, a shortage in the LF portion does mean the *total* amount of energy coming into what I'll call "the system" actually will decrease - yes?
So, in this sense, a "shortage" of LF does precisely mean a "shortage" of total energy input. (As far as I can tell.)
2) Further, at the present time, we have - what percentage (or how else to qualify and/or quantify it) - of the energy extraction/production technology of non-oil energy sources dependent upon the availability of oil - yes?
This means, coal extraction is dependent upon oil - yes? How to analyze this in meaningful terms in order to see just what the effects of "LF shortage" will be in total energy terms?
Just as sketches, the numbers I've seen are 8% shortfall (oil supply v. demand) for US spells - some kind of big trouble for the "economic system" - (yes?)
3) re: "if energy shortages get bad enough to "break our economic system", coal will be there"
How is it that "energy shortages" will provide the means - (or trigger) - for coal to "be there"? Or, do I misunderstand you here?
If it is not the "energy shortages" that will somehow provide impetus for coal to be there, then what is the cause and effect?
It seems the opposite is the case - oil shortages could/ possibly would/will cause sufficient disruption in just about everything - (agree or disagree?). How is it that coal will "be there"?
4) "crumble"
Well, it seems like moving to lower-value energy resources, such as coal (and what percentage high grade coal is left?) - would actually imply some "crumbling", or, adjustments to lower-value sources. The question is: are these "adjustments" going to prevent or halt the direction of disintegration?
How much can *not* work and still have the "economic system" function?
So, it seems the questions are:
1. How much energy
2. From where
3. within what time period
4. Can avoid "crumble"
5. And then what?
There's a difference between money spent for entertainment and money spent as an investment.
Indeed, I have occasionally thought that there should be another metric, EROEW - Energy Return on Energy Wasted. This could be a fruitful concept, since by any reasonable measure MOST of the energy being used by the human race is currently 'wasted' in order to stimulate human brains in unnecessary ways.
Under EROEW, you could have quite positive results even with terrible EROEI.
It's stupid but true. Most 'energy' and 'environment' projects these days actually fall more under EROEW than anything else.
EROEW, I laughed at that one. I was a driver of a vehicle just over a month ago. 9-11 of 2007 brought that to a close. The wreck nearly totalled my van. But I am getting spare parts from junk years and I know how to fix things witht he help of my Father who has the tools to Weld the thing back together if need be. But I am and always have been a walker. I am eating a bit more than I used to, but I am also walking a bit further than I used to as well. I could say I have a bus pass, but I handed it off to my 3rd Ex-wife she needs it more than I do. Seeing that we are trying to work on getting back together, but that is another story as well.
Xsurbs would die at the EROEW meteric. Even though my parents and I do not watch TV them it is about 15 years me it is about 8. We do things like read books and play on the Internet. Though my dad has worked on making his hauling trailer a covered wagon, using PVC pipes and 1/4 in strand board, he is painting it for protection now, and we know it will haul just about anything we can put in it. It used to be a Tent Camper, from the 60's.
I would not know how much stuff my dad has in his sheds and storage, but I imagine, this house being the center of a vast Hardware store in the trading for food future. He has over 5,000 Cubic feet of tools and more fastners and hardware things than most hardware stores I have been in. You name the Hardware Dept and I will name the things he has, or skills he has to fix things.
The Local kids come over to get their Skate-boards fixed. While we were cooking supper this evening, they showed up and I fixed something for them. Next door we have a Concrete expert. Across the street we have a Glass man, mostly Auto glass, but he has hung mirrors and other window glass for my dad's old job. Three Pastors, one retired,( counting me as a walkabout pastor to the Homeless folks), and one with a church van parked in his yard.
This is a Working class neighborhood and is in its second childhood. My parents being the oldest residents and having the respect of the rest of the folks. I guest I am the odd one out. I keep odd hours and I practice my stave training in the front yard and wave at folks as they come and go.
EROEW would be a good study program.
God Grant you peace.
God Grant you Love of your fellow man.
God Grant you Faith and Trust.
Write in Candidate for President 2008.
Free Right Now party. No donations.
No wage over Lowest wage in the land.
Term limits for congress, 2 for Senate, 3 fo
The right clothes can mean the difference between getting a promotion or not at IBM. She has to decide if she can fit in with their culture or not. And whether she wants to be promoted. Success just means more 60 hour workweeks and four marriages.
There's lots of places an engineer can work Christmas eve in jeans and a t-shirt. IBM isn't one of them.
Engineers at my office pretty much all wear jeans and T-shirts - every day. It's one thing I love about it, because work clothes are a not-insignificant expense. Not to mention it's more comfortable than suits and ties/hose and heels.
Long long ago it was suits and white shirts out in the field,then I went to the Sys Design and Dev(not in the field) and most wore anything they wished and that was in the early 70's.
A workmate wore extremely short mini-skirts enough so that we threw coins on the floor in front of her at meetings..she was a full fledged biker chick and it didn't bother her a bit.
One jewish fella wore clothes made of the American flag motif.Most wore jeans. Being a ex-field guy I wore slacks and felt overdressed..this was Kingston,NY.
If she was an engineer and not in the field she was ok..her mgr was the problem and in the real old IBM the employee would have been kept but the erring mgr would have been shitcanned or severely chewed out...engineers and good programmers were more valuable than a stupid mgr.
airdale-I was there and have the rolex to prove it..now you get a plastic chinese trink instead of a $3,000 Rolex..times have changed but ignorant management has not..sadly..
Funny, while reading this post it struck me that a collar and tie is symbolic. In bygone years slaves wore an iron collar and chain, now it is made of cloth. No wonder employers are so strict on the correct form of dress. Staff must know their place. :)
In financial terms, you are describing 'shortfall risk' - that % chance that you fall short of your minimum requirements, which are of course, food, water, heat, shelter.
When looked at from completely an economic point of view, this risk is zero, but readers of this site know its some unknown % greater than zero so you bring up a good point.
Also, I'm guessing those analyses are using current electricity costs which are subsidized by cheap coal and nat gas - if there is a doubling or tripling or more of electricity in years to come, people that spent money on energy efficiency upgrades/investments will look smart.
Those type of long term investments are like buying 'convexity' in the bond market - as interest rates (energy prices) rise, you get an outsized impact on your investment, the longer your duration is - esoteric concept but I think it applies equally well to finance and energy, and is helpful when one thinks the future world will run on energy as the current one runs (kind of) on interest rates.
The numbers used are badly wrong. £5000 for solar panels to gain £24 worth of improvement? Only if you were dumb enough to install solar PV panels to power an immersion heater and take nothing but cold showers.
RICS are a sizeable part of the problem with regard to overpriced housing stock in the UK, and they fought the introduction of energy certificates in the first place. Even though reducing VAT on home energy products is a good idea, they aren't proposing it for positive motives, you can bet.
SCT - I was going to say much the same thing. Why is it that ROI is a big deal when it comes to energy when the vast majority of money people spend is for crap that will never give a return?
I have to admit that this has driven me crazy for years. People can afford a plasma TV for several thousand dollars but wouldn't consider installing a solar water heating system. Or, they buy the $40k SUV that sucks gas like there is no tomorrow (one day they'll find out there isn't one) but wouldn't consider inproving their home's insulation.
The other irony is that energy improvements at least hold out the possibility of a return whereas, if the market tanks or hyperinflation occurs, they basically lose any chance of a return from their money.
Because they can Todd. Because they can and they have not one iota in their internal expectation of the future tells them basic needs might not be available. Im writing a (short) post on what might happen if everyone in the world read and understood what is discussed on this site - might be a good thing - might not.
If we had 6 billion 'realists' all at once, it might not be too fun...
Here is a fresh idea for Wind power. Very interesting concept, if it works? Easy enough to build to. Scalability on a small scale looks easy for light loads.
I think this concept brings up an idea I haven't heard discussed:
is it better to develop low-efficiency wind and thermal solar designs that can be built using cannibilized parts like in this article, rather than expend energy and CO2 building PVs and composite blades?
If we will need millions of turbines, we've got a carbon fiber shortage.
A few days ago I was thinking about how to build a wind turbine out of bamboo. At first I thought the obvious thing, using each trunk as a spar for one blade. Then I thought about vertical turbines.
Take a straw and cut it vertically into four thin blades almost all the way to the bottom. Now each of the four blades is curved. Twist each of those slightly, and pack the hollow backside of each with a structural material until you've turned it into an airfoil.
This is a disposable, biodegradable, low-efficiency wind turbine. You might carve a groove in the trunk, and connect it by pulley to a motor, like the motor on an electric bicycle, to produce power.
Offsetting the low efficiency is the fact that you've actually captured carbon in producing the bamboo. Once it's damaged or worn out, you go ahead and process or burn the fibers as you once would have when you originally cut it down.
I've thought this myself. I think Homer-Dixon is right. Efficiency is not what we should strive for. It only makes us more vulnerable if something goes wrong. We should strive for resilience instead. Which is pretty much the opposite of efficiency.
Not necessarily. If the US were to shift from energy imports to a variety of domestically produced energy, it would appear that it could increase efficiency while also increasing energy security (energy resilience). This would allow the full net energy potential of renewables to be realized, since increasing efficiency would of course decrease the energy-in part of the EROEI equation.
If the US were to shift from energy imports to a variety of domestically produced energy, it would appear that it could increase efficiency while also increasing energy security (energy resilience).
Disagree. We import energy precisely because it is more efficient to do so.
Resilience is really not the best way to frame the issue. Rather, what we want is reliable energy systems. Systems that are unlikely to fail catastrophically. Reliability can be increased while also increasing efficiency by moving to energy resources that have a substantially lower probability of catastrophic failure. I think shifting to a variety of domestic energy resources unquestionably decreases tha
The whole "home energy improvements aren't economic" thing is just silly, IMHO. Sure, in the terms a mortgage grifter would understand I'd never "recoup my investment" in putting up a turbine here to drive a ground loop cooling system. But if we take a tumble as a civilization, which seems to be a when rather than an if, this house will be warm or cool while the economic will freeze or swelter.
Its too late to pack the survival kit after one is already stranded on the desert island ... P&L used to mean profit and loss, but I'd like to suggest that peas and lentils will be the new meaning in a post peak world.
The difference, of course, is that for the vast majority of people, the idea that civilization will collapse any time soon is ridiculous. Might as well prepare for an invasion by Martians. Heck, in the US, there are probably more people preparing for the Rapture than preparing for a Mad Max future.
Pic (s) of the Day.
Courtesy Survivalacres:
Before:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/19790211.png
After:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/20070905.jpg
Arkansaw of Samuel L Clemens
Definitely some good shipping lanes up North in the "After" scenario :-)
Err, its not a 'scenario'.
Look at the filename.
Apples ...
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/19781026.png
to Apples:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/20071012.jpg
Almost as visually impressive and no winter vs. summer controversy - the images are twenty nine years apart but at roughly the same time of the year.
It looks like we are moving from the large,whole house ducted HVAC system to the the little bread box sized unit ratteling away wedged in window.
Thanks for the links, SCT.
Mad Max is a lot more fun.
No rules. Just right.
As A Southern Christian I will vouch for that comment. It pains me to see so many people that have plainly just not taken the time to Look into their Bibles and read further. But then again I am a Lutheran by "demonation" yes that is misspelled for a reason. There should only be One Christian Chruch and there is, but God is the one counting the heads not the local Ushers.
Every time a person dies IMHO(Humble) there is a Rapture event. But I digress.
I am a eat your yard kind of plant grower. But that also means I am out there looking for every edible plant from here to kentucky, or in my case everywhere I can walk. Which currently with a hurt ankle and a bad knee is only about 5 miles per day. But as they get stronger I have a walking radius of about 10 miles I figure in my max city walking. 2 weeks ago it was 6 miles of radius. God willing and my own stubborn streak I will be up to the 10 mile radius in about 3 weeks.
Survival is not on the minds of anyone much, expect the trully Homeless, which I work with everyday. The General public is just not geared to survival. That is where folks like us will come in handy later in the years to come. Sharing Our hard earned skills, if the end does not bring war and famine on the scales it could bring.
God Grant you peace.
God Grant you Love of your fellow man.
God Grant you Faith and Trust.
Write in Candidate for President 2008.
Free Right Now party. No donations.
No wage over Lowest wage in the land.
Term limits for congress, 2 for Senate, 3 fo
Hello CEOJr1963
I'm no Christian and I don't believe in a God or Santa Clause and I also don't feel the need to profess by beliefs or non beliefs in every post I make.
Would you be offended if I proclaimed in every post that there was no God?
Apart from that I recognize that you are a sincere, good and righteous person and I admire you for understanding their plight and willingness to help the less fortunate when the affects of PO and GW become entrenched.
What does offend me though are those who have their acres and bunkers in the hills, with food stored for years and continually push entirely unrealistic options for the survival of everyone, they even tell us how they will defend their property but complain about the price of bullets.
They argue electric cars, solar panels on every roof and wind mills by the millions will save the day, logistics is never mentioned or considered. They tell us what they have, and what they have achieved, inferring how smart they are. They tell us what can be done but never, never tell us how it will happen.
They are truly representative of the overall psychopathic human race, their creed is FYJ and they live by it.
A bunker mentality will not save many. Community cooperation is the only defence against a world of scarce energy and food. Not that I think enough cooperation will eventuate, I just hope it will.
Enough of a rant for one day.
I agree. How long does it take to recoup the cost of new granite countertops? Or a designer outfit? Or a new plasma TV?
There's a difference between money spent for entertainment and money spent as an investment. If your hobby is solar tech, then installing solar panels is "worth it" even if you never save any money.
A new plasma TV is money spent for fun. No one expects to recoup their expense. Designer outfits...can be an expense, can be an investment. If it gets you a rich husband or wife, worth the money! ;-) Or more prosaically, "dressing for success" still counts in a lot of workplaces. The right clothes can mean the difference between getting a promotion or not getting one. (A friend of mine used to work for IBM. She went in on Christmas Eve a few years back, when there was hardly anyone around. She never dealt with the public, and thought it would be okay to wear jeans and a nice button-down shirt, just for that day. Wrong. Her boss saw her, called her into his office, and told her, "You're a brilliant engineer. It would be really tragic if you threw your career away because of the way you dress.")
Granite countertops can be worth the money, too, if they help your house stand out. A friend of mine was trying to sell her house in Shaker Heights, Ohio. There were something like 500 similar houses in the area for sale. The houses that were selling were the ones that had details like granite countertops or stainless steel appliances.
I had one immediate reaction when reading this: the Chartered Surveyors live in a parallel universe which differs from mine on 3 main points:
Now, the last two points can be forgiven, what could they know? But assuming zero inflation reeks of something a smitten less than good faith.
The first example is so absurd, we'll leave that alone. Looks like such an insane use of solar panels that somewhat lower taxes would be useless.
At 3% inflation, prices double every 23 years. So in the second example, which mentions a 48 years recoup period, savings, in the last years, would be over 4 times the £486 quoted. I don't want to do all the calcs (they should have though), but the recoup would take about 20 years instead of 48, I'd guesstimate.
In the real world, of course, we will see sharply higher energy prices (rising faster than inflation) even within the next 20 years, and the UK will see severe shortages. Solar panels, double glazing, all of these, can be expected to get more expensive too.
The only thing that would make true sense for a country like the UK (if not all countries) is to lower the sales tax to 0%, and provide loans to homeowners at the same 0%. If energy prices rise at double inflation, 6%, for a doubling every 11.6 years, it would be by far the best investment a government could ever hope to make. And the sooner the better!
Instead, the UK government pushes for more nuclear projects. And that may well be why we'll never see them do what makes more sense. Even though the projected costs for clean-up of older nuclear is now projected at between £73-100 billion, another 16% more than last year's projection, before it's even started. Government equals industry, politics equals economics.
Using less energy is an enormous threat to our economic system, and we'll have to break through the resistance inherent in the system. Down the line, less energy means less growth potential, and without growth the system dies.
In any case, the Chartered Surveyors should not issue these silly reports.
Even though the projected costs for clean-up of older nuclear is now projected at between £73-100
Did they hire Enron to do it? We just closed four reactors in Bulgaria, for euro 200 mln. a piece. With the money you site we could close the whole world nuclear industry plus change.
I don't doubt that if government beurocrats are given opportunity they will balloon costs to the sky - we've seen this happening in Yucca Mountain already, where $6bln. was spend just to investigate whether they could dig one hole in the ground. My advice: change your government.
Good Advice. We're on it.
Watch Afghanistan for details.
Arkansaw of Samuel L Clemens
I thought Afghanistan was changing back -- they said they didn't want democracy any more.
| The problem will solve itself.
| But not in a nice way.
4 points - in our universe, present money is worth more than future money.
When a government bond can get you a risk-free-as-it-gets 5%/yr return, that £23,547 will be £244,919 in 48 years, and the energy-saving improvements will never pay for themselves (at current rates).
Don't be silly - you know such loans would overwhelmingly be spent on non-energy-related things.
Not really - smaller cars, shorter commutes, and 40mph electric vehicles can already take care of most of our oil dependency.
And "energy" isn't the problem here - it's oil. As much as people may not like it, there's plenty of coal around.
there's plenty of coal around
There is, however, a severe shortage of atmosphere in which to dump the combustion byproducts into.
Alan
True. I'm simply attacking the pernicious misconception that a shortage of liquid fuels means a shortage of energy, and the world's large reserves of coal are the most obvious way to do that. Other alternatives are preferable, but if energy shortages get bad enough to "break our economic system", coal will be there to make sure society doesn't crumble for lack of energy.
By preference, of course, that won't be necessary.
So instead society collapses due to environmental disaster and climate change? Wow, big improvement there, Pitt. Excuse me if I don't find your argument compelling.
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Dr. Albert Bartlett
Into the Grey Zone
You may wish to re-familiarize yourself with the False Dilemma Fallacy.
No, you simply fail to understand what I'm saying.
I'm not arguing in favour of coal; I'm simply saying (a) peak oil is not peak energy, and (b) a rapid decline in oil availability is likely to lead to increased coal consumption, unless alternatives improve enough to take up the slack.
Alternatives (including conservation) would be preferable, obviously.
Hi Pitt,
Interesting point.
re: "a shortage of liquid fuels means a shortage of energy"
A few Qs, though:
1) Don't we have to define this a little more precisely to know what "a shortage of liquid fuels" does actually mean? Or, what the actual results will be?
As a subset of total energy, a shortage in the LF portion does mean the *total* amount of energy coming into what I'll call "the system" actually will decrease - yes?
So, in this sense, a "shortage" of LF does precisely mean a "shortage" of total energy input. (As far as I can tell.)
2) Further, at the present time, we have - what percentage (or how else to qualify and/or quantify it) - of the energy extraction/production technology of non-oil energy sources dependent upon the availability of oil - yes?
This means, coal extraction is dependent upon oil - yes? How to analyze this in meaningful terms in order to see just what the effects of "LF shortage" will be in total energy terms?
Just as sketches, the numbers I've seen are 8% shortfall (oil supply v. demand) for US spells - some kind of big trouble for the "economic system" - (yes?)
3) re: "if energy shortages get bad enough to "break our economic system", coal will be there"
How is it that "energy shortages" will provide the means - (or trigger) - for coal to "be there"? Or, do I misunderstand you here?
If it is not the "energy shortages" that will somehow provide impetus for coal to be there, then what is the cause and effect?
It seems the opposite is the case - oil shortages could/ possibly would/will cause sufficient disruption in just about everything - (agree or disagree?). How is it that coal will "be there"?
4) "crumble"
Well, it seems like moving to lower-value energy resources, such as coal (and what percentage high grade coal is left?) - would actually imply some "crumbling", or, adjustments to lower-value sources. The question is: are these "adjustments" going to prevent or halt the direction of disintegration?
How much can *not* work and still have the "economic system" function?
So, it seems the questions are:
1. How much energy
2. From where
3. within what time period
4. Can avoid "crumble"
5. And then what?
Indeed, I have occasionally thought that there should be another metric, EROEW - Energy Return on Energy Wasted. This could be a fruitful concept, since by any reasonable measure MOST of the energy being used by the human race is currently 'wasted' in order to stimulate human brains in unnecessary ways.
Under EROEW, you could have quite positive results even with terrible EROEI.
It's stupid but true. Most 'energy' and 'environment' projects these days actually fall more under EROEW than anything else.
EROEW, I laughed at that one. I was a driver of a vehicle just over a month ago. 9-11 of 2007 brought that to a close. The wreck nearly totalled my van. But I am getting spare parts from junk years and I know how to fix things witht he help of my Father who has the tools to Weld the thing back together if need be. But I am and always have been a walker. I am eating a bit more than I used to, but I am also walking a bit further than I used to as well. I could say I have a bus pass, but I handed it off to my 3rd Ex-wife she needs it more than I do. Seeing that we are trying to work on getting back together, but that is another story as well.
Xsurbs would die at the EROEW meteric. Even though my parents and I do not watch TV them it is about 15 years me it is about 8. We do things like read books and play on the Internet. Though my dad has worked on making his hauling trailer a covered wagon, using PVC pipes and 1/4 in strand board, he is painting it for protection now, and we know it will haul just about anything we can put in it. It used to be a Tent Camper, from the 60's.
I would not know how much stuff my dad has in his sheds and storage, but I imagine, this house being the center of a vast Hardware store in the trading for food future. He has over 5,000 Cubic feet of tools and more fastners and hardware things than most hardware stores I have been in. You name the Hardware Dept and I will name the things he has, or skills he has to fix things.
The Local kids come over to get their Skate-boards fixed. While we were cooking supper this evening, they showed up and I fixed something for them. Next door we have a Concrete expert. Across the street we have a Glass man, mostly Auto glass, but he has hung mirrors and other window glass for my dad's old job. Three Pastors, one retired,( counting me as a walkabout pastor to the Homeless folks), and one with a church van parked in his yard.
This is a Working class neighborhood and is in its second childhood. My parents being the oldest residents and having the respect of the rest of the folks. I guest I am the odd one out. I keep odd hours and I practice my stave training in the front yard and wave at folks as they come and go.
EROEW would be a good study program.
God Grant you peace.
God Grant you Love of your fellow man.
God Grant you Faith and Trust.
Write in Candidate for President 2008.
Free Right Now party. No donations.
No wage over Lowest wage in the land.
Term limits for congress, 2 for Senate, 3 fo
The right clothes can mean the difference between getting a promotion or not at IBM. She has to decide if she can fit in with their culture or not. And whether she wants to be promoted. Success just means more 60 hour workweeks and four marriages.
There's lots of places an engineer can work Christmas eve in jeans and a t-shirt. IBM isn't one of them.
RobertInTucson
I haven't escaped from reality. I have a daypass.
She eventually took the buyout from IBM.
Engineers at my office pretty much all wear jeans and T-shirts - every day. It's one thing I love about it, because work clothes are a not-insignificant expense. Not to mention it's more comfortable than suits and ties/hose and heels.
I worked for IBM for 30 yrs and retired there.
Long long ago it was suits and white shirts out in the field,then I went to the Sys Design and Dev(not in the field) and most wore anything they wished and that was in the early 70's.
A workmate wore extremely short mini-skirts enough so that we threw coins on the floor in front of her at meetings..she was a full fledged biker chick and it didn't bother her a bit.
One jewish fella wore clothes made of the American flag motif.Most wore jeans. Being a ex-field guy I wore slacks and felt overdressed..this was Kingston,NY.
If she was an engineer and not in the field she was ok..her mgr was the problem and in the real old IBM the employee would have been kept but the erring mgr would have been shitcanned or severely chewed out...engineers and good programmers were more valuable than a stupid mgr.
airdale-I was there and have the rolex to prove it..now you get a plastic chinese trink instead of a $3,000 Rolex..times have changed but ignorant management has not..sadly..
Funny, while reading this post it struck me that a collar and tie is symbolic. In bygone years slaves wore an iron collar and chain, now it is made of cloth. No wonder employers are so strict on the correct form of dress. Staff must know their place. :)
Yeah, the "neck tie" is another symbolic accessory. Maybe that's why smart engineers wear clip on ties...
E. Swanson
In financial terms, you are describing 'shortfall risk' - that % chance that you fall short of your minimum requirements, which are of course, food, water, heat, shelter.
When looked at from completely an economic point of view, this risk is zero, but readers of this site know its some unknown % greater than zero so you bring up a good point.
Also, I'm guessing those analyses are using current electricity costs which are subsidized by cheap coal and nat gas - if there is a doubling or tripling or more of electricity in years to come, people that spent money on energy efficiency upgrades/investments will look smart.
Those type of long term investments are like buying 'convexity' in the bond market - as interest rates (energy prices) rise, you get an outsized impact on your investment, the longer your duration is - esoteric concept but I think it applies equally well to finance and energy, and is helpful when one thinks the future world will run on energy as the current one runs (kind of) on interest rates.
The numbers used are badly wrong. £5000 for solar panels to gain £24 worth of improvement? Only if you were dumb enough to install solar PV panels to power an immersion heater and take nothing but cold showers.
RICS are a sizeable part of the problem with regard to overpriced housing stock in the UK, and they fought the introduction of energy certificates in the first place. Even though reducing VAT on home energy products is a good idea, they aren't proposing it for positive motives, you can bet.
SCT - I was going to say much the same thing. Why is it that ROI is a big deal when it comes to energy when the vast majority of money people spend is for crap that will never give a return?
I have to admit that this has driven me crazy for years. People can afford a plasma TV for several thousand dollars but wouldn't consider installing a solar water heating system. Or, they buy the $40k SUV that sucks gas like there is no tomorrow (one day they'll find out there isn't one) but wouldn't consider inproving their home's insulation.
The other irony is that energy improvements at least hold out the possibility of a return whereas, if the market tanks or hyperinflation occurs, they basically lose any chance of a return from their money.
Todd
Because they can Todd. Because they can and they have not one iota in their internal expectation of the future tells them basic needs might not be available. Im writing a (short) post on what might happen if everyone in the world read and understood what is discussed on this site - might be a good thing - might not.
If we had 6 billion 'realists' all at once, it might not be too fun...
Here is a fresh idea for Wind power. Very interesting concept, if it works? Easy enough to build to. Scalability on a small scale looks easy for light loads.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Humdinger_Windbelt#Official_Websi...
Claims to have better efficiency that a turbine.
I think this concept brings up an idea I haven't heard discussed:
is it better to develop low-efficiency wind and thermal solar designs that can be built using cannibilized parts like in this article, rather than expend energy and CO2 building PVs and composite blades?
If we will need millions of turbines, we've got a carbon fiber shortage.
A few days ago I was thinking about how to build a wind turbine out of bamboo. At first I thought the obvious thing, using each trunk as a spar for one blade. Then I thought about vertical turbines.
Take a straw and cut it vertically into four thin blades almost all the way to the bottom. Now each of the four blades is curved. Twist each of those slightly, and pack the hollow backside of each with a structural material until you've turned it into an airfoil.
This is a disposable, biodegradable, low-efficiency wind turbine. You might carve a groove in the trunk, and connect it by pulley to a motor, like the motor on an electric bicycle, to produce power.
Offsetting the low efficiency is the fact that you've actually captured carbon in producing the bamboo. Once it's damaged or worn out, you go ahead and process or burn the fibers as you once would have when you originally cut it down.
I've thought this myself. I think Homer-Dixon is right. Efficiency is not what we should strive for. It only makes us more vulnerable if something goes wrong. We should strive for resilience instead. Which is pretty much the opposite of efficiency.
>Which is pretty much the opposite of efficiency.
Not necessarily. If the US were to shift from energy imports to a variety of domestically produced energy, it would appear that it could increase efficiency while also increasing energy security (energy resilience). This would allow the full net energy potential of renewables to be realized, since increasing efficiency would of course decrease the energy-in part of the EROEI equation.
Disagree. We import energy precisely because it is more efficient to do so.
Leanan,
Resilience is really not the best way to frame the issue. Rather, what we want is reliable energy systems. Systems that are unlikely to fail catastrophically. Reliability can be increased while also increasing efficiency by moving to energy resources that have a substantially lower probability of catastrophic failure. I think shifting to a variety of domestic energy resources unquestionably decreases tha