 | Introducing A New Currency: The Carbon | The Oil Drum: Australia/New Zealand | The Bullroarer - Tuesday 1st July 2008 |  |
22 comments on The Bullroarer - Monday 30th June 2008
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
22 comments on The Bullroarer - Monday 30th June 2008
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Contact
- anz at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
GAIA Host Collective
Interesting video. It certainly convinced me that it can't be done. I encourage everyone to have a look and see whether they're convinced. My guess is that they couldn't grow as much biogas as they would need for the fill in, and the lakes going up and down to store power would be an environmental disaster. Quite apart from the fact that biofuels are always an environmental disaster: nature needs "waste" bio material to be recycled back into the soil, not burnt. [Also, while it's not too clear, I think it was only a virtual experiment and real life would not be so easy.]
I'm not convinced it can't be done, because they did it.
I agree that biogas in general as generally currently practiced is not sustainable, I've previously written that biofuels - as generally currently practiced - are bad for climate change. But neither is agriculture and forestry in general sustainable, and yet we do not condemn them as useless on that account, but instead call for changes to sustainability. And in any case some manage it sustainably.
The Finns and Swedes have a few towns with wood-burning stations which generate electricity and hot water pumped around for heating, etc, and they manage to do it sustainably. See for example this discussion of Finland's energy here. Wood provides about a tenth of their electricity consumption, which is about 16-17,000kWh per person annually, if I recall correctly. So something like 1,600kWh per person annually is coming from wood.
Now, a study [Alan D. Pasternak, Global Energy Futures and Human Development: A Framework for Analysis] looked at HDI (human development index - longevity, education and income) vs electricity consumption, and what the guy found was that HDI rises very quickly as you add electricity, reaching 0.8 with 2,000kWh or more total use, and maxing out around 0.9 with 4,000kWh total use; that is, adding more electricity after 4,000kWh doesn't improve people's lives at all in any real way.
So that Finland's sustainable biofuel use for cogeneration gives them 1,600kWh, which is a fair way to assuring an HDI of 0.8 needing 2,000kWh, though only a third of the way to maxing out at 0.9.
Looking at forest area, we see that Finland has 219,350km2 of forest, or with 5 million people, 0.04km2 per capita, and Europe as a whole 10.3 million km2, or with 750 million people some 0.01km2 per capita. Thus Europe as a whole has one-quarter the forest per person Finland does, thus logically could manage sustaible cogeneration from wood of only one-quarter what Finland manages.
So as a back-of-the-envelope sort of figure, we can say that if Finland can manage 1,600kWh per person annually from wood, Europe as a whole must be able to manage 400kWh per person annually.
Against this 400kWh we must set
- 2,000kWh for HDI0.8+,
- 4,000kWh for HDI0.9+,
- 8,000kWh in France or Germany
- 12,000kWh we see consumed in the US or Australia
- 16,000kWh in Finland
- 25,000kWh in Iceland or Sweden
and so we can conclude that at first glance, it seems that sustainable cogeneration can go a long way (10-25%) to supplying the power needs for a decent standard of life, but is hopeless when set against our current high and wasteful consumption.
That is, renewable energy can work well if coupled with a prudent but not spartan level of conservation of energy. Which really is what you hear most renewable energy advocates outside the actual energy companies saying - we need conservation and efficiency, too. Renewable energy can provide us with enough energy for a decent lifestyle, but not enough for us to waste it as we do with fossil fuels.
A nice way of saying close to the edge. You take that to the voters and I'll take nuclear. Seriously, things like natural disasters happen where you need a lot of extra energy. Also: nuclear is the energy source that the rest of nature doesn't use. The alternative portrayed involves us gobbling up every last bit of energy we can get from the natural world. Nuclear looks a lot greener to me.
"closer to the edge"? 4,000kWh annually is "close to the edge"? Residential use is generally a third of all use, so that's 1,333kWh for domestic use, 3.7kWh a day each, so for the average Aussie household of 2.6 people that's 9.5kWh daily for the household... this is meant to represent being "on the edge"?
You're reminding me of when Boof tried to tell us that if you took the train instead of flying that was like cladding yourself in "sackcloth and ashes". Oh, the suffering one would have in the dining car of the Ghan!
Please describe a natural disaster any time in human history which was mitigated by having more electricity.
Radioisotopes are part of nature, too, and like fossil fuels, are finite. Of course pro-nuclear people are fond of telling us that they're so large in supply they may as well be infinite. But then, in 1880 Britain thought they had a 2,000 year supply of coal. We may or may not have a limited supply of radioisotopes, but we certainly shall not run into limits of sunshine, wind and wave in any reasonable timeframe. So we can bet on something which may or may not run out, or something which we know definitely won't.
So whether we choose nuclear, wind, hydro, geothermal or whatever, we are going to face at some point resource constraints and have to learn to restrain our appetites to merely fill ourselves to bursting, rather than filling ourselves to vomiting. I believe we can manage this difficult task, as onerous a burden as it may seem to some of us.
I'd be glad to take the offer of renewables and conservation to the polls, especially if we were offering nuclear as the alternative. I know of only a few occasions in history where the public was actually asked if they wanted nuclear power in their country or area. I list only the binding votes, as opposed to local council resolutions as gestures, etc.
- Austria, 1978 - NO
- Sweden, 1980 - NO - only semi-binding in that it required the government to get rid of the plants as soon as possible if it wouldn't cause any problems to anyone
- Italy, 1987 - NO
- Switzerland, 1990 - this was two votes, the first to have nuclear power at all - YES - and the second whether to build any new plants in the next decade - NO
- Japan, Maki, 1996 - NO - this was on having a plant in their area, two other areas whose names I forget had a similar vote the same year and also voted no.
What the referenda results show us is that once people have nuclear, they accept its presence but don't welcome its expansion; but if they don't have nuclear, they don't want to start with it.
Nuclear, then, would be an excellent stick to offer with the renewable and conservation carrot; if we simply offer renewables and conservation, people may reject them in favour of burgers and SUVs. But if it's a choice between renewables with conservation and nuclear, I've no doubt what the majority would choose.
I would, then, be very comfortable in taking to the polls a question something like,
"choose one of the following:- (a) renewables with heavy energy conservation, or (b) nuclear with no energy conservation"
Are we remembering that our post-fossil energy supply has to cover all transport as well? E.g. create hydrogen from water and use hydrogen fuel, or some such. Given high conversion losses this is very significant. And yes: we used a lot of fuel helping people after the tsunami, and in every emergency.
"choose one of the following:- (a) renewables with heavy energy conservation, or (b) nuclear with no energy conservation"
You can have renewables with no energy convservation too, if you so choose.
It will be easier to replace all our energy needs with renewables than it would be to do so with nuclear, that is certain.
You can, but then you need to build heaps more renewables than you would with conservation, which even ignoring the extra money it costs means it takes much longer to get us entirely renewable.
And since most conservation consists simply of getting rid of pointless waste - lit-up offices at night, houses warmed when nobody's in them, SUVs with one person in them idling in traffic, plastic wishbones and the like - I don't think conservation need cause great suffering.
So perhaps we could rephrase it as,
""choose one of the following:-
(a) renewables with heavy energy conservation,
(b) nuclear with no energy conservation,
(c) heaps and heaps of renewables at much great cost than (a) or (b) so you can have the privilege of pointless waste"
When it comes to nuclear I think it fair to present it to a voting public impartially so they can choose; when it comes to waste I see no reason to present things impartially.
My point is that (c) wouldn't cost more than (b).