<Drumbeat: March 25, 2009 The Oil Drum Where we are headed: Peak oil and the financial crisis>

114 comments on Towards a New Sustainable Economy - Robert Costanza

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Willem Verkerk on March 25, 2009 - 1:50pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

But you seem to take some latitude with the word "sustainable". I cannot conceive of wind turbines and PV/CSP without any collateral damage for resource consumption or the ecosystem.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Nick on March 25, 2009 - 2:11pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Zero damage isn't necessary. Reduce the damage by 95%, and it reduces the scale of the damage to the zone where 1) the ecosystem can absorb it, at least in the short term, and 2) it becomes easy to repair the damage afterwards.

In particular, reduce CO2 emissions by 95%, and climate change impacts are reduced to the range where natural negative feedbacks can handle it, at least in the short term, and 2) sequestration of various sorts is feasible. Of course, we have a very large overhang of CO2 already in the atmosphere and ocean, but that's a slightly different question than the one we're discussing.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Willem Verkerk on March 25, 2009 - 2:34pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

By what standard do you establish "95% reduction"?
And:
1. Ecosystem does absorb everything by definition. The question is what is desirable.
2. Ease of repair. Do you mean by repair: how to put C back into the ground? (I assume you want to keep the O2). I wonder how easy that will be, ever.

Let's take wind turbines. How would you equate (put a value)the adverse effects such as lost bats, copper depletion and visual pollution to the positive effects of reduction in CO2 emissions for example? At what point do we "get a better life"?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Will Stewart on March 25, 2009 - 2:53pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Compared to what; coal? NG?

Such a comparison would be a lengthy one, as mining impacts, resource depletion, other pollutants (NOx, SOx, mercury, etc), wastes (ash), etc also have to be taken into consideration. Barring an full exposition in this thread, it's clear to me that the impacts from coal mining/burning FAR outweigh any from wind power generation, and impacts from combustion of natural gas outweigh wind impacts. YMMV.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Nick on March 25, 2009 - 5:09pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

"By what standard do you establish "95% reduction"?"

That's pretty straightforward. It's generally well accepted on TOD that wind has an E-ROI of at least 20:1. Wind energy output is carbon-free, so wind energy reduces CO2 by 20:1, or 95%.

Actually, it gets better than that, as wind's E-ROI is generally close to 50:1, which gives 98% reduction, and in some cases the power displaced by wind will come primarily from coal, and the energy inputs to turbine construction and installation will also include oil, natural gas and nuclear, which are lower CO2 than coal, so wind may actually reduce CO2 by 99%.

"Ecosystem does absorb everything by definition. "

uhhmmm, you can certainly think of it that way, but I don't think that's the general definition, and I don't think it would be helpful. As I understand it, there's something close to a general consensus in the climatology community that if anthropogenic CO2 emissions to date had been somewhere in the range of 25% of what they have been, we'd be in pretty good shape, but that we're now in the range where we may push the global climate system into a whole new range of behavior.

"Do you mean by repair: how to put C back into the ground?"

Yes.

"I wonder how easy that will be, ever"

It's perfectly easy. Just grow plants, and then bury or store them in some form where they won't decay and release their carbon.

"the adverse effects such as lost bats"

Sheesh. See my other comment on birds & bats.

"copper depletion"

1) It's not lost, and 2) copper is easily replaced with aluminum for power and glass for telecom.

"and visual pollution"

Sheesh, again. First, in the US, at least, there are lots of farm locations where the farmers are dying to have turbines. 2nd, lots of people find turbines beautiful. 3rd, which looks better: wind turbines or strip mining and mountain top removal?

"At what point do we "get a better life"?"

Keep healthy; have a good marriage and lots of friends; find meaningful work; and power your electric vehicles and appliances with sustainable electricity.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Willem Verkerk on March 25, 2009 - 10:22pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

You mean "sustainable electricity" from wind? Which is per your thinking (and of course the other "well accepted on TOD"; always funny when ppl make claims to "well accepted stuff") 95% reduction of CO2. Which you seem also to equate to "E" or Eroi??

Do you have an idea how much biomass would have to be buried and at what depths? Easy? And if that would work, why wouldn't it work also for the CO2 from FF? Problem solved?
..
How much aluminum can be made with the electricity of one windturbine?

Windturbines claim a whole lot more land for similar output than a coal-fired plant and NG would even claim much less, so windturbines have by definition a whole lot more visual impact.

Oh, and now we would need to power our vehicles and appliances with that "well accepted" sustainable electricity in order to have a "better life"? I am not convinced it is that simple...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Nick on March 26, 2009 - 2:32am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

"You mean "sustainable electricity" from wind?"

Yes.

"95% reduction of CO2. Which you seem also to equate to "E" or Eroi??"

That's the way it works out. If we have to invest Fossil Fuel 1 kilowatt hour into wind turbine manufacturing to get 20 KWHs produced, and if the 20 KWH's are zero-CO2, then we've reduced the CO2 per KWH by 95%. Of course, if you get 50:1, then it's 98%, and if the KWH input is low CO2 and the 50KWH's replaced by the wind production are high CO2, then we're doing even better.

"Do you have an idea how much biomass would have to be buried and at what depths?"

Quite a lot.

"Easy?"

In principle.

"And if that would work, why wouldn't it work also for the CO2 from FF?"

Because, as you note, it's hard to scale up. You need to cut the problem down to size first. That's what wind power does.

"How much aluminum can be made with the electricity of one windturbine?"

I'm not sure what you're asking, really. Wind power is affordable, and scalable, if that's what you're asking.

"Windturbines claim a whole lot more land for similar output than a coal-fired plant "

uhmmm. Have you ever seen a coal plant? A strip mine? Keep in mind, you have to space turbines, but each turbine only uses a tiny bit of land - maybe 1/3 acre. You can use the land in between - for farming, for example.

" windturbines have by definition a whole lot more visual impact."

No. Again, First, in the US, at least, there are lots of farm locations where the farmers are dying to have turbines - they're the only ones looking at them, and they want them. 2nd, lots of people find turbines beautiful. 3rd, which looks better: wind turbines or strip mining and mountain top removal? Really?

"now we would need to power our vehicles and appliances with that "well accepted" sustainable electricity in order to have a "better life"?"

Why would dirty power improve life? I'm puzzled - you're against climate change, right?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Willem Verkerk on March 26, 2009 - 12:01pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

So, you say it's "easy" and at the same time it's "hard" to bury C? Which is it?

I find it surprising that you can claim something like "aluminum is not a problem" and at the same time you seem to dislike strip mining. Isn't aluminum strip mined? Or is that just not close enough to your backyard or country that you don't mind? By the way by some estimates the electricity costs alone to smelt enough aluminum for a transmission line from the wind farm to the next node (interconnect), may equate to 10% of the generated electricity of the windfarm. (assumptions: input 5000 MWh/mile; 100mi interconnect; 30 years; output: 160GWh per year)

The best wind locations are often on ridges not cultivated by farmers. So, what's the difference between seeing "mountain top removal" and "artificial spikes" ie. wind turbines? Especially since the last ones would cover a whole lot more area.

Dirty power is bad enough. But I think you propose wind turbines as a panacea to obtain a "better life". I am supportive of wind energy, but I want to stress that that too has drawbacks. And that it's hard enough to figure out which is really better.....

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Nick on March 26, 2009 - 1:08pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

"So, you say it's "easy" and at the same time it's "hard" to bury C? Which is it?"

It's all a matter of scale. It's easy to do, but you have to do quite a lot of it to make a difference. If you knock down the problem by 95-99% first, that makes all the difference.

If you stop digging the hole, you can start filling it...

"Isn't aluminum strip mined? "

Again, it's a question of scale. Strip mines (for bauxite or coal) can be remediated quite well, but coal mining is a very, very big operation.

"aluminum for a transmission line"

Could I trouble you for your source?

"The best wind locations are often on ridges not cultivated by farmers. "

Sometimes. In the US, we have plenty elsewhere, if that's a problem.

"So, what's the difference between seeing "mountain top removal" and "artificial spikes" ie. wind turbines?"

Good lord, if you can't see the difference on the face of it, I'm losing hope of communicating with you. One is almost zero impact (yes, you might have a small access road), the other removes the mountain top and dumps it in the valleys and streams below!

"I am supportive of wind energy...it's hard enough to figure out which is really better"

It's really not. I'm guessing, but I have to speculate that you're spending way too much reading flaky anti-wind websites. "artificial spikes" sounds just like the people who like to call wind "industrial", to attempt to make wind power evoke images of industrial smoke stacks belching soot...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Willem Verkerk on March 26, 2009 - 1:44pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I'm guessing, but I have to speculate that you're spending way too much reading flaky anti-wind websites.

Tilting at windmills.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Nick on March 26, 2009 - 2:00pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Yes, indeed.

And think how picturesque those Spanish windmills are...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Big Gav on March 26, 2009 - 7:16am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Windturbines claim a whole lot more land for similar output than a coal-fired plant and NG would even claim much less, so windturbines have by definition a whole lot more visual impact.

However wind turbines don't monopolise the land they are on - you can still grow crops or graze animals on the land (or laternatively, use barren and useless land - unlike most coal and nuclear plants, wind turbines don't need large volumes of water).

As for visual impact, personally I like the sight of modern turbines - they ook graceful and can enliven a dull landscape.

Coal fired power stations, on the other hand...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

114 comments on Towards a New Sustainable Economy - Robert Costanza

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version