147 comments on A North American Wind Energy Scenario
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
147 comments on A North American Wind Energy Scenario
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
- Oilwatch Monthly November 2009
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
- The Bullroarer - Friday 20th November 2009
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“We have only two modes—complacency and panic.”
—James R. Schlesinger, the first energy secretary, in 1977, on the country's approach to energy
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
The point is that if you have a new proposal like this you look at it closely.
Based on your comments on this and many other posts, a person gets the impression you uncritically accept any new energy proposal, and criticize any comment I make on the subject. I get rather tired of your comments, quite frankly.
I have no problem with looking closely at proposals. The points your raise, however, are always negative with respect to renewable energy sources, and often over-emphasize relatively minor points while missing the much larger positive ones. I could come up with hundreds of reasons why making it to the moon in the 1960s would seem insurmountable. Or why Wilbur and Orville wouldn't be able to get their contraption off the ground.
There are massive lifestyle changes coming, so people will either be moved outside their current comfort zone proactively on their own volition, or reactively by clinging to forms of BAU. No doubt some people tire of hearing this, but that doesn't mean PO or AGW will simply disappear because they are unwelcome changes.
Gail/Will -- I'll take a chance on being perceived as rude and jump into the middle of your debate. Gail, I think you should immediately prepare a full apology to Will. Have it at the ready so you can post it just as soon as we start seeing someone actually start spending the many 10’s of billions of dollars to significantly expand wind energy in the US. You can ignore the little gains as their net effect is lost as we sink deeper into PO. I know you are an honorable person Gail and will accept my proposal.
Rockman,
I have tremendous respect for your knowledge of petroleum exploration, discovery, and development. On a different matter, what are your preferred solutions with respect to the electrical generation and transmission infrastructure? On Powerdown overall?
Will -- I don't really have a background that would allow such analysis. I depend on folks like you here to generate those ideas. Beleive me: I don't find fault with you're analysis of what might be technical solutions. Just lately I'm on a tear about the apparent inability of society to apply such solutions. I know my comment sounded a little catty but that just represents my frustration with our inability to act in a sound and moral way. You just happened to present an opening for a little rant on my part...nothing personal. I do appreciate the thoughts and efforts of folks like you here to devise answers. So many interesting ideas which will never be tested IMO. In a way, the valid concepts I read here only create greater angst since they appear to be missed opportunties that our gov't/society will just pay lip service until we reach the point where the only ready solution will be a true resource war. Been there...done that...and wouldn't wish it on our youth.
And besides, I always like sucking up to Gail. I have no idea other then she may represent the mother figure I've lacked in my life.
Rockman,
I think you have hit the nail on the head.
If we had infinite money to spend, and were willing to spend it, these proposals would be great. As it is, money for new infrastructure is a huge obstacle. It doesn't seem like more "printed" money will do it either--it needs to be real money.
I will be happy to issue Will an apology, once I see the $10s of billions (probably more than that) start getting spent on new proposals, to actually get things going along these lines.
Green Grid.
There is an excelent article in the New Scientist 14th March on long distance DC power transfers across Europe, North Africa and Asia.
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/12/plans-for-a-...
One of the studies was sponsored by the Club of Rome.
I guess it is inevitable, given civilisation survives.
Super cooled conductors.
I really don't understand how any person living in the United States in 2008-9 could raise money as an objection to any large project, whether it be renewables, a Mars landing, or whatever. The economic crisis has shown that when pushed, the elites can find trillions.
The only question is whether they decide to do it. And that's politics. What is "politics"? "The process by which groups of people make decisions." How is that done in the West? By elections, by letters to representatives and candidates, by lobby groups, by bribes and threats, and so on.
No amount of money could get Bernie Madoff elected; no spending of money was required to get Nixon to resign, nor to get US troops to withdraw from Vietnam, or block new nuclear after Three Mile Island. The voice of the people will be heard, but only if they bother speaking.
So if you say, "politics stops it", what you really mean is "the people don't really want it." I happen to believe in democracy, so if the people don't want it, it shouldn't happen. But part of democracy is also some people trying to persuade others that it should happen.
This takes time and effort. Segregation didn't end the day after the first march against it. If you want change, make it known to the world. "Politics" is not some abstract unarguable force like gravity, only the sum of everyone's voices and silence.
You want change, make a noise about it.
The problem is that they are not really finding trillions. I think when all is said and done, they are printing trillions.
You need real concrete and steel and other materials to make wind turbines. As far as I know, you can't print these. We are quite a bit poorer now than we were before, but this has not yet sunk in to TPTB.
I have serious misgivings on where the financial situation is headed.
Have you withdrawn all your money from the bank to turn it into non-perishable assets yet? If not, why not? You say the currency is worthless, yet you still trust it, which means you don't really believe it's worthless. You have faith in the currency's value.
When you see your bank balance at the ATM, you have faith in the value of the money there. When it comes time to spend that money on building renewable energy, suddenly you don't believe in the currency anymore, it's worthless. Why the difference?
This is what was being said to you just the other day - as soon as any positive plan is mentioned, suddenly you have a different point of view about everything. The money which has value when you buy lunch suddenly loses its value when it buys a wind turbine maker's lunch. Why?
Double standards and a mutable set of ideas, so as to keep a doomerish worldview. "The world will continue with Business As Usual, and Nothing Can Be Done, it's hopeless." Maybe so - but we won't be worse off if we try.
To say "they're just printing money" is meaningless in itself; what matters is whether people still accept the currency as being worth something.
As the US currency has not collapsed into hyperinflation, people obviously still have faith in it. If they have faith in it when it's part of the assets for the fractional reserve of a dodgy bank, they'll have faith in it when it pays someone for putting up a wind turbine or building an oil refinery or whatever you like.
If the US suffers a run on the banks or hyperinflation, then we can talk about the currency being worthless.
To use Orlov's boxing metaphor, nobody really knows why the Soviet Union "took a dive". Some bits, surprisingly continued to work. Whither now the USA? Hyperinflation as you rightly point out is a specter for western world, but meanwhile we can arrange our money. Here in the UK I anticipated both the end of 'our' housing bubble and a 'Peak Oil perception moment' and we withdrew in-time our remaining personal saving from the stock market. We intend to spend most of this, by our standards, considerable 'electronic sum' on a 'legacy' reconstruction of our house that will reduce to zero our dependence on heating oil and lower our demand for electricity by 40-50%, (with potential for going much lower). We hope that the house might provide for 2 families who can live low-cost and if necessary grow >80% of basic calories and protein plus surplus of high nutritional value fruit and vegetables on adjoining 2 acres. The materials are easily maintained and stretch to a legacy of direct value over centuries. We will not be self-sufficient, but this 'spend' we hope is better than the extended waste of resources in a 'Care Home' that is the conventional expectation (for sure) over our next (with luck remaining) 20 years. We hope the youngsters who build the facility will learn and enjoy while they are supported by the wages they earn during construction. I would like to secure a sufficient electrical power source of high future reliability - and that means that we hope for sufficient technological assets available from a surrounding functioning 'society', whether in the case of electricity we derive it from a grid or from local supply, and the assets had better be 90% renewable.
Kiashu nailed it.
Gail,
"You need real concrete and steel and other materials to make wind turbines. As far as I know, you can't print these."
Any idle steel mills or cement works in the US would be happy to start up with a down-payment of $US paper. You may have a case if US currency some time in the future is not accepted by a Chinese or European supplier.
If we return to a fully operating economy, then printing money will be limited by it's inflationary impact. Is that what you are concerned about, full employment and a shortage of steel and concrete? Building 20,000 x 3MW turbines per year will employ a lot of people.
That is bad, all else being equal. Devoting more work for less gain is not what has made us rich.
We understand where we are now, and the first steps of the project may be doable. The longer-term is more uncertain.
If I were doing the project, I would make certain that the as much as possible, the initial increments would be usable in themselves. Transmission would need to be added at or ahead of new wind turbines.
Later steps would depend on how much the economy could really support, and whether there really are electric vehicles and other equipment needing the electrical supply.
Well, only the transmission backbone is something that should/could be a (centrally planned) project. The rest should be done by market players without subsidies or intervention.
I agree with you 100%. What will happen depends entirely on the voice of our collective electorate. And they are saying "Hell no!" to the question of spending billions of $'s on wind expansion. We here exist in a very rarified atmosphere. Our chats on very illuminating. But those thoughts don't exist in the minds of the great unwashed majority IMO. We are not the public. I cross paths with the common denominators of the electorate on a regular basis. I here their comments when they think no one unlike them is listening (I'm very good at camoflaging my real nature... necessary for my job.)
As I've mentioned elsewhere I'm beginning to avoid the chats re: solutions to our current mess. Not that I don't hear good ideas but because there are so many valid thoughts floating around which I believe have very little chance of being implimented. I don't consider myself a doomer per se. But until I see clear evidence that our society has committed to taking appropriate actions (and not just cheer leading about fixing our problems) I'll stick with my realistic view (IMO) of the future.
"I don't consider myself a doomer per se."
I don't like the label either. But if you believe, as I do, that the political problems make any solution highly unlikely to be implemented, then, de facto, you and I are going to be labelled "doomers." Aargh! How about "realists"?
The hard problems have always been the political ones. So in one sense Neil is solving the wrong problem. But in another, he's putting the pressure back where it belongs.
My reaction to Neil's estimate was "heck, it's only two and a half trillion. That's nothing. Why aren't they doing it already?" If only more people felt the same way.
The catch is that it is not just $2.5 trillion. Even if you got all of this infrastructure going, you would also need the new electric vehicles of all types (including semi's or electric railroad), and you would have to figure out substitutes for a lot of other things that are in short supply, like asphalt and roofing material and fertilizer.
These things don't come for free. If international trade is suffering, developing all these things on our own may be difficult. Where will the material for batteries come from?
There are many challenges to mitigating PO; in one sense we can ask "where is the material for anything coming from and how do we pay for it?"
As has been mentioned before, hydrogen and ammonia can be fuels produced using electricity, so semi's and trains don't have to be electric. Note, though, that adoption (proactively or reactively) of relocalization means that BAU transportation of goods will not be anywhere near the level we have now, so a signficant drop in the number of semi miles is a pretty sure bet.
How many is many? Wind turbine investment last year was about 2 10's, vs. the roughly 10 10's we'd need to see as an average over the next 20 years. Keep in mind, the article does not appear to be arguing that the proposed expansion is happening, but that it could happen, if we wanted it to, so "it isn't happening yet" is not a reasonable criticism.
It's worth noting, moreover, that it's no longer possible to argue that wind power is not expanding significantly in the US, as last year wind accounted for more new generating capacity (after adjusting for capacity factor) than any other power source. It's also worth noting that, despite concerns about the effect of the economy on growth, nearly 3GW of wind were installed in 2009Q1, double the rate of 2008Q1.
It may be true that change to a renewable society is impossible.
It is definitely true that continuing as a fossil fuel society is impossible.
I'll take possible failure over definite failure any day of the week. The only alternative to this dilemma is despairing doomerism. But I ignore that alternative, because if the doomers are right and nothing we do can change anything, we won't be worse off from having tried.
By all means, feel free to stay on the sinking ship debating whether the lifeboats are seaworthy. I'll be hopping in and rowing hard while you dither on deck rearranging the chairs.
+500!
Kiashu -- We're not debating whether the life boats are seaworthy or not. We are discussing the probability of someone building the life boats for us. Life boats are really great when the ship is sinking. No argument there. But discussing how wonderful they would be if/when we get them doesn't save us. Debating the probability of someone building our life boats is the matter at hand. And so far I've seen no one offer a valid expectation of any major swing towards wind energy. Not that it may not be a feasible....not that it and solar might be our best chance to mitigate the worst effects of PO.
The question is: who will make that huge investment and when will it start? I don't need to hear about the viability of alternatives any more. I get it (actually got it over 20 years ago). I want to see significant proposals by folks with the capital to make it happen. So far I've seen nothing of any significant magnitude.
I'm not really ranting just at you. I've just grown increasing foul lately over the lack of action by the private sector as well as the gov't. I suspect you, as well as most of the others here, understand the time lag for anything significant to change. So far all I hear from our leaders is lip service IMO. As Gail and others have pointed out, we're a good 20 years late starting the transition process. Time is the enemy as much as any other factor. The ship is sinking by the bow and our leaders are telling us they have a plan to build our life boats. "So don't worry...we'll be getting back to you on that life boat issue as soon as we take care of some more pressing matters...such as getting re-elected."
Nothing is built unless someone wants it to be built. That someone may only be the company building it and some MP they bribed, but still, there it is.
We just have to let them know we want the stuff built.
Instead we're sitting around debating how and what and where and is it possible and do we really need ooooh oooh maybe global warming isn't really or it's actually good for us or maybe cosmic rays and anyway they'll find more oil, they'll think of something and... it's bollocks.
The point of all the quibbling is to delay action. The point of delaying action is to defend Business As Usual.
You can plan forever, hoping for the best plan. It's said that when the Greeks came to Thermopylae, they decided to build a wall to stand behind when the Persians came. Leonidas gathered all the engineers to discuss how best to do it. They argued for hours, and eventually he walked over to a boulder, picked it up and moved it to a spot that seemed about right. And then a second, and so on. Because even a crappy wall in the wrong spot was better than no wall at all, which is what planning for a perfect wall in the perfect spot would get them.
We should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. It's time to just build stuff. Wind turbines, solar PV, solar thermal, hydro, geothermal, railways, city farms, trams, even - God help us - nuclear. Just get moving, get building, do stuff.
Hubbert told us in 1956 that oil would peak around 2000. The US President's Science Committee told him in 1965 that CO2 from fossil fuels might warm the Earth with disastrous results. That was the time to start making the perfect plan. If not then, then in 1991 when we had our first proper war over oil, or in 1992 when most of the world agreed we needed to reduce carbon emissions.
That time has passed. Now we just have to build stuff as best we know how, and GET MOVING.
Success was never achieved by people sitting around in despair saying "nothing can be done." Things get done by people who just get up and do them. We stuff around too much nowadays. That's why NASA could reach the Moon in 9 years in the 1960s, but today it needs 20 years' notice to do it. The plan's gotta be perfect before we accept it.
Bugger that. Let's get moving. Write to your MP, and change your own life to the life you imagine as good for all.
I'm sick of all this doomerism. It reminds me of that scene in The Godfather.
"Boohoo! I don't know what to do!"
*slap! slap!*
"You can act like a man!"
It's time for us to ante up and kick in, or lay down our cards and walk away from the table.
"who will make that huge investment and when will it start? ... So far I've seen nothing of any significant magnitude."
It's there - you just have to listen for it.
Wind power is now the largest single source of new generation, in the US.
Toyota, the largest car manufacturer in the world, is expanding it's electric drivetrains very quickly, and plans to have all of it's models either hybrid or plug-in by 2020.
GM, the 2nd largest (even with it's current problems) is building its future around the Chevy Volt.