Will the Transition to Renewables Be Fast or Slow?

[kristopher]

Will the Transition to Renewables Be Fast or Slow?
Yes, solar is a miniscule part of the energy budget, but history shows market shares can shift rapidly.


The technology is dangerous, expensive and hard to find.

That was the conclusion of a panel convened by the U.S. Navy in the 1850s to determine whether the fleet should switch from boats powered by sails to ones that run on coal, according to Ray Mabus, the current Secretary of the Navy. Nonetheless, the switch took place, and in a few years' time, coal ruled the seas.

In the 1890s, a new generation of experts argued that a switch from coal to oil would be cost-prohibitive. Think of all that money spent on coaling stations! And in the 1950s, the critics once griped that nuclear-powered ships and submarines were an impractical fantasy. Now, all of the Navy’s carriers and submarines run on nuclear power.

Can the world rapidly jump when it comes to solar, wind or alternative fuels? Energy technology, from a day-to-day perspective, seems to move at a snail’s pace, particularly when compared to things like TVs or electronics. Back in the late '80s, only billionaires had cell phones and they were the size of small shoeboxes. Twenty years later, the cellular industry can brag about having billions of subscribers worldwide.

Over that same time 25-year span...

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/will-the-transition-to-renewables-be-fast-or-slow/


See also this article, it shows that Italy has installed enough solar in the last 20 months to nearly equal the output of 2 nuclear power plants.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/kristopher/743

[ixion]

1. it will be slow until it's critical

then it will be too late.

[FBaggins]

2. Rocket fast.

Which, unfortunately for you, you will view as foot-draggingly maddeningly slow.

[georged193]

3. Renewables

Those who live in disneyland about doing it with renewables should google the work of British physiscist David MacKay.
His analysis is based on arithmetic, not faith. His take on renewables for the USA may be found in the following link...
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-05-13/tech/mackay.energy_1_fossil-fuels-heat-pumps-energy?_s=PM:TECH

[kristopher]

5. McKay makes a number of invalid assumptions.

For example, his discussion at the link you provided presents space as an obstacle. That simply doesn't stand close examination.

I just posted this elsewhere, but here it is again since it deals with land use and has direct relevance to what you've written.



Mods, this is a single paragraph abstract (see original form below) that I’ve broken apart for ease of reading:

You can download the full article at his webpage here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm

Or use this direct download link: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/ReviewSolGW09.pdf

You can view the html abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Download slide presentation here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/0902UIllinois.pdf

Results graphed here: http://pubs.rsc.org/services/images/RSCpubs.ePlatform.Service.FreeContent.ImageService.svc/ImageService/image/GA?id=B809990C

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

As originally published:
Abstract

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition. Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85. Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge. Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs. Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs. Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs. Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85. Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations. Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended. Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended. The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85. Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality. The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss. The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs. The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73 000–144 000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300 000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15 000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020. In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[napoleon_in_rags]

7. +1. God bless numbers. Watts to horsepower makes things clearer.

That's all totally true. I was looking at the business of solar panel installation, and I saw the math on this when I tried to justify the sales...Over a decade to pay off the installation, with prayers nothing breaks. A simple way to put things into perspective is to stop talking watts and start talking horsepower. One "horsepower" is the same as 746 watts. A good solar panel is 160 watts. So a good solar panel is 0.2 horsepower. That car with 350 horses under the hood is consuming 261,000 watts when its using those horses. it takes 1.3 million dollars worth of solar panels (at $800 per 160 watt panel) to power it at that load. (Smaller car at average load uses only around 20,000 watts, way smaller but still extreme in big picture)

So what you look at this whole thing in the context of peak oil and the rest, there is NO WAY IN HELL our current lifestyle will be supported by those alternatives. On the bright side it doesn't need to be in many cases. For getting around town in temperate climbs, a bike like thing powered by 1000 watts is 70% as good. Problem is now we're going to be driving around in hellish storms and weather extremes due to past patterns of consumption. It really is a dark outlook.

[kristopher]

9. That is an absurd "analysis"

First, the issue of payback time is as bad as it is because the utilities are cheating people who install solar by not paying them the prevailing rate for peaking power. Most estimates that have looked at the payback using the daily price of peaking power as the amount the homeowner is reimbursed arrive at about 4 years for a payback.

The idea that the horsepower rating of an internal combustion engine (ICE) has any relevancy at all to solar panels is hard to fathom. In the first place, an ICE is extremely wasteful - especially in a vehicle. On average around 85% of the fuel that goes into the tank is lost as heat.

Second, renewable energy sources are far more diversified than just solar. As the Jacobson paper in post 5 makes clear. Unless you are going off the grid, which is a pretty dumb thing to do for most people, the use of battery electric EVs has distinct advantages that work in tandem with renewable energy sources to make both better.

[napoleon_in_rags]

18. If people can't accept the facts on the ground, we won't move forward.

And the facts on the ground is that our current society is PROFOUNDLY wasteful in terms of energy and resources. The idea that horsepower rating has nothing to do with watts is absurd. They are different units of measuring energy, which drives cars and is harnessed for sunlight:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=horsepower+to+watts
Its true ICE engines are inefficient, but that doesn't change certain fundamental facts on the ground. Try to push a car 10 miles with your body power, then try to move a bicycle the same distance. The first is two days of hell, the second is a leisurely way to spend 45 minutes on a weekend. Now consider the multiplication of that force you expended pushing that car to move it that distance in 10 minutes. ..I think its the physical manpower of about 200 men.
http://scienceshareware.com/bicycle-generator-faq.htm#How much power can a human put out

FUNDAMENTAL physical laws dictate that more energy will be used to move a 4000 pound car with 180 pound rider than a 20 pound bike with the same rider. to be precise, about 21 times more AT LEAST. The issue here is that the car is doing exactly the same thing as the bike 90% of the time: transporting the 180 pound rider. That means its an idiotically wasteful use of energy to use cars (as they are currently designed) as transport. 1/21 efficient Our society exists because we found an ocean of gold under the ground and decided to burn it to power a ridiculous lifestyle, who's time has now run out. You don't do anybody any service by promising them this dream can continue.

[kristopher]

20. Your points really aren't worth discussion in respect to the OP

Yes, we are wasteful, which is why energy efficiency is ALWAYS part of plans centered around renewables. We are wasteful largely because the economic model built around large-scale centralized coal and nuclear is one that encourages waste - the more power people use, the more money that those producing the electricity make. Maximizing efficiency is an inborn characteristic of a renewable, distributed grid.

The rest of your reasoning is simply not valid. Yes bicycles are the most efficient means of transportation. However we have what we have in regard to the standards that are in place. Our entire lifestyle is built around a great deal of personal mobility and we aren't going to change that anytime soon - and doing it would require spending on infrastructure that is nearly inconceivable if we were to attempt it.

Since we have the technology to meet our needs, the path we are going to follow is the one I'm predicting, not the one you see.

As you say, we do have to accept the facts on the ground.


(Edited to add clarity to header.)

[napoleon_in_rags]

22. "Nobody's gonna take my car, gonna take my car"

Did you know that the Hummer was designed, not for off road utility, but to actually look intimidating and assert an alpha male status? That's the real issue here. Its about that guy, with mullet and the tattoo that says "Beefcake" driving around in a car with a big engine, and Deep Purple's Highway Star playing. The car Beefcake is driving around in is based on science way beyond him, in fact if the world were filled with him, it never would have gotten past the dark ages. But that doesn't matter, he needs to burn 261,100 watts in acceleration, because that excites trashy waitresses he picks up at the mall, whom he then breeds with in the back seat. As a result, beefcake is part of an exponentially growing population of beefcakes, and all's they know is nobody gonna take their car.

This is your God. This is the collective God of our culture. This is the "standards that are in place" that we have to bend science to adhere to. "We can't get 140 miles a charge and 261,100 watts out of a battery yet but we're trying mister beefcake! Honest! We promise we will find a way to provide exponential production energy to power the muscle cars and Hummers of your children! honest!" But the bottom line is, BASIC math shows its not possible. The options are Fukashima, Global Warming, impossible amounts of wind and solar. Or you could just be honest with Beefcake and tell him things need to change. Give him the cool new thing, the badass Harley of the new transport, whatever. Or let him work it out. His grandfather picked up the trashy waitresses of yore on his mighty steed, I hear.

Every time another catastrophic out-of-season storm hits, or I hear about the wars or airport gropings I remember with a dull thud in my head the penultimate truth of this time: the status quo is freaking ridiculous, a tale told by an idiot - there is no reason to try and prop it up in any way.

[kristopher]

24. If that's what you see as the status quo...

The one I see, however, is a population with homes, businesses and recreation scattered over 3.6 million square miles in a pattern of ownership and infrastructure that hinges on personal mobility.

Good luck applying the view that is all about Hummers.

[Yo_Mama]

44. Well said

Obviously we have to strive for efficiency. As costs rise, that will naturally happen.

But we can't simply rebuild half our housing base in 20 years - no one's got the money and in itself, it would be a wasteful use of energy. And there are reasons for a lot of these little rural towns.

The US has a lot of land, so I cannot see the land use issue as being any real obstacle. One example - the plains areas of the US provide some of the best territory in the world for wind turbines with relatively cheap installation and maintenance (off-shore wind is quite a bit more expensive), and the corn and the cows do not seem impacted in any real way. You are adding an economic use to the land without taking away its other economic uses, which is a net plus. Obviously you can't erect giant wind turbines over Manhattan, but the point is that we don't have to do that.

The land use issue is real for places like Singapore and Japan, but for the US it is much less of an issue and not something we need to angst about. Renewables are not a one-solution-fits-all. Solar panels work much better for southern CA than for the New England region. Solar plants can occupy some of those great open spaces in states like NM. What's important is to make the best use of the local resources, and then to design the grid/power feed-in so that we can really use the generation capacity we are building. You can probably build bio-gas plants in some of the poultry-pig producing areas which will actually improve the environment at the same time as producing energy.

The other real constraint for us is cost - in many cases, the new renewables cost far more than current generation capacity, so we have to look hard at paying for all of this, and a big part of that puzzle is trying to implement the most efficient projects locality by locality.

[kristopher]

48. I think a significant difference in our views...

Is that your view seems focused on the US and today. On this issue I tend to look at it both regionally and globally, and with a trend perspective that sees today in terms of what it brings to tomorrow.

[XemaSab]

10. Welcome to DU

:D

[kristopher]

11. IPCC: Renewables can supply more far energy than needed at highly competitive cost

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x295222#295222
Posted by kristopher on Thu May-19-11 07:26 PM


IPCC: Renewables can supply more far energy than needed at highly competitive cost
100 Percent Renewables: The Resources are There, Says UN Report
By Carl Levesque, American Wind Energy Association
May 16, 2011

Renewable energy sources are expected to contribute up to 80 percent of global energy supply by 2050, according to a new report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Among the report’s points of emphasis: wind power alone is capable of supplying more than 100 percent of future demand.

“The report clearly demonstrates that renewable technologies could supply the world with more energy than it would ever need, and at a highly competitive cost,” said Steve Sawyer, secretary general of the Global Wind Energy Council. “The IPCC report will be a key reference for policy makers and industry alike, as it represents the most comprehensive high level review of renewable energy to date.”

The 1,000-page report, which was adopted by 194 governments after marathon negotiations on May 9, considers the potential contribution from wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, hydro, and ocean energy, as well as their potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, their integration into the energy networks, their contribution to sustainable development, and the policies which are needed to put them in place. Following a review of 164 scenarios, the IPCC found that renewables will play a key role in any successful plan to combat climate change....

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/05/100-percent-renewables-the-resources-are-there-says-un-report?cmpid=WindNL-Thursday-May19-2011

[mahina]

13. Welcome to DU.

I don't think that people who disagree with me live in Disneyland or Exxonland. I think we have a great forum here to discuss energy and the environment and learn from one another.

By the way, how do you define 'doing it with renewables'?

Do you accept the idea that a multi-phased and multi-pronged approach could work to transition off of fossil fuels in the long term?

Come, let us reason together. Or, we can throw pies. Make mine lilikoi lemon.

[bananas]

30. LOL - talk about Disneyland!

I found this error back in 2008, it's still there:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=177963&mesg_id=178019

2. LOL!
Page 211:
"Engineers at a UK electricity
generator told me that the capital cost of regular dirty coal power stations
is £1 billion per GW, about the same as nuclear"

:rofl:

[napoleon_in_rags]

4. How often can you afford to buy a new car in a recession?

That's the kind of hurdle in front of us. Once every car is electric, moving the power source isn't that expensive, because its just one change. But a transition before that means everybody buys a new car, which can't happen fast due to pure economics.

[kristopher]

6. The rotation is expected to take decades.

But by about 2030 around 95% of new vehicles sold will probably be battery electric. Also bear in mind that building a new car requires a great deal of carbon. One of the best things you can do is drive the one you have until the wheels fall off.

[napoleon_in_rags]

8. One of the best things I can do is ride a bike.

I live in a temperate place where it never snows, I am just lazy. What always blows my mind is that there is nothing in between driving my giant car and a bike. I want something like a terrtrike that has a rain shell with wipers, (I live in Washington state) music, and 1000 watts of electric power to drive it. If anybody wanted something like this to exist they could put it on the market for $2000 and I would buy it, but if it ever comes into existence for some bizarre reason it will cost $15,000 like a car.

[TheMadMonk]

12. Both. For those who can afford it will be quick and painless.

For others, I suspect a relatively rapid decline in energy use and a slow adoption of newer techs, to a level well behind our current prolifigate consumption.


Whilst laudable, Italy's efforts (and similar) can only go so far towards alleviating our problems without a method to store the energy produced for use at a later date. The same problem exists all forms of electricity production, where the input energy is intermittently produced.

Enough redundant capacity has to be retained in the system to pick up the slack as necessary. And at the same time, those expected to pick up the slack, are also expected to refrain from doing what it is they do to earn money (generate electricity) whenever the "Green" providers are generating.

Result: Fossil fuel fired producers paid NOT to generate electricity whenever the sun is shining and/or the wind is blowing and then able to charge the premium rate whenever the renewables are unable to meet demand.

There is still room for a few percentage points of generating capacity to be shifted off onto renewables. However, it is only a few without significant investment in energy storage technology: flywheels; thermal masses; storage batteries; hydro-barrages; or whatever.

Intent on any progress at all, green types all too often seem to be unaware that a good deal of the progress they are making is coming in a fashion which maximises profit for the "old guard" as well as extending the time over which the transition must take place.


As far as domestic generation from renewable/non-depletable sources is concerned, we have reached/passed the point of ecconomic viability in purely theroetical terms. Though of course meeting the up front cost can be beyond the means of many. Having reached that point of theroretical viability, let capitalism actually do what capitalism does best, and move on to the creation of domestic level energy stores.

[kristopher]

16. You've neglected the entire range of energy sources that are flexible

You post is interesting, mostly because it shows a mental model of the situation that isn't even close to being accurate. You seek to address the variability of wind but you exaggerate it significance in the context of a grid, where their combined contribution eliminates most of the "need" you've described in your post.

You can read the abstract of the PNAS paper here:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/03/29/0909075107.abstract

The actual issue associated with and solved by storage isn't as much the power not being there when the wind moves across multiple fields of wind farms, but rather how to maximize the production that occurs when it is in excess of demand. Without storage, that power is "spilled" or wasted. Storage is therefore the preferred solution for maximizing productivity on the grid - and not just for the variable forms of generation as it also helps with load shifting in conventional sources of generation.

Your idea that there "is still room for a few percentage points of generating capacity to be shifted off onto renewables" is obsolete. We have enough installed flexible generation, (mostly hydro and natural gas but also biomass and geothermal, and soon tidal, wave etc) to enable us to keep deploying renewables until we've virtually shut down all coal and nuclear. However, long before that happens the quantity of spilled energy from the steadily increasing amount of variable generation will reach the point where storage will also be a roaring business.

This graphic depicting an actual day's renewable production in California shows better how the matter might be conceptualized.

[TheMadMonk]

21. The problem is the same, same but different problem with wave/tidal...

...sources.

There, there is no choice but to massively overengineer the physical infrastructure to accomodate rare, but extremely high energy events, with a great destructive potential.

Paradoxially, wind generators are least useful when wind energies are high, simply because the physical plant is incapable of withstanding the stresses involved.

And no matter how you cut it, the simple truth is, we are closing in on the limits of utility of renewable/non-depletable resources, absent the emergance of appropriate energy storage technologies.

If, wonder of wonders, fusion power becomes practical (rather than its pepetual 20 years in the future) we migh be able to toss most everthing else on the scrapheap of progress, but absent that, we must acknowledge that there should be more focus on energy storage/smoothing over time, over clean energy production alone, simply for the sake of clean energy.

Far better to run our coal/gas/oil plants at an absolutely constant rate and use smoothing technology to link in inherently variable techs such as wind and solar.

I'm disappointed in Jaguar's failure to follow through on the their http://www.jaguar.com/gl/en/about_jaguar/news_and_pr/Jaguar_reveals_C-X75">C-X75 concept car as they should have. FFS, charge a premium to cover arses litigationally if necessary, but throw those turbines in there as a (not quite) hot swapable engine that delivers near 100 mpg efficiency alongside 0-60 in 3.3 seconds. Retrofitting bloody infernal combustion reciprocating engines is a public knee slide mouth to dick onto BP et al.

[kristopher]

23. You cannot support that view of how the system is designed

- "no choice but to massively overengineer"
False

- "Paradoxially, wind generators are least useful when wind energies are high,"
Irrelevant

- "we are closing in on the limits of utility of renewable/non-depletable resources"
False

- "Far better to run our coal/gas/oil plants at an absolutely constant rate"
False

- "I'm disappointed in Jaguar's failure to follow through on the their C-X75 concept car"
If you want an ErEV go buy a Volt now or wait 2 more years and your selection will probably be 25 or more models.

Your view isn't an accurate reflection of the characteristics of the various energy sources and the way they mesh.

[CJvR]

41. If you have...

...a power source that only delivers 50% of the time then you need to generate 200% more power during that intervall AND store it somehow for later use - assuming the storage procedure is loss free. So you need a facility that can generate twice the power and another facility to store the excess rather than one facility to run 24/7.

[kristopher]

53. That is looking in the wrong end of the telescope

Or how about "you aren't seeing the forest for the trees"?

You wrote, "If you have a power source that only delivers 50% of the time then you need to generate 200% more power during that intervall AND store it somehow for later use - assuming the storage procedure is loss free."

What happens if you have another power source that produces the other 50% of the time? What happens if you have two other power sources? 4? 6?

Even though you aren't specifically mentioning baseload you are nonetheless producing a portion of "the baseload myth" .

Is it "overbuilding" when a nuclear or coal plant is augmented by natural gas?

You need to read this entire article carefully:
Keeping the Lights On While Transforming Electric Utilities
By Lena Hansen and Amory B. Lovins

...These assumptions lead to a common concern that an electric system based on energy efficiency and renewables cannot provide reliable power. That’s because utility operators cannot control when the wind blows and the sun shines, so these “variable renewable” resources cannot provide “baseload.”*

That assertion is invalid—though the shift to efficiency and renewables will require operators to run their existing power plants and wires differently.

In reality, neither electricity demand nor generation is steady over time. Demand changes at every moment as individual devices turn on and off. Individual customers’ demands, therefore, are highly variable. The more customers, of more kinds, in more places, are aggregated, the smoother and more predictable the total demand on the utility becomes—but it will still vary substantially with time of day and over the year.

Similarly, no individual generator—from a huge, faraway coal plant to a small, rooftop solar array—has a completely steady output. All generators are intermittent—they sometimes fail without warning. They vary only in the size, duration, frequency, cause, and predictability of their outages. Even normally reliable big thermal plants have both planned and forced outages.

For example...
http://rmi.org/rmi/Transforming+Electric+Utilities

[CJvR]

68. Actually...

"What happens if you have another power source that produces the other 50% of the time? What happens if you have two other power sources? 4? 6?"

That was sort of my point Kristopher. You need to have more effect installed as well as storage capacity to get the same result as you would get from a more stabil power source. Naturally the problem is reduced the more dispersed a weather dependent power generation system is but that also means it will rarely, if ever produce 100% of it's installed effect unlike traditional powerplants.

[kristopher]

71. What is your benchmark for "more"

That is my point. The benchmark you are using in your mind doesn't exist; the actual benchmark used industry wide for all technologies is based on delivered power. Your use of capacity factor does not alter that it takes X dollars to provide Y amount of stable electricity. Whether you have an 800MW generator that shuts down 20% of the time or a 3.5MW generator that shuts down 67% of the time they are both equalized in planning by the cost per unit of stable delivered electricity. Claiming that there is a higher cost per unit for stable delivered power that is exclusively determined by the capacity factor is false.


Read the article I recommended.


Keeping the Lights On While Transforming Electric Utilities
By Lena Hansen and Amory B. Lovins

...These assumptions lead to a common concern that an electric system based on energy efficiency and renewables cannot provide reliable power. That’s because utility operators cannot control when the wind blows and the sun shines, so these “variable renewable” resources cannot provide “baseload.”*

That assertion is invalid—though the shift to efficiency and renewables will require operators to run their existing power plants and wires differently.

In reality, neither electricity demand nor generation is steady over time. Demand changes at every moment as individual devices turn on and off. Individual customers’ demands, therefore, are highly variable. The more customers, of more kinds, in more places, are aggregated, the smoother and more predictable the total demand on the utility becomes—but it will still vary substantially with time of day and over the year.

Similarly, no individual generator—from a huge, faraway coal plant to a small, rooftop solar array—has a completely steady output. All generators are intermittent—they sometimes fail without warning. They vary only in the size, duration, frequency, cause, and predictability of their outages. Even normally reliable big thermal plants have both planned and forced outages.

For example...
http://rmi.org/rmi/Transforming+Electric+Utilities

[CJvR]

79. "Delivered power"

Hardly matters if you cant be sure the system CAN deliver it - and no matter what you say a stabil power source is more likely to be able to do that, it is really common sense. To compensate for the instability in a powersource you would have to build more effect and some form of power storage facility, there really is no way around that.

[kristopher]

81. You are wrong. Your use of capacity factor is a logical error.

You are pursuing this false premise strictly to malign renewable energy in order to promote the interests of nuclear power.

[CJvR]

96. In what way?

It seems to me that using a power source which is weather dependent, and thus unreliable, logically requires building more power generation capacity + storage ability than using more stabil power sources. Can't get around that kris.

[kristopher]

97. That is explained in post 53 and 71 in this subthread above.

You are just going in circles now.

[CJvR]

99. Really?

53 is just evasion, yes more sources will provide more stability and reduce the excess capacity needed, provided the grid can distribute it. BUT there will still not be guaranteed power generation without installing more generating capacity + storage. You flat out refuse to accept or adress this very simple concept.

71 assumes the cost of more alternate generating capacity + energy storage is economicly competitive to smaller conventional energy production. Now I know you have loads of boring links supposedly "proving" this - but if that was the case alternate energy wouldn't need massive subsidies to survive.

Now as long as you are not willing to explain how generator 1 working less, and on irregular times, than generator 2 - still will provide more or equal the energy output of generator 2 without having larger generating capacity there is indeed little point in continuing this thread.

[kristopher]

100. Yes, really.

First, let's deal with subsidy issue. Wind and solar have responded to subsidies with steadily declining costs and are at the point where wind is one of the least expensive options available. Solar too is rapidly approaching the point of parity with the generalized cost of grid electricity, meaning it is approaching the point where subsidies are not required. Much is made of the declining rate of reimbursement for the feed in tariff paid in Germany as an indicator that a political support is waning, but that is, in fact, a direct reflection of the declining cost of the technology. If the amount were not lowered the declining costs of PV would be a windfall over and above what has been paid to those who installed solar when it was more expensive.

Nuclear and coal, on the other hand, are industries that are perpetually sucking on the taxpayer's teat either through externalized costs or through direct subsidies:

Total Cost-Benefit Accounting for Electric Energy
Wind and Solar Are More Economical Than Coal and Nuclear

"Support for coal and nuclear power retards the growth of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind. The costs of
misguided energy decisions have been calculated and it they are substantial. Continued reliance on outdated, polluting
facilities such as coal-fired and nuclear power plants has real costs borne by all citizens. Any true cost-benefit analyses of
electric power must include environmental effects on forests, agriculture and species diversity, climate change including
global warming, direct and indirect government subsidies, impacts on jobs and the economy, and adverse health impacts
from pollution. Ratepayers and taxpayers should insist on policies which promote the accelerated growth of wind and
solar power. Renewable energy production can and should reach a minimum of 20% of the total U.S. electric supply by
2020."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6535017

NUCLEAR POWER: Still Not Viable Without Subsidies
Conspicuously absent from industry press releases and briefing memos touting nuclear power’s potential as a solution to global warming is any mention of the industry’s long and expensive history of taxpayer subsidies and excessive charges to utility ratepayers. These subsidies not only enabled the nation’s existing reactors to be built in the first place, but have also supported their operation for decades.

<snip>

SUBSIDIES OFTEN EXCEED THE VALUE OF THE ENERGY PRODUCED
This report catalogues in one place and for the first time the full range of subsidies that benefit the nuclear power sector. The findings are striking: since its inception more than 50 years ago, the nuclear power industry has benefited—and continues to benefit—from a vast array of preferential government subsidies. Indeed, as Figure ES-1 (p. 2) shows, subsidies to the nuclear fuel cycle have often exceeded the value of the power produced. This means that buying power on the open market and giving it away for free would have been less costly than subsidizing the construction and operation of nuclear power plants. Subsidies to new reactors are on a similar path...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x275881

So we have renewables declining in cost as a response to subsidies, while fossil and nuclear are increasing in cost in spite of subsidies.

Now back to the topic at hand. Here is the exchange to date for easy reference:

Ur 41 If you have a power source that only delivers 50% of the time then you need to generate 200% more power during that intervall AND store it somehow for later use - assuming the storage procedure is loss free. So you need a facility that can generate twice the power and another facility to store the excess rather than one facility to run 24/7.


My 53 Or how about "you aren't seeing the forest for the trees"? What happens if you have another power source that produces the other 50% of the time? What happens if you have two other power sources? 4? 6? Even though you aren't specifically mentioning baseload you are nonetheless producing a portion of "the baseload myth" .
Is it "overbuilding" when a nuclear or coal plant is augmented by natural gas?


Ur 68 That was sort of my point Kristopher. You need to have more effect installed as well as storage capacity to get the same result as you would get from a more stabil power source. Naturally the problem is reduced the more dispersed a weather dependent power generation system is but that also means it will rarely, if ever produce 100% of it's installed effect unlike traditional powerplants.


My 71 What is your benchmark for "more"; that is my point. The benchmark you are using in your mind doesn't exist; the actual benchmark used industry wide for all technologies is based on delivered power. Your use of capacity factor does not alter that it takes X dollars to provide Y amount of stable electricity. Whether you have an 800MW generator that shuts down 20% of the time or a 3.5MW generator that shuts down 67% of the time they are both equalized in planning by the cost per unit of stable delivered electricity. Claiming that there is a higher cost per unit for stable delivered power that is exclusively determined by the capacity factor is false.


Ur 79 Delivered power" hardly matters if you cant be sure the system CAN deliver it - and no matter what you say a stabil power source is more likely to be able to do that, it is really common sense. To compensate for the instability in a power source you would have to build more effect and some form of power storage facility, there really is no way around that.

Your basic claim is best expressed in your first post.
"If you have a power source that only delivers 50% of the time then you need to generate 200% more power during that intervall AND store it somehow for later use - assuming the storage procedure is loss free. So you need a facility that can generate twice the power and another facility to store the excess rather than one facility to run 24/7.

It isn't clear what you mean in much of what you write. For example "power source" could be either an individual generator or a fuel type such as wind, solar, fossil or nuclear. Either way your statement is wrong, but the way the explanation is structured is slightly different for the two.

If it is a single generator, then the explanation hinges on the fact that we aren't discussing off-grid applications and the characteristics of that sigle generator must be looked at in terms of how it functions within a grid comprised of tens or hundreds of thousands of simultaneous inputs and millions of simultaneous withdrawals. Is the grid unable to function because you turned on every electrically powered device in your home all at once? Of course it isn't.

Why not? Is it because there was a special dedicated storage unit sitting there waiting just for your needs? Again, of course not. The system can handle it because your draw on the grid is a drop of electricity taken from the river of the grid.

How did that river come to be? In your vision it is a single large generating plant that is operating 24/7 (Ur41).

That vision isn't accurate. In fact, our river of grid electricity is produced by streams from thousands of power plants of all types - working simultaneously to build flow to a certain level that covers all of the withdrawals. It is a constantly shifting matrix of power inputs and withdrawals that has a set of operational characteristics that are totally different than your vision of a single generating plant operating 24/7.

That is the idea behind My 53, but you didn't internalize it and in Ur68 you return to the idea of capacity factor being a problem for renewables. In your fixation, you still ignore the fact that thermal generation is not 24/7 and persist in treating it as if it were, a point that indicates you are still using the erroneous single power plant mental model. So, in My71 the explanation was meant to lead you to the proper way to conceptualize the performance of ALL generators within the context of the grid.

A grid operator doesn't give a fig about what the engineered nameplate capacity of a generator might be. What they need to know is how much power is delivered and how much it 1) costs directly and 2) how much it costs to integrate into the effort "to build flow to a certain level that covers all of the withdrawals".

Do you understand?

They don't see a wind generator as a 3.0MW nameplant power plant that only produces 30% of the time. They see a need for 242MW of supply between 5-7PM on a specific day and a wind farm providing it for $45/MWH. When they initially signed a contract to do business with the company owning the wind farm they might have determined that they need to charge the wind farm $0.20/MWH (a realistic example BTW) to provide the technology required to deal with "smoothing" the input from the wind farm.

Now, lets look at how that reality impacts your vision of having to overbuild as determined by capacity factor.

If, when the grip operator calls for that 242MW of supply between 5-7Pm, it is met 80% of the time by a coal plant, what happens the other 20% of the time when the coal plant can't meet the need? Does that mean that the coal plant's economics do not work? No, it means the coal plant's existence from day one was justified by looking at the actual amount of power it could be expected to produce and how much that power could be sold for.

Why do you think it would be any different for wind or solar or geothermal or hydro or biomass or wave or tidal or methane or transmitted power or even storage? That is the point of My71 and why I asked what your benchmark for "more" was. The grid operator doesn't tell the public service commission it thinks it will need an additional XXXMW of nameplate capacity because it is shutting down a coal plant that has XXXMW of nameplate capacity. It tells the public service commission that it is losing ZZMWH of delivered power that serves a particular niche in its effort to maintain the level of pressure required by the system and that - taking into account changing demand, transmission and new build generation - they will probably need AAAMWH of delivered electricity to serve a totally different niche than the one the coal plant used to profit on.

Now, it could turn out that because a large part of the new build generation is in the form of several large wind farms, that there is an excess supply of electricity at night from the wind. Further, it might be that there is an energy storage system that can purchase AAA MWH of that spilled wind power and sell it into the niche where the grid operator sees a shortfall and do it at a profit. So they build a storage plant.

Now here is a key point. The defunct coal plant also produced excess power at night, however, since it had to pay for the fuel, it couldn't routinely sell the power for storage at a low enough price to make the storage technology profitable. If they'd kept the coal plant it would have been cheaper to meet that new AAAMWH of need by building and operating a natural gas plant. The storage only became profitable because the wind farms have no fuel costs.

The machine that is the grid is both very large and very local. It is a sort of pressurized system where the key aim of operation is maintaining the level of pressure equal to the benchmark of demand. Until you begin to understand that system and its millions of elements, you are going to continue misunderstanding the problem of decarbonizing our economy.

[mahina]

14. It depends

on the subsidies.

Here, gas is 3.89-4.03 a gallon, though oil has dropped from 134/bbl to 89./bbl yesterday.

Somebody is stacking up a LOT of money.

[kristopher]

19. That used to be my way of thinking...

But I've downgraded the significance of the way subsidies are normally viewed considerably. What used to be an effort to push a set of uncompetitive technologies has changed to an offort centered around capturing market share in one of the largest emerging markets over the next century. The money China is pouring into renewables is such a vast increase on global spending that it is having profound effects of the timing of the renewable rolllout that analysts have been mostly in agreement on. Previously most estimates predicted that by 2030 all new generation would be renewable. This went hand in hand with the belief that this is about the same amount of manufacturing infrastructure that would allow a price decrease which would result in retiring fossil fuels and nuclear.

However, China just entered the solar PV manufacturing sector in 2007 and by the end of this year (2011) they are expected to have 10X the solar PV manufacturing capacity we had hoped to create by 2020. No one yet knows the full implications of that, but suffice to say that it can only be very, very good news for renewables.

See also http://journals.democraticunderground.com/kristopher/738

[kestrel91316]

15. Presumes a fact not in evidence. I have no hope that we will successfully

transition before our civilization is toast.

[kristopher]

17. What is presumed?

[GliderGuider]

25. Unfortunately, Italy gets 90% of its primary energy from carbon.

So the buildout of solar is inconsequential at the moment. Good luck to them, but they are still faced with the same dilemma as the rest of the world - transportation runs on carbon, and the global carbon energy industry is 25 times (or more) the size of the renewable energy industry.

The transition to renewables is going to be painfully slow over the next 30 years. The reason is that the industry doesn't have enough money to buy back the protective politicians owned by the merchants of the New Black Death. Without sufficient political cover, the renewable industry will continue to struggle for the foreseeable future.

[kristopher]

26. Your reference to Italy isn't particulary relevant.

The point of the data on Italy is that it gives a good insight into how the pace of deployment is dependent on policies. Your point that Italy is heavily dependent on carbon is a given, as far as I'm concerned. I know, however, that you perceive it as your duty to invoke negative messaging about renewable energy at each and every opportunity so I'll just move on.

Your second paragraph is the one that needs addressing. While what you say is very true in the US it is only somewhat true in Europe and not at all true in the developing world. That is why things are moving so rapidly now that China is a major force. You simply can no longer use the preChina paradigm to talk about the future energy landscape; it is no longer valid. The agents of the entrenched energy system work by obstructing the development of a system that properly values both the negatives of fossil/nuclear and the positives of renewables. Since there is no mature energy system in the developing nations, they are following the intrinsic overall value.

For the time being that still favors fossil fuels in many cases, however, the degree it favors renewables in the long run is very, very large and I'm of the opinion that their actions in building manufacturing infrastructure is going to very shortly eliminate any remaining advantage for fossil. There is still corruption in the developing countries, but it is corruption working against the tide of real value represented by renewable technologies instead of protecting what is already a massive and powerful system.

[GliderGuider]

27. Neither was yours...

I just commented on Italy because you mentioned it, but as I noted, they are really no different from any other modern nation, energetically speaking.

There are all kinds of ways politicians become beholden to Big Energy interests. The case is obvious in the USA as I described, and is no less significant in Canada.

Politicians in Europe have to deal with the knock-on effects of political pressure from the Russians who use fossil fuel as a geopolitical lever.
African nations that produce oil come under neocolonialist pressures from their client status to Big Oil (Nigeria is a classic example).
Petroleum exporting nations are already in the clutches of the oiligarchy, who are not be eager to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

China is an interesting case, because as a command economy their policies could theoretically turn on a dime. Unfortunately there is no evidence so far that they are going to stray very far from the time-tested hard energy paths to power their economic expansion. While they are devloping large amounts of renewable energy, that is in addition to the record expansion in their use of carbon fuels.

The world's energy path might well end up at the base of a wind turbine over the long run. However, I suspect that run will be very long indeed, with a lot of sturm und drang between here and there. Of course that is merely a statement of my beliefs, one that offsets your belief that "their actions in building manufacturing infrastructure is going to very shortly eliminate any remaining advantage for fossil." I don't share your beliefs, and you don't share mine. We will have to let history sort it out.

[kristopher]

28. The difference is

My opinion is grounded in accurate facts. Take China for example. They have already taken the step necessary to structure their grid around renewables - in 2009 they prioritized the purchase of renewable energy. By law the grid operator must buy all available renewable energy before buying power non-renewable generation. That is a huge fundamental difference from our system and it lays a rock solid economic and regulatory foundation for a grid built around distributed, renewable energy sources. While they are also pressing forward with coal and nuclear in the near term, the winner by design is going to be renewables.

[GliderGuider]

29. I'll see your China and raise you a Cornyn

Along with a Ryan, a Boehner, a McConnell, an Unhofe, a Barton, a Pearce and a Landrieu. And, it's looking more and more as though their trump card may be Obama himself.

I hope you're right about China's shift to renewables, because their CO2 is going to help fry us. But their version of pressing ahead with fossil fuels amounts to a mountain climbing expedition, with a 125% increase in FF consumption in the last decade. Those are also accurate facts.

[kristopher]

31. Approximately 3 months before they changed policy in 2009...

Approximately 3 months before they changed policy in 2009 a Chinese academic published the first comprehensive assessment of renewable resources in China. Three months later when the change in policy was announced it was completely unexpected. I think it is reasonable to conclude that they simply didn't realize the potential before. They had been fighting us for a long time on carbon caps and other trade problems while going though an incredible revision of culture involving more than a billion people, so they had a lot on their plates and were basically, I believe, on autopilot following the standard global development plan that the World Band had been chartering in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s.

This change in policy was also around the time it became clear that Obama was not going to revitalize the process that created Kyoto. That top-down UN based consensus approach was producing some results; but it gave too many openings for the obstructionist forces that you wrote of and they could game the system and/or roadblock any coordinated advancement in the majority of the world.

It is my belief, based purely on inferences, that Obama has followed a course designed to encourage the global economic development of renewables in the area where they are most likely to be exploited for their latent economic and lifestyle enhancing potential. That has long been one of the three "windows of opportunity" so to speak, that dominate the current structure of energy related decisions. PThe other two being climate and national security. Post-Iraq and 911, the national security issue and its related costs in human life and money became clear not only for the US, but everywhere - especially, again with the sudden growth in demand from China and India.

We'd been working with climate as a motivator since 1992 and the feeling was that we had really accomplished all that seemed likely to happen with the "grand agreement" strategy.

That left the profit motive to be exploited. Thanks to Kyoto, a few countries had behaved like adults and taken the point position on pushing through policies designed to promote the growth of manufacturing infrastructure. It was recognized that the technology was there, but the kinks had to be worked out of both the policy structures to move investment to the proper places, and the mechanics of the actual process of grid integration. Since 1992 we've learned a vast amount and it is becoming more clear by the day that this process of transition is hastening far more through the economic engines than it possibly could with large-scale, top down political dictates watered down to get the agreement of those who stand to be the losers in this. We are at last, I believe, truly giving the likes of the Kock Brothers the great big royal renewable finger and I don't think there is a damned thing they can do to even slow it down.

All, IMHO.

[GliderGuider]

32. Thanks. I really hope you're right. /nt

[happyslug]

33. Lets talk about the transition from Sail to Steam...

The first attempts at Steam power ships was about 1800, it failed for the technology (In this case the ability to make close fitting REPLACEABLE parts did not exist, you could make close fitting objects but these were all HAND MADE and thus custom fitted, such as a watch, but when it came to something that needed to change parts as their worn out, that took a long time).

First Watts improved the Steam Engine, relying on the recent determination of how much heat did it take to convert water to steam. Then the invention of closer fitting tools (Which was dependent on the development of High temper steel, another product of the 1700s). Even with these inventions, steam power for ships were NOT possible till almost a century later. The first steam ship to sail the Atlantic did it in 1819, and then was converted back to sail do to the increase speed did NOT compensate for the deduced cargo to to the room needed for the Steam Engine and its fuel.

When Pennsylvania looks at ways to compete with the Erie Canal in the 1830s, the biggest problem was getting cargo over the Appalachians Mountains (Most importantly Allegheny Mountain forms the Eastern Continental divide, east of Allegheny Mountain all water flows into the Atlantic, West all water flows into the Gulf of Mexico. In 1830s, the steam engines of the time period were to small to be able to haul themselves AND their Cargo, so Pennsylvania opt for stationary engines (Which did NOT have to haul themselves up the mountain) to be used to pull cargo up s series of incline planes up and over Allegheny Mountain (Between most but NOT all of the inclines ran level railroad tracks, these were at first horse drawn then later steam powered). 20 years later, Steam engines had improved so much that the series of incline was replaced by a proper Railroad, but some of the improvement was done BECAUSE the inclines had provided a very good means to haul cargo from the Ohio Valley to the East Coast.

It is only with these larger steam engines that the Navies of the world started to shift to Steam power, but the US Navy in the 1850s preferred sail, for sail was cheaper (Even the USS Merrimack, the Ship that was the base for the Iron Clad USS Virginia, was 100% sail, when the South took the Merrimack over, their installed a railroad engine and installed iron on the Merrimack, it was more a retrofit then something new (The Monitor was 100% new, new steam engine, new Iron and even new cannons).

during the Civil War, the USS Constitution was kept on as a sailing ship, guarding American Interests in the Mediterranean Sea. After the Civil War, steam became the normal way to move ships, but the US Navy still used sails, in fact in the 1870s tested and fitted to US Navy ships a screw propeller design to provide the least drag whenever the ship was under sail. This is just to show how sail stayed important even in the 1870s and 1880s.

Only in the 1890s did the US Navy adopt ships that was to use Steam exclusivity (Sails were kept on to help extend the range of the Ships but sails were viewed as an exclusive secondary means by power by the 1890s, something it had NOT been in the 1860s to 1880s.
stem
As to Civilian Ships, sail stay quite common till WWII, when do to the German U-Boat threat, the sailing ships were finally restricted to areas U-boats did NOT operate in. Since these were also areas with little cargo traffic, the sailing ships were left to rot or used in the North Atlantic anyway, where they were easy targets for U-boats (and if they were German, easy targets for Allies bombers).

On the other hand up till that time, sailing ships were quite common and useful. The increase man power needed for sailing ships, was more then off set by the savings in fuel. After the end of WWII Sailing Ships NEVER made a comeback do to how cheap oil became in the 1950s (25 cents a gallon for gasoline INCLUDING almost 10 cents in taxes was the price at local gasoline pump, oil for ships was even cheaper for such ships could and did use very low quality oil). Russia did NOT seem to have this problem and retain a good size fleet of sailing ships doing that time period, the side affect of this is most people who want to operate LARGE sailing ships today up being Russian manned for the simple fact the Russians have the most sailors who know how to sail large sailing ships today.

Thus it took over 120 years (1819 to 1939) for sailing ships to die out, to be replaced by wood burning steam ships, then coal burning, the oil burning steam ships, then diesels. It was competitive till the invention for the Square convoy system (One ships beside another in front of another and beside another, all going at the same speed, something the sailing ships could NOT participate in) forced the sailing ships to be sitting ducks for U-Boats. Till then Sailing ships were competitive.

One of the reason for this slow change was the dock structure and shipping structure had to be changed. The larger the ships the more sense it made to go to Steam, PROVIDED the Ship could be filled. The Classic situation is the "Great Western" and "Great Eastern" ships of the mid 1850s. The Great Western made money for its owner, it was the largest ship of its day and could clear out a whole dock and ship it cheaper then any other ship. Do to the success of the "Great Western", the owners decided to build an even larger ship the Great Eastern. The "Great Eastern" would be a small ships today, but in its time it was the largest ship in the world. The first thing the "Great Eastern" did was lay a telegraph cable from England to the US, so you did NOT have to wait six weeks for news in Europe to get to the US (one week in the reverse direction, but that is do to the Gulf Stream). After that trip the "Great Eastern" NEVER made money, and in fact NEVER paid for its cost of Construction. Why? Simple, it was to large for what was being shipped at that time. If it waited for a whole shipments, owners of part of the cargo would take their cargo to smaller ships to get the cargo to market within a reasonable time period. If it "sailed" before it was full, the cost of the fuel was more then the profit from the small cargo it was hauling (i.e. the "Great Eastern" "sailed" without a full cargo, but had to pay for its fuel and crew none the less). By the time docks had grown enough to handle the Cargo something like the "Great Eastern" could haul, the "Great Eastern" had been scrapped.

On the other hand the Cutty Shark, a British Clipper was sail only and stayed in the "China Trade" till the 1890s (When do to increase trade via the Suez Canal, the tea business went from sailing ships to steam ships, please note a greater factor was the fact that steam ships could have Coolers to keep something like tea fresher).

The reason for use of sailing ships for tea was simple, sailing ships were FASTER on the long trip from China to England on the grounds they NEVER had to stop to refuel. This remained a factor till steam ships started to go with coolers to keep the tea fresher (That is in the 1880s).

Now, the Cutty Shark, was an Iron Frame wooden cutter . Americans had invented the Cutter in the 1850s for the trip from the East Coast to the West Coast via the Straits of Magellan (These were wooden FRAMED for the US had limited Iron Production in the 1850s). In the 1860s Britain adopted the Cutter but went for Iron Frame instead of wood frame and could haul more cargo then the older Amerian Cutters. The Americans abandoned the cutter do to the completion of the 50 plus mile railroad across Panama AND the B&O and Pennsylvania Railroads in 1854 made it quicker to go to by rail from the East Coast to Pittsburgh by Rail, then by River to New Orleans, then by ship to Panama, then take the railroad across Panama then take a ship from Panama up to California. This left the American Cutters with little business (The key to the Cutter was SPEED, when another faster way was possible the Cutters all disappeared, in case of most of the Wooden built American Cutters, most were sold to Britain for the China Trade).

While the Cutters disappeared as the 1800s ended other more conventional sailing ships stayed around, for example the Mary Celeste and even the Cutty Shark (Which was converted to a Barquentine so it could be operated with a smaller crew and stayed sailing till WWI, when no one dare take it out to sea do to the WWI U-Boat threat. In peace time sailing ships were PROFITABLE till WWII, and many stayed PROFITABLE till the 1950s (When the drop in the price of oil finally killed them off).

Cutty Shark:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutty_Sark

For more on the Mary Celeste
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Celeste

Barquentine, a sailing ship that could use a smaller crew then a full rigged ship, most popular in the late 19th and early 20th centuries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barquentine

My point it took 120 years AND the U-boat threat NOT 25 years to kill off the Sailing ship, till the 1940s they were competitive. The main reason had NOTHING to do with the advantages of Steam over Sail, but had to do with how Cargo was SHIPPED AND the infrastructure to support such shipments. You needed bigger Docks AND means to get cargo to the Docks (Thus you needed to build Roads, the canals, then railroads at the same time as the docks). These three things went a circle, more railroads lead to more docks and larger ships, but you could NOT build a ship larger then what the docks could handle. Thus the size of the docks and the transportation system to that dock was more important then the size of the ship. Furthermore it was the size of ALL DOCKS the ship would go between NOT just one dock. The Cutty Shark was the right size for its day, the "Great Eastern" was not. Today the "Great Eastern" would be to small and the Cutty Shark way to small. It took over 120 years to get the dock and other transportation system up to support something like the "Great Eastern", not 25 years.

As to transiting to renewables, we are NOT just talking about the shipping industry, we are talking about a much larger transition converting EVERY FAMILY THAT HAS A CAR to some other means to provide energy to that car, to their homes etc. The Carburetor was invented in 1899 (Without the Carburator Gasoline powered cars were hopelessly inefficient, thus the invention of the Carburator is the key to the start of the Switch to Automobiles). From 1899 till WWII, most Americans did NOT own a car. It took to 1954 before more Americans were buying replacements for their old car instead of buying a new car for the first time in their family history (Neither of my Grandfathers owned a car, nor their wives, yet all of their children did). So it took from 1899 till 1954 (53 years) before most American Families had a car, and this in a country that did NOT impose any restrictions on car ownership and gasoline was 25 cents a gallon, including 10 cents a gallon in taxes. Passenger train and Inner City Streetcars stayed competitive till about that time period, then went into rapid decline (By the 1960s all were in Government hands to preserve them for those people who can NOT use a car).

The conversion from non-automobile to an automobile society took over 50 years, that was FAST and I am one who do NOT think we will convert to Renewables as quickly. European cities was noted for still using horses in the 1950s, while America had stopped using them in the 1930s. Poland and Russia were still using horses in the 1980s (if not today). Most of the world never made the transition to a exclusive automobile society for most of the world found the price was to high (The US had the largest amount of oil in the world, even today the US is the third largest producer of oil, behind only Russia and Saudi Arabia, thus the US had huge cost savings by going with oil, that the rest of the world did not have). A conversion from oil base society to a society that uses Renewables will take much longer then even Europe did in converting to an automobile society. 50 years may be to short, and to long.

Just pointing out that the conversions in the past took 50 to 120 years not just 25 years. The Military can often move that fast (25 years) but often finds itself at what even pace its civilian economy is at (Russia and Germany during WWII are good examples of such restrictions). IT will take a long while to make the conversion, a longer period then I think we have to make the conversion.

[Terry in Austin]

34. There's no arguing with faith

"The Transition" is prophecy of business as usual with hot-swappable green power supplies. Not whether, but how fast or slow!

So the invocation of "could" lets us expect a carbon-free 327 gigajoules per year per person forever and ever, amen.

Count me among the heretics!

:evilgrin:

[txlibdem]

35. Total worldwide annual energy consumption is 15 TW, global renewable potential is 86,902 TW

This 15 TW (TeraWatts) includes all energy sources: fossil fuels, biomass, renewable energy, etc.

In 2008, total worldwide energy consumption was 474 exajoules (474×1018 J=132,000 TWh). This is equivalent to an average energy consumption rate of 15 terawatts (1.504×1013 W)<1> The potential for renewable energy is: solar energy 1600 EJ (444,000 TWh), wind power 600 EJ (167,000 TWh), geothermal energy 500 EJ (139,000 TWh), biomass 250 EJ (70,000 TWh), hydropower 50 EJ (14,000 TWh) and ocean energy 1 EJ (280 TWh).<8>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

Global renewable energy potential is:


Using only solar, it would take a tiny portion of land to supply 100% of world energy usage:


Any person attempting to deny the potential of renewable energy to meet 100% of our energy needs is just not thinking big enough.

[GliderGuider]

36. Global renewable potential: 86,902 TW; Global renewable production: 0.4 TW.

There are reasons we are converting only 0.0005% of that potential for human use.

Anyone who thinks we can tap renewable energy to power a global civilization is just not thinking realistically enough.

[kristopher]

37. Horsehockey

You know that is false. The only reason we do not use more is the nature of the evolutionary process of human energy use. Renewables are nothing more than the next step.

[GliderGuider]

38. Once we run out of fossil fuels we will make the shift.

But I agree we will indeed end up using nothing but renewable energy at some point in the next hundred years or so. It will probably cost our civilization well over half its productive capacity and human capital. That, in my opinion, is not a bad thing.

[kristopher]

39. There is no basis for your opinion, GG.

It is a great example of truthiness, though.

[txlibdem]

40. You stated that "there are reasons" why renewables produce a tiny percentage of our energy - why?

What are the reasons?

[GliderGuider]

42. Because we have an industrial civilization predicated on fossil fuels.

Most of the current renewable consumption is hydro. According to BP, hydro consumption last year amounted to 0.39 TW. The "Other Renewables" category was 0.08 TW, so the total is actually 0.47 TW.

Most of the "potential" is solar.
We have 87,000 TW of potential.
We use 15 TW total.
We currently use 0.5 TW of hydro, and 0.1 TW of renewables.
Our civilization is set up to run on fossil fuels.

In order to shift our civilization's operation from fossil fuels to renewables we need to:

• Progressively abandon fossil fuels in the face of an entrenched set of industries that still have product to sell, along with willing buyers;
  
• Build out renewable electrical generation capacity faster than the economic growth rate, to a level of 150 times what it is today (plus growth requirements);
  
• Change the infrastructure of our entire civilization to run on electricity instead of combustion.

This needs to be done as fast as possible in order to mitigate CO2-driven damage, and it needs to be done despite the fact that the global economy is probably entering a protracted contraction.

In the face of this, the fact that we get gobs of sunshine is utterly irrelevant. The problem is not a lack of potential. The problem is that industrial civilization and fossil fuels are, at this point, symbiotic. Switching over to renwewables requires the symbiote to be unplugged, at significant risk to the host. Waving around 87,000 TW of potential energy is a PR tactic intended to make people dismiss the very real issues we face that have nothing to do with potential energy.

The one thing that would help (in one way) is a global economic crash, which would reduce the amount of fossil fuel energy consumption we would need to replace by renewables. Of course, that also would reduce the money available to drive the infrastructure transition away from combustion.

We're caught in the devil's bargain.

The global transition to (say 90%) renewables will not happen, at least not at the current level of industrial activity or anything like it.

[txlibdem]

43. We have a society highly dependent on fossil fuels -- it didn't happen over night, nor by accident

Untold numbers of scientists worked over these past 100 years (or so) to locate new uses for oil and other fossil fuels, methods of extraction, storage, etc. For each scientist there were probably 100 to 1000 workers toiling away to make it all happen.

We didn't get this dependent on fossils overnight. The trouble is, because we elected a D-list actor instead of giving Jimmy Carter a 2nd term in office we are now 30 years behind in the effort to rid ourselves of fossil fuels.

You say a global transition to 90% renewables will not happen. I say it will and I say it MUST be done and as swiftly as possible.

Your depiction of the world caught in the grips of fossil fuels is highly inaccurate. There is no monolithic structure that must be changed all at once, or shut down for years or decades while the transition to renewable energy happens. Manufacturing plants can start by changing their light bulbs, using occupancy sensors so lights are off until people enter a room or area. Processing plants use a lot of heat that could instead easily be generated by solar trough concentrating solar units on their roof that track the sun. In fact these units can generate many times the heat needed by processing plants so a small footprint on the roof is all they would need -- using heat storage facilities would enable them to continue using the power of the sun for their processing plant long after peak sunlight has ended.

One by one. Step by step. That is how you change the world. Not all at once in some man-made cataclysm.

PS, business people are not dumb. They know that we reached peak oil already and the era of cheap fossils is over. They also know that more and more of their customers are demanding sustainable practices. Their fear of losing customers due to wasteful use of fossils will be all the push they need to start down the road to ending their fossil addiction.

There will be no breakdown in society, no Mad Max nightmare realm. The stone age did not end due to a lack of stones. The fossil age will not end because we've used every last drop. The natural laws of even this corrupt and self-destructive Capitalist system will not allow it. A collapse would devastate their position of absolute power: it will not happen.

[GliderGuider]

45. Who said anything about a cataclysm?

Of course the replacement would be progressive. Given that it took us 200 years to get here (starting from the ramp-up of industrial coal use), how likely is it that we will create a new global infrastructure in less than half that time?

Of course, if we gradually change out the infrastructure, then we will keep using fossil fuels. That could mean that we end up in 2100 with a global economy similar to today, with 90% of our energy being supplied by renewables, but a CO2 concentration between 600 and 700 ppm. And a pretty high probability that we would have fired the clathrate gun and set off the permafrost bomb.

The problem as I see it is that the transition will take "too long" with reference to the Keeling Curve, will have to be done in a capital-constrained global economy, will have to maintain very high rates of infrastructure replacement, will have to address the issue of transportation, and will have to fight against entrenched FF interests every step of the way.

Over the last 20 years, global electricity consumption has increased by an average of 3% a year, and oil consumption has increased by an average of 1.2% per year. Translated into electrical terms this means that we need to be able to build over 800 TWh/yr of renewable energy generation (not capacity, but actual generation) to cover our current growth.

According to BP's figures, over the last 5 years renewable electricity (including hydro) has added just 165 TWh/year on average. If we take hydro out of the mix, the growth has been about 75 TWh/year - a tenth of what is required.

Even more ominously, "other renewables" appear much more sensitive to economic downturns than hydro. Reneweable generation dropped by 10% from 2008 to 2009, while hydro generation rose by 1.6%. This is why I maintain that it's going to be very difficult to achieve the required renewable build-out if the world enters a protracted recession. That could be changed by policy shifts, but then there's that pesky problem of entrenched FF industries influencing the legislatures of the developed world.

I remain heartily convinced that the scenarios envisioned by the renewable energy advocates will not come to pass as expected. We should of course build out renewable technology as fast as possible, but we should never lose sight of the fact that we need to mitigate a large variety of global ecological and economic threats at the same time, some of which will probably interfere with our plans.

[txlibdem]

46. You said cataclysm

You wrote, "The problem is that industrial civilization and fossil fuels are, at this point, symbiotic. Switching over to renwewables requires the symbiote to be unplugged, at significant risk to the host.

"The one thing that would help (in one way) is a global economic crash"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd call that a cataclysm: global economic crash presumably while the symbiote is unplugged.

As for your numbers derived from BP, I don't put too much weight on the word of BP.

2008 - 2009 was Dubya's budget at work: giving little subsidies to wind and solar. It has been only since February 2009, when Pres. Obama took his oath of office that renewable projects have started to take off.

Plus, you cannot use the past 20 years of data and project forward. China alone will install far more renewables in the next 20 years than the total to date.

[GliderGuider]

49. I didn't say it will happen, I said it would both help and hinder if it happened.

Neither of us, frankly, know anything for sure about how the next 100 (or even 50) years will turn out. We both have opinions, and we present the information we feel supports them. You don't agree with me - I get that. You think I'm a primitivist doomer, I think you're a technological Pollyanna. Only one of us will be right, and only time will tell which one of us it is.

[kristopher]

47. After all of that you still haven't supported your assertion

You wrote:

There are reasons we are converting only 0.0005% of that potential for human use. Anyone who thinks we can tap renewable energy to power a global civilization is just not thinking realistically enough.

And then you justify it by saying

Once we run out of fossil fuels we will make the shift. ... I agree we will indeed end up using nothing but renewable energy at some point in the next hundred years or so. It will probably cost our civilization well over half its productive capacity and human capital.

To support that you wrote that:

Our civilization is set up to run on fossil fuels.
In order to shift our civilization's operation from fossil fuels to renewables we need to:
Progressively abandon fossil fuels in the face of an entrenched set of industries that still have product to sell, along with willing buyers;
Build out renewable electrical generation capacity faster than the economic growth rate, to a level of 150 times what it is today (plus growth requirements);
Change the infrastructure of our entire civilization to run on electricity instead of combustion.
This needs to be done as fast as possible in order to mitigate CO2-driven damage, and it needs to be done despite the fact that the global economy is probably entering a protracted contraction.

Let's look at that more closely:
1) "Progressively abandon fossil fuels in the face of an entrenched set of industries that still have product to sell, along with willing buyers;"
-This is a self evident proposition, but it has nothing at all to say about the transition. You are basically saying that the economics that favor fossil fuels will ALWAYS favor fossil fuels. Is that what you believe to be true?

2) "Build out renewable electrical generation capacity faster than the economic growth rate, to a level of 150 times what it is today (plus growth requirements)"
-It isn't clear what you are saying here. What measure are you using for comparing the build out of renewable generation to economic growth rate? More importantly what is the link between those two? As of the last time we delved into the subject, you denied ever having studied economics at all. Now suddenly you are forecasting the state of the global economy for the next 10-100 years?

3) "Change the infrastructure of our entire civilization to run on electricity instead of combustion.
This needs to be done as fast as possible in order to mitigate CO2-driven damage, and it needs to be done despite the fact that the global economy is probably entering a protracted contraction."
-We already run most of our infrastructure around end use of electricity. For, as I've pointed out many times, electricity is the most versatile energy carrier. Your statement is actually very poorly crafted as combustion and electricity are not things you can substitute for each other in the context you've placed them. Electricity is an energy carrier, combustion is a chemical reaction that releases energy from other types of energy carriers.

I'm not saying you have to be an expert to have opinions on economic or technical matters, but when your statements are so sweeping, there should be an indication that you have at least a fundamental grasp of the concepts involved. You later assert that moving from one type of technology to the other " will have to be done in a capital-constrained global economy". How did you determine that to be true? Frankly I don't think you understand what "capital constrained" means. Judging by that comment, in fact, I don't think you even have a firm grasp on what the concept of "capital" represents. Coupled with the lack of clarity in your comparison of electric generation and economic growth rate, it is clear your opinions in this area are unfounded. The same applies to the confusion you bring to what we are trying to do with the "run on electricity instead of combustion" statement. It demonstrates a confused state of knowledge that has little to no legitimacy.

I don't mean to be harsh, but you are very outspoken with your views and you are good at using jargon to create the false impression that you know far more about the subject than is actually the case.

I see your discussion as having two sides. In the first, you state your real "argument, "Once we run out of fossil fuels we will make the shift."
All of the rest is little more than the kind of "bullshit" that "baffles" since you know that you cannot support the "once we run out" qualifier on which you base your world view.

Again, for the record, we will not "run out" of fossil fuels" before making a transition. We are, in fact, making the transition right now in a thousand+ different ways. IMO your thinking exemplifies the desire of most people to find simple explanations for complex events and problems; and like most people, you don't let a little thing like a significant lack of understanding get in your way.

So let's go back to the beginning and review the question. The original is at the beginning of this post, here I've paraphrased it for clarity:
The reasons we now use the amount of renewables we use are the same reasons we cannot realistically use renewable energy to power a global civilization.

That cannot be supported.

[GliderGuider]

50. These are my opinions, kris.

I don't think the same way you do. I place emphasis on different arrangements of observations and evidence than you do, and draw different conclusions. It's not a question of you "arguing me around" to the "correct" world-view. You appear to have convinced yourself that your way of thinking is "correct" in some absolute sense, when there is in fact no such thing. I have my own view of the situation, and it suits me just fine. You might prefer that I adopt your views and your ways of thinking, but the fact that I don't doesn't mean I won't - I actually can't. My brain just doesn't work like yours.

I present information in the way that makes sense to me, the information that creates my opinions and supports them, for me. Perhaps you wish I was a little more precise in my statements. Oh well. Perhaps you wish I were academic and detail oriented, like you. Guess what? I'm not. I think the average person sees more of the big picture from sweeping statements than from getting lost in a confusing and easily manipulated morass of minutiae. Oh well. Here's a secret, kris. Everybody out there - literally everyone on the planet - disagrees with both of us, in different ways large and small. It's a big old goofy world, kris.

BTW - your accusations of me using bullshit and jargon are amusing, coming from the C&P king of E/E. I happen to feel exactly the same way about the stuff you post - jargon and bullshit, with its nose so firmly buried in the weeds it's forgotten what the sky looks like.

My views are my views, like it or lump it.

[kristopher]

51. It isn't a matter of opinion, it is a matter of facts.

You are entitled to your opinion no matter what it is. But you are also subject to criticism when your opinion can't be supported by the facts. You made a very clear statement that was false:
"Anyone who thinks we can tap renewable energy to power a global civilization is just not thinking realistically enough."

You supported that with this "fact":
"There are reasons we are converting only 0.0005% of that potential for human use."

When asked to support that you made a string statements that are meaningless - they aren't even facts. You have used jargon to make it appear you are using facts.

That is a classic example of a bar-room debating strategy - "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit."

If you can support the statement under dispute, then do so and stop hiding behind the bullshit.

[GliderGuider]

52. See, you just can't stop doing it.

I don't think you understood a word I said.

[kristopher]

54. I understood perfectly, I just don't accept your plea...

...to equate arguments based on ignorance with arguments based on knowledge.

We've known definitively since at least 1992 that it is, in fact, possible to run our modern global civilization on renewable sources of energy. Thousands of scientists and researchers have examined this issue for more than 3 decades, and I personally have spent years dedicating myself to acquiring the knowledge required to evaluate arguments like you are making and determining their validity.

If you can make a cogent argument then make it. However since you have dedicated yourself to "The Oil Drum" and similar slipshod scholarship the chances are pretty slim that you can actually produce the product; which is, of course, why you seek to shelter your wild speculations from criticism by claiming they are opinions.


Again, if you can make a cogent argument then make it.

[Nederland]

59. He offered you his opinion

That's all he can offer in this case.

The problem kristopher, is that you don't understand what facts are. Consider this statement of yours:

"We've known definitively since at least 1992 that it is, in fact, possible to run our modern global civilization on renewable sources of energy."

You obviously believe this is a "fact". It is not--it is an opinion. The statement "it is possible to run our modern global civilization on renewable sources of energy" only becomes a "fact" when it actually happens. Until that point, it is merely a conjecture, a prediction, a guess. Until you stop thinking that every opinion of yours is a fact, arguing with you is a complete waste of time.

[kristopher]

60. Your example is "an opinion" just as evolution or climate change is "an opinion"

You really aren't very good at arguing through the use of sophistry, BTW.

[Nederland]

62. Exactly!

It's just my opinion. Now if we could just get you to see that all of your posts are opinions too we'd be making some progress.

[kristopher]

64. See, more of your silly games...

[Nederland]

66. A game played by two people though

Which begs the question, if you think it's silly, why play?

[GliderGuider]

67. Whenever I find my self getting entrenched in a position

I find it helps to take a step outside my self and watch my thoughts through the awareness of the impersonal Observer. By doing that I don't get so hung up on the concepts of right and wrong, and my discomfort diminishes. Thoughts like these help me re-focus:

"You must realize that you are now only a heap of conventions, habits, what society has made of you. Once all these have left you, you realize that they were defenses and aggressions accumulated solely to maintain the ego which simply does not exist." ~Jean Klein.

Out beyond ideas of wrong and right,
there is a field. I will meet you there.
When the soul lies down in that grass, the world is too full to talk about -
language, ideas, even the phrase "each other" doesn't make any sense.
~Rumi

Not everyone is interested in detaching from their convictions about the reality of the Self, of course. When debating important ideas though (and the future of humanity certainly qualifies), we usually get further when we leave space for the Other.

On edit: This process is what helped me break out of my previous pro-nuclear position.

[kristopher]

69. That's one way of looking at it...

Here is another.

The heart of the issue is that you were holding a position that you needed to "break out out of". It happens to us all, but your rejection of peer reviewed information in favor of mysticism is inevitably going to produce more beliefs that are not grounded in your values than a more rigorous adherence to the well developed and mature body knowledge that exists.

[GliderGuider]

70. I'm not comfortable as a materialist.

I spent much of my life believing that I was a materialist. I spent years developing a scientific persona, but ultimately it didn't fit my core personality and left me feeling alienated and depressed. So I changed. Now I try to take positions that are more consonant with my evolving softer-edged views. Like everyone else, in order to be psychologically healthy my world-view has to be grounded in my core values to the deepest extent possible. Not only am I not obligated to follow anyone else's drummer, but I feel a deep obligation to follow only my own. If I was a policy wonk I would have to make arguments based on other peoples' expectations and world-views. Since I'm not, I have no one to satisfy but myself. By the way, "mystical" is a very good word. I often use it to describe my unfolding relationship with the world around me.

I sympathize with the attachment and identification that comes from "personally spending years acquiring knowledge". When I did that, I found it very difficult to give conflicting views any validity. Allowing space for different positions made me feel that I was betraying my own integrity. As a result I tried to buttress my views through a process of confirmation bias and appeals to authority.

Although you may not agree with this, I see the process you engage in - cherry picking peer reviewed material that confirms your pre-existing beliefs - in exactly the same light. Not only do the conclusions of the chosen studies support your views, but the fact that they are peer reviewed lends a comforting weight of authority to your choices. Peer review is extremely valuable when one is doing science, but when one is arguing on the internet it serves a very different, entirely psychological purpose. It imparts a reassuring solidity to the argument, reminiscent of the sense of invincibility one gets when putting on brass knuckles before a street fight.

[kristopher]

72. Bullpucky. Being a realist isn't being a materialist.

You wrote, " Like everyone else, in order to be psychologically healthy my world-view has to be grounded in my core values to the deepest extent possible."

Your world view isn't grounded in your core values any more than those of the TeaParty are. An excellent study designed to test American values in an environment divorced from any ideological framing shows that there is 92% agreement in the values that Americans apply to their decisions regarding the distribution of wealth. Those values are consistent with the general positions of the Democratic party, yet there is a large population holding those beliefs who reject the policies that reflect their economic and social values.

You accuse me of "cherry picking peer-reviewed material that confirms ... pre-existing beliefs" as an excuse to reject the body of knowledge that shows you conclusively to be wrong. Your stated rationale for that is rooted in claims of enlightenment, but there is nothing - I repeat nothing - about enlightened values within any philosophy that encourages the deliberate and willful embrace of ignorance over knowledge.

[GliderGuider]

73. What an excellent demonstration!

It's absolutely clear. Thanks!

[GliderGuider]

74. Being "realistic" means to be aligned with one's definition of reality, no?

One's definition of reality can vary all over the map. My own definition has been by turns mystical, materialist, analytical, synthetic, dualistic and holistic. The qualities of my "realism" and the sets of information I have included and excluded have varied in each case. Which perspective was "really real"? I have concluded that they are all simply inner projections of sensory inputs filtered through layers of memories and learned associations. As a result I now pick "none of the above" alongside "all of the above".

Maybe I'll change later on...

[kristopher]

75. No.

[GliderGuider]

76. So does it mean being aligned with someone else's definition of reality?

Or are you assuming that there is some sort of "absolute reality" against which all things can be measured? Sort of like Plato's Theory of Forms?

[kristopher]

77. This isn't a metaphysical riddle, it is basic, well understood science and engineering.

WE know it can be done just as surely as we know how to build a TV or a radio.

[GliderGuider]

78. What is the foundation of science?

Is it not a view that the universe provedes a (relatively) absolute frame of reference? :-)

This is most assuredly a metaphysical riddle, science is just one dimension of it. There are other dimensions with just as much human value as engineering. Science is nothing more than one frame of reference, chosen from among many possibilities.

[Nederland]

80. Except we've actually built TVs and radios

WE know it can be done just as surely as we know how to build a TV or a radio.

We do not "know" that it is possible to run our modern global civilization on renewable sources of energy until we've actually done it. Until then, it is merely conjecture, a prediction, a guess. An educated guess, yes. A prediction based on some reasonable analysis and thought, yes. But until we actually do this thing you claim is possible it is not a fact, it is theory.

[kristopher]

82. And we've been building electrical grids for 100+ years

[GliderGuider]

83. Grids that run on 100% wind and PV?

I think not. Face it kris, you're as faith-based as the rest of us, and a fair bit more than some.

[GliderGuider]

84. Based on events in CA today, I am a little skeptical about our ability to build robust grids.

Perhaps you meant to say. "We have built grids that are 100+ years old"?

[kristopher]

85. That opinion demonstrates your lack of knowledge

Since a large part of the problem was the cascade failures that resulted from reliance on centralized thermal sources of coal and nuclear. The more renewables, which are distributed by their nature. are added to the grid the more robust and resilient the grid becomes.

"...More than 1.4 million customers lost power during a blackout in the San Diego area, and utility officials said power might not be fully restored until Friday.

San Diego Gas and Electric said the outage appears to have originated in Arizona and that the agency is working with California power officials to bring the power back. Officials said the outages extended across Southern California and into Arizona and Baja California.

The loss of power led to a shutdown of two reactors at the San Onofre nuclear power plant.

Gil Alexander, a spokesman for Southern California Edison, said the power outage did not cause any safety issues. Alexander said a fluxation in power caused the reactors to shut down at 3:38 p.m. but that the overall plant continues to have power."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/blackout/


Where does the replacement power for those nuclear plants come from?

Section 1817 of the Energy Policy Act (EPACT) of 2005 calls for the Secretary of Energy to conduct a study of the potential benefits of cogeneration and small power production, otherwise known as distributed generation, or DG. The benefits to be studied are described in subpart (2)(A) of Section 1817. In accordance with Section 1817 the study includes those benefits received “either directly or indirectly by an electricity distribution or transmission service provider, other customers served by an electricity distribution or transmission service provider and/or the general public in the area served by the public utility in which the cogenerator or small power producer is located.” Congress did not require the study to include the potential benefits to owners/operators of DG units.1 The specific areas of potential benefits covered in this study include:
• Increased electric system reliability
• An emergency supply of power
• Reduction of peak power requirements
• Offsets to investments in generation, transmission, or distribution facilities that would otherwise be recovered through rates
• Provision of ancillary services, including reactive power
• Improvements in power quality
• Reductions in land-use effects and rights-of-way acquisition costs
• Reduction in vulnerability to terrorism and improvements in infrastructure resilience

THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF DISTRIBUTED GENERATION AND RATE-RELATED ISSUES THAT MAY IMPEDE ITS EXPANSION
A STUDY PURSUANT TO SECTION 1817 OF THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005
June 2007
U.S. Department of Energy

[Nederland]

86. Interesting how you ignored post #83 (nt)

[kristopher]

87. Happy to respond.

The grid is, as any grid operator will proudly tell you, a machine in and of itself. In fact, it is recognized as the largest machine in the world. Any type of generator is able to be defined quantitatively by a known set of qualities that work within the context of the larger machine. So, just as we know the effect of changing components like resistors, capacitors or transistors in any electrical gadget we also know how a grid will perform with generation that has differing characteristics.

Finally, let me point out that there simply is no support in the academic literature for the position that renewables cannot power a global civilization. In fact, it is exactly the opposite. It is well recognized that a distributed grid built around renewables is a superior design to the centralized thermal model.

THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF DISTRIBUTED GENERATION AND RATE-RELATED ISSUES THAT MAY IMPEDE ITS EXPANSION
A STUDY PURSUANT TO SECTION 1817 OF THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005
June 2007
U.S. Department of Energy

[Nederland]

89. Response

The grid is, as any grid operator will proudly tell you, a machine in and of itself. In fact, it is recognized as the largest machine in the world. Any type of generator is able to be defined quantitatively by a known set of qualities that work within the context of the larger machine. So, just as we know the effect of changing components like resistors, capacitors or transistors in any electrical gadget we also know how a grid will perform with generation that has differing characteristics.

Yes, it is true that we can calculate the effect of swapping components in a circuit, and that we calculate the effect of swapping a coal plant for a wind farm. However, sometimes the analysis of replacing one component in a circuit with another tells us that the net effect is the circuit becomes unable to perform its original purpose without significant redesign. Likewise, an analysis of what happens when you swap out lots of thermal plants for wind farms tells us that the grid as currently designed will not work.

You cannot deny that this is true. You cannot deny it because I can find numerous threads in this forum that describe the problems created when wind power reaches a certain percentage of the energy mix. And in those threads I'm positive I can find responses by YOU that explain how smart grids and V2G technologies can solve all of those problems. Now if you believed that the grid as it exists today could handle large amounts of wind power, you never would have responded in such a way. In other words, you have already admitted on countless threads that the grid as currently designed will not work in a 100% renewable world.

The problem for you on this particular thread is that here you are trying to claim that it is a "fact" that renewables can power a global civilization. However, I have just shown that claim rests upon your belief that certain new technologies--technologies that have never been implemented or proven in the real world at scale--will work. Smart grids and V2G technologies are not TVs and radios that have been mass produced for decades kristopher. They are theoretical ideas that have yet to be proven out in the real world. As a result, until those things are actually built and shown to work, you cannot claim that it is a "fact" that renewables can power a global civilization.

QED

[kristopher]

90. I can and am saying exactly that.

Your claim that a distributed renewable grid is sufficiently different that it introduces the uncertainty you assert is false. The question at hand; which you stated as the "claim that it is a "fact" that renewables can power a global civilization" isn't disproved by recognition of the fact that it is a more efficient and tighter network for delivery of energy to end users.

We could go on like this forever but the fact remains that, just as with your views denying climate change, the world community of experts says you are not correct. Produce some peer review literature that explains why it cannot be done; demonstrate the fatal objections to the thousands of man-years of work behind my view with new work that has been reviewed by the community of experts and found to be valid.

You have nothing, yet again, but sophistry.

[Nederland]

92. Keep digging

...the fact that it is a more efficient and tighter network for delivery of energy to end users.

So you are admitting that it is different? You are admitting that it is new, and something that does not exist at this point in time?

Keep digging Kristopher, with every post you confirm what is obvious: that the thing you assert as "fact" is nothing more than extremely optimistic assumption on your part about what you believe the future will look like. Facts are observable things. Facts are measurable things. Things that do not exist therefore cannot be facts by very definition. Any objection to this idea is a rejection of the very principles of science itself: that a thing can only be said to be scientifically true if it can be observed, measured and repeated. Smart grids do not exist. Vehicle to grid technology has never been implemented. They are therefore merely theories at this point in time, not facts.

You love to poke fun at GliderGuider for his mysticism and unscientific view of the world. The funny thing is that the only difference between the two of you is that he knows when he is saying something that is not scientific, where as you delude yourself into thinking that everything you "believe" is a fact. The cold hard reality of the universe is that if you really want to limit discussion to those things that are "facts" from a scientific point of view, there is precious little to talk about. The vast majority of what people go through life blandly asserting to be "facts" are in not even close to that from the viewpoint of a real scientist.

[kristopher]

93. We've long known from your climate denial position that your definition of "fact"

...is at odds with normally accepted usage. You are the aberration, not the norm.

So again I say: we could go on like this forever but the fact remains that, just as with your views denying climate change, the world community of experts says you are not correct. Produce some peer review literature that explains why it cannot be done; demonstrate the fatal objections to the thousands of man-years of work behind my view with new work that has been reviewed by the community of experts and found to be valid.

You have nothing, yet again, but sophistry.

[Nederland]

94. You should really stop using the word sophistry kristopher

It is obvious you don't know what the word means.

[kristopher]

95. Apparently you don't like having your approach properly categorized

soph·ist·ry
noun /ˈsäfəstrē/ 
sophistries, plural
1) The use of fallacious arguments, esp. with the intention of deceiving

2) A fallacious argument


Web definitions
sophism: a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

It becomes even more accurate with awareness of the history of the ethical perspective that embraces sophistry. I'm sure Wiki cover it for anyone interested.

[Nederland]

101. Back to mind reading again Kristopher?

Haven't we cover this before? Yes, I believe we have:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=214511#214870

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=213908#214183

Sophistry involves a person arguing a point that they know to be false. Now, unless you have acquired an amazing ability to read the minds of other internet posters, I'm pretty sure you cannot say that you know for a fact what I really believe in this case. Then again, you have such a low threshold for what you consider a "fact" you very well might claim to know this information. Regardless, I do not believe that the statement "renewables can provide 100% of our energy needs" is a scientific fact. I'm not exactly sure why you think that I actually agree with you on this matter and am simply arguing otherwise just for kicks, but let me assure you that I am not. Is that clear enough? Here, let me make it perfectly clear:

I believe you are wrong.

Do you get it now? I'm not engaged in sophistry because I actually believe you are wrong. Perhaps it is hard for a person of your tremendous ego to understand that there are people out there that question your grasp of the absolute truth, but I can assure you that they exist. In fact, I suspect they exist in rather large numbers on this forum.

[kristopher]

104. It doesn't require mind reading.

Simply observation.

You are intelligent enough to realize the nature of the errors you commit. In our present example you persist in presenting and arguing as if a word only has one meaning when in fact it has more. You wish to assert that only your definition of the word "fact" is usable in discussions that you do not moderate. You do that with full knowledge of the multiple usages.

That is, by definition, sophistry.

[Nederland]

105. You are delusional

Apparently you believe you are this guy:

[GliderGuider]

88. Have we ever built and tested a million-customer grid based on 100% renewables yet?

No we have not.

Therefore, we have no idea, beyond simulations, what its characteristics will be in the face of real-world conditions. The problem is that as such a grid is built out it become more and more complex. The increase in complexity makes it effectively impossible to predict its behaviour. if we can't build a robust, predictable grid with 100 generating stations, how will we build such a beast with 10,000? Especially when the load-shifting required to compensate for the variability of those 10,000 sources adds complexity of its own?

Your bland assurance that a grid with more generating elements and more dynamic control requirements will work just fine flies in the face of everything we've learned about complex systems over the last 200 years. Your assurance is, in fact, a statement of faith. The failure in CA today, however, is a fact.

Here is some commentary from Penn State University on complex system failures:

Complex Systems Failure (CSf) - A Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative (MURI)

The search for fundamental principles of fault tolerance in human-engineered complex dynamic systems is very new. The physics of individual failure in a component cannot sufficiently explain the pathological behaviors observed in the aggregated system. Fault propagation in incidents like the failure of the electric power infrastructure in Western United States in the summer of 1996 remains unpredictable except for the search for triggering individual errors. Complex macroscopic behaviors emerge as a consequence of the nonlinear dynamics of interactions between linked components. System behavior may range from strict order to chaos with great sensitivity to initial conditions embedded in the physics of individual failures. This is known as the butterfly effect .

Many biological and chemical systems exist where microscopic flux and chaos is offset by macroscopic order. Based on this concept we formulate analytical notions of pervasive fault tolerance in human-engineered complex dynamic systems. These systems, although architecturally similar to physical systems, may structurally be quite different. For example, component subsystems may not be microscopic particles following the laws of classical mechanics where causality is deterministic. At the lowest level of decomposition, however, the macroscopic effect is triggered by single fault manifestations of emerging physical defects in hardware, an erroneous state of software or a human operator error. We propose to develop methods for determining regions of stability by deriving and finding critical values of physical parameters where the subsequent behavior of the macroscopic system changes abruptly. Both theoretic and experimental analyses are essential.

For theoretical analyses, we model complex dynamic systems as hybrid interacting automata whose continuously varying dynamics capture the physical process at the lowest level of abstraction. Discrete event models at the higher levels capture the cognitive response of the system to observed emerging physical phenomena. We have used this concept to utilize the dynamic structural behaviors of materials in formulating damage mitigating control algorithms at the system level to enhance the life of critical mechanical components . Our broader aim is to formulate analytical models of the higher level dynamics of component interactions triggered by all types of individual failures to (i) predict emerging pathological system behavior from time-series observations of events and their dynamic interactions, and (ii) formulate adaptive mechanisms to circumvent or mitigate the effects of pathological behavior.

With the present state of knowledge of macroscopic behaviors in engineered complex dynamical systems, experimental analysis is essential for understanding and characterizing pathologies. Guiding principles from physical systems have not been verified in human engineered systems like the Internet . We propose to undertake a comprehensive characterization of pathological behaviors, both syntactic and operational, through extensive experimentation. This will be achieved by analyzing spatio-temporal patterns in databases of event/action dynamics. Starting with Kott's catalog of general complex system pathologies , we will use information theoretic and modeling approaches to iteratively induce classification and refine characteristics of pathologies as new data from our laboratory experiments are obtained.

Your assurances of resilience aren't worth the electrons they're printed with.

[kristopher]

91. That is part of the body of work that supports my assertions.

Distributed generation increases redundancy and system flexibility, providing a reduction in the risk of a "complex system failure" such as happened at Fukushima in March and in S.Cal today.

You are wrong.

[GliderGuider]

98. I'm going to put a stake in the ground here. Think of it as driving in my picket pin.

I've said before that you and I think differently. It finally became clear to me today just how different we really are. It doesn't matter if you think I'm wrong. It doesn't even matter if I am wrong - about anything. It is literally impossible for us to communicate. Here's why.

The following excerpts are from an email that arrived in my inbox unexpectedly yesterday afternoon. It speaks exactly the same thoughts that my Twin Flame and I have been exploring for the past two days. It expresses precisely how I see reality:

It is important to remember that everything that “happens” in the collective reflection you think of as your world is the direct result of the vibrational dictates of the composite consciousness that serves to create it. Your innate tendency, as a population of beings, to give credence to speculation and rumors—seeded by a clandestine power structure invested in the need to maintain control through fear— helps to bring about these very disasters. The collective imagination has run wild now, exploring the projected outcomes that could, theoretically, come about, should certain prerequisite conditions be met. It is this very foundation of fear that runs as an undercurrent through the hearts and minds of humanity, which serves to create the conditions that manifest “worst-case-scenario” outcomes.

The choice, in the face of such a scenario, is to be aware of the dynamics of the process and not to contribute to the exacerbation of those conditions by giving in to fear of what, at face value, may appear ominous. It is only energy—playing out as symbolism. Choose, in the face of what might confront you, to step aside. Change your location. Meet adversity with non-resistance. Allow the circumstances seeking to play out to be as they are. You do not need to be drawn into the full blown drama—not unless that is what you wish to experience.

That is the highest contribution that can be made under conditions where political volatility and global unrest are the order of the day. Allow these dramas to unfold, as they will. Allow the posturing and counter-posturing to play out, as is its inclination. Become the witness, present at the sidelines, making the ongoing contribution of your Presence, your stability, your augmented vibration. That is the most direct way to bring about the positive change you would most wish to have take place—simply by resisting the temptation to jump in and “set things right,” thereby fueling the fire.

The transformation of your world is an inevitability that will come about. All that is yet to be determined is what will be experienced by each of you. That is a choice you are making in every ongoing moment—an opportunity enhanced exponentially by remembering who you really Are, in the heat of those moments. For, you Are Oneness incarnate—none other than That—having a physical experience within the context of a human form. Making the contribution to the collective of that level of Self-Awareness—and reaping the harvest of the inner peace that is your true nature—is the opportunity at hand, for each of you.

In the face of this, there's not much point to us thrashing away, is there? Windmills dancing on the planet, angels dancing on the head of a pin - from here they both look pretty much the same. I wish everyone a lot of fun, and success in whatever terms you choose. I apparently have other stuff to do now.

[Nederland]

55. Slow

If there is any sort of transition at all.

The reason that I suggest that there might not be a transition at all is because such a shift would be contrary to every energy shift the world has ever seen up until this point. The simple fact is that every time civilization shifted to a new energy source it involved a shift to something with a higher energy density. Consider the example in the OP: coal has a lower energy density than oil, and oil a lower energy density than uranium. Every time the world has shifted to a new energy source, it shifted to a source with a higher energy density. Every time.

When it comes to renewables the question becomes slightly more complicated. Comparing the energy density of coal to oil is fairly simple: coal has an energy density of 32.5 MJ/kg, whereas oil has an energy density of 46.3 MJ/kg. Comparing the energy density of oil to wind or solar is a bit more difficult--indeed it could be argued that the term has no real meaning when applied to wind or solar. However, the OP gives us a clue: the very first shift was away from wind towards coal. Maybe the shift happened because wind was too unreliable. Maybe the shift happened because you could get more energy out of coal than wind and push boats faster. It doesn't really matter what the reason was though--all one has to recognize is that the world at some point in the past chose coal over wind as a source of power. Any shift to renewables (where wind by most accounts will make up a sizable portion of the energy mix) would therefore represent a step backwards to a source of energy that had previously been given up. History offers precious few examples of technological regression of this type. I'm not saying that it won't happen, I'm simply suggesting that history suggests that it is highly improbable.

BTW, the energy density of uranium is a stunning 20 TJ/kg, or over half a million times higher than oil.

[kristopher]

56. "Maybe... Maybe... It doesn't really matter what the reason was though"

Seriously, you consider that to be a convincing line of thought?
Where are the atomic cars?
Why are we still using bicycles?

As those two easy to think of examples illustrate, there is far more involved than just energy density.

Your discussion is made even less convincing when you ignore obvious contradictions you yourself raise to your thesis:
You wrote "Comparing the energy density of oil to wind or solar is a bit more difficult--indeed it could be argued that the term has no real meaning when applied to wind or solar."

Then you wrote: "...the very first shift was away from wind towards coal.
Maybe the shift happened because wind was too unreliable.
Maybe the shift happened because you could get more energy out of coal than wind and push boats faster.
It doesn't really matter what the reason was though--all one has to recognize is that the world at some point in the past chose coal over wind as a source of power."

So you point out that reliability is a a probable cause of the shift and not energy density.

Do you see the problem so far?

It gets worse, not better, as you conclude, "Any shift to renewables (where wind by most accounts will make up a sizable portion of the energy mix) would therefore represent a step backwards to a source of energy that had previously been given up. History offers precious few examples of technological regression of this type."

Did they have a grid when we started using oil for generating electricity (coal use was rare).
When the shift to coal to coal for electricity happened in response to the Arab Oil Embargo why didn't nuclear win out?
Why is nuclear in global decline?

I'm afraid that your line of thought is far more sophistry than it is actual reasoned analysis.

You can ignore the steady stream of reports like this, but doing so will lead to the type of false reasoning you've offered.

Renewable power consumption grew by 15.5% in 2010, the fastest rate of expansion since 1990
Renewables recovered strongly from a dip in growth in 2009 (12.6%), and just exceeded the 2008 growth of 15.4%. The OECD remains the main source of renewable power generation (77.5% of world total in 2010), but non-OECD growth has accelerated sharply since 2007 and has exceeded OECD growth in percentage terms in each of the past three years...

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle800.do?categoryId=9037716&contentId=7069274

The transition may be slow or fast, I'd grant there are valid arguments on both sides of that question; however your conclusion of "slow" simply isn't supported by the evidence you've offered.

[Nederland]

57. Perhaps we should define terms

What does the term "fast" mean to you? Are you willing to give us a firm date by which renewables will provide more than 50% of the world's energy?

[kristopher]

58. Perhaps you should have started with something besides obvious sophistry.

If you have a case to make then make it and stop engaging in rhetorical games.

[Nederland]

61. Agreed

So let's start over.

On what date do you believe renewables will provide more than 50% of the world's energy?

There, that's not a rhetorical game, nor is it sophistry. It's a simple question. What is your answer?

[kristopher]

63. You've had far to many second chances...

The OP is open for comment and if you have a case to make, then make it.

[Nederland]

65. I already did (nt)

[4dsc]

102. There will be NO transition to renewable

All renewables are dependent upon oil. Simply put when the oil runs low in the coming decades, there will no renewables to take its place.

[kristopher]

103. You should enhance your understanding of "energy carriers"

A. What is an Energy Carrier?
An energy carrier is a means of transforming energy from a less useful form, location, or intensity into a more useful state. It is more of an economic than a thermo-dynamic concept. Historically, people were the first purposeful energy carriers. They consumed plants and animals' low-intensity carbohydrate energy; and transformed this food into useful and highly controllable work in locations at some distance from the food source. Humans soon co-opted other humans, then draft animals, shaft power, coal gas, fossil distillates, and electricity for use as energy carriers. These carriers allowed a variety of primary energy sources such as solar energy captured via plants, the potential energy of water flowing downhill, and the thermo-chemical energy of fossil fuels to become useful for tilling crops, building homes, fighting wars, providing pinpoint mechanical power, lighting buildings, and performing computations. Hydrogen and liquid biofuels are now being considered as potential additional energy carriers.

B. Characterizing Energy Carriers
Some desired characteristics of energy carriers are deducible from first principles, while others spring from analogy and reflection.

The first law of thermodynamics tells us that energy can be moved around but cannot be created or destroyed except via nuclear processes. Characterizations of energy carriers depend in part on this conservation law, which allows us to say how efficient carriers are in terms of energy in versus energy out. Yet, the first law also reminds us that energy carriers are always embedded in a longer production chain, so that we should not forget what comes before and after the carrier. The extraction and transportation processes of the coal fuel and the end use performance of the light bulb are both relevant when evaluating electricity as an energy carrier <1>.

The second law of thermodynamics tells us that energetic order tends toward disorder. Much of engineering practice and, arguably, of human civilization and of life itself are efforts to fight increasing entropy. Energy carriers play a crucial role in this drama by helping to transform inconveniently located and low-quality energy into high-quality energy located where and when we want it. Yet, there is an associated cost in mine tailings, waste heat, and other inevitable dissipative losses. Such waste is "virtuous" to the extent that it allows local increases in energetic order <2>, although a proper calculation of virtue would weigh the net of these dispersed costs and concentrated benefits as they impact society. Thus, the second law forces consideration of both the positive and negative impacts associated with energy carriers, as well as the spatial and social scope of those impacts.

By analogy, a good energy carrier is like money, it... (pg 1853)


Andrews: and Implementing Public Policy for New Energy Carriers
Vol. 94, No. 10, October 2006 | Proceedings of the IEEE

http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/andrews/031IEEE.pdf


And if you'd like to review something a bit more detailed that looks at a specific path of energy though a subset of our infrastructure. Similar analysis exist for all areas. They ask for people not to post the content of the paper, but they do make it available for download.

Optimal Power Flow of Multiple Energy Carriers Martin Geidl, Student Member, IEEE, and Goran Andersson, Fellow, IEEE
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 22, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2007 145
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.164.5417&rep=rep1&type=pdf

[4dsc]

106. BS alert

Sorry kris but there will no transition to any so called alternative energy source no matter how much you "wish upon a star" to quote Kunstler.

There is NO substitute for oil, period and of story. Our future is one of using less oil thus less energy. EVERY so called alternative IS DEPENDENT upon OIL to manufacture and produce. EVERY ONE!

[kristopher]

107. It's unfortunate you prefer to form your world view around junk science.