Friends! As we enter this new era, we face the giant task of transforming society, by changing the very fabric of our economy, all in a mere decade. That fabric is energy, currently supplied largely by fossil fuel and by nuclear plants. Over the next few years, both of them will have to give way. Renewable energy will become the major source of energy, in particular concentrated solar power, passive solar, photovoltaic, wind and geothermal power.
Changes so massive can barely be described in a few paragraphs. These changes will touch every common aspect of life. New construction methods will make better use of passive solar energy. Where installation of, say, wind turbines or solar facilities can actively supply electricity, this energy will be used on-site and stored there for later usage. At the same time, all these sites will also connect to a network that is fluid, storing, drawing and supplying electricity in an interplay between availability and willingness to pay.
New cars will have electric motors and run on electricity stored in lithium-ion batteries, where needed complemented with hydrogen. New mowers, power tools and instruments will all have lithium-ion batteries.
Over the next few years, the biggest names around us, in industries like oil, energy, cars, retail, transport, farming, manufacturing and construction will have to adapt to this new reality or rapidly cede marketshare to companies that do.
That is the new reality. Will it be possible to make these giant changes in so little time? Within only a few years, we'll look back and remember this question, when a child asks us: "How could you get lost with a GPS-phone and a GPS-camera in your pocket?" Indeed, we'll look up and notice that the sun was shining in our backyards and that the wind was blowing all the time. And we'll answer that child with a smile, saying: "You're right, they were there all the time - so stupid not to use them!"
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 28 ( 1 removed by Sam Carana )
"we face the giant task of transforming society"
"Over the next few years, both of them will have to give way."
"Where installation of, say, wind turbines or solar facilities can actively supply electricity, this energy will be used on-site and stored there for later usage."
"Will it be possible to make these giant changes in so little time? Within only a few years,"
Sam, you pose some interesting assumptions and questions.
Society will transform gradually with time and the (primarily) force to induce that change will be economic.
As fossil fuels become more and more expensive to obtain the switch to alternatives will progress.
I think the expectation that fossil & nuclear fuel "will give way" is more a desire than a reality.
Unlike fossil fuel nuclear is currently producing 16+% or our planets energy without putting out C02 emissions, which is what our planet needs, more clean energy right now!
http://nuclearenergy.gather.com/
Yes there will be a time when the more intermittent alternatives will be able to be "stored" for overnight use but those technologies are not available right now.
Currently there is a lot of focus on building alternatives but one must also face the reality that the building of coal fired power plants is occurring at record rates across our planet.
Yes, Dan - there will be some things that will have to stay oil-dependent. I don't see airplanes going fuel cell any time soon. But the reductions that could be achieved in other areas would make a huge impact overall. And, as you point out, international policy in these areas need to keep pace with this new technology and support it, rather than turn a blind eye to countries, like China, who are disregarding it in favor of short-term profits and growth.
There are even those like Dr. Lightfoot who in "Nobody's fuel" www.nobodysfuel.com suggests we focus on building nuclear to cover our electricity needs and save fossil fuels to fuel our vehicles until such time that technology can produce an acceptable fuel source for our transportation sector such as hydrogen or bio fuels.
The point is, to keep our economy strong to allow people to be able to afford to be green.
To suggest as some have, to strip fossil fuels of their subsidies and transfer those subsides to alternatives would send our economy into a tail spin making it even harder to obtain energy independence and a reduction in ghgs.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1206biz-solar1207ol.html
(you'll have to copy paste, I don't know how to make it active)
I place this pending crisis squarely in the lap of our government. Jimmy Carter told us to put on a sweater and, in effect, go on an energy diet. The Congress has stumbled around for decades developing an "energy policy". If the American people demanded research and development for alternative energy be addressed with the same tenacity as the Manhattan Project we would be well into the process of minimizing fossil fuel dependance. I hate to make this political but if only a few earmarks were redirected then I would feel somewhat satisfied that our government is willing to actually do something to benefit our society and the rest of the world.
There is enough oil under Prudhoe Bay to keep the US supplied for the next 200 years. All this crap about running out of oil in the future is just that pure crap. Our government has more oil wells capped than stratigic oil supplies warrent. There is another field under the NPR in Alaska that has no connection to Purdhoe Bay that is as big as Purdhoe but the gov. has it in reserve. There is a third field under the Aleutians that is as big as Purdhoe. Then there is what is under the ANWR. Alaska is the largest oil field in the entire world.
I am publishing an article on this subject in several groups, Think I'll call it "What oil Shortage?" It is lengthy and is actually a speach on You Tube in 8 parts by a man who knows.
Thanks for that link, John. A longer name would be "concentrated thermal solar power", Arizona will have a lot more of this and this will be one of the largest, if not the largest ways to generate electricity within one decade in the US. The technology is relatively simple and has been around for decades, if not longer.
Another form of thermal solar power is passive thermal solar power, which doesn't generate electricity, but warms up bricks, water, etc. This latter technology has been around even longer and is often left out of the picture in calculating how much energy is used in the economy at what price. There's an almost deliberate plot by industries with vested interest to keep people in the dark about the economic size of passive thermal solar power.
It's sad to see America lose the economic plot. Back in April 2006, I saw a report by Greenpeace, about an Australian company signing a 300 million (Australian) dollar deal to build three 50MW windfarms in Eastern China, while China planned to expand its wind industry to 30GW by 2020. Zhengrong Shi, an Australian citizen, returned to China in 2001 to found a solar power company, which in 2005 listed with $225 million sales on the NYSE. Last year, the company's market cap soared to $5.5 billion.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/perspective/stories/s1614652.htm
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/10/EP46.html
Meanwhile, the US, with its huge debts to China and Japan, is missing the boat in the biggest markets of the world, including the US itself (wind turbines are imported from Denmark!!).
Price of gasoline will soar, as more of the cost of securing supply (Iraq!!!) and the cost of global warming will be incorporated in the price over the next few years.
Yes, convenience is another big argument in favor of electric cars! No more trips to the service station, instead just plug it in at home or at work. Remember that in about 1899/1900, electric cars outsold all other types of cars in America. Why? Because they did not have the vibration, smell and noise of gasoline cars and required neither gear changes nor much manual effort to start (as with the hand crank on gasoline cars). The only good roads in those days were in town, so most travel was local, which was perfect for electric vehicles with their then limited range. But even now, most trips aren't very long, see graph below.
Electric cars have further advantages, they requires little maintenance, as there are very few moving parts; you don't need to change engine oil, filters, gaskets, hoses, plugs, belts, there's no catalytic converter or exhaust pipe to replace. And you can drive them with pride, they have great acceleration and little or no pollution.
Nuclear is UNSAFE and NOT CLEAN, radiation is one of the most insidious and dangerous types of pollution. Because of this, the nuclear industry is lobbying politicians with obscene proposals. Furthermore, nuclear power plants don't fit into the distributed type of network that we need. It's much harder to deal with the abrupt outages of nuclear plants and prolonged widespread closures of nuclear plants due to heatwaves and droughts. France made the mistake of depending on nuclear and had to import electricity in 2003.
Dan E.: Yes there will be a time when the more intermittent alternatives will be able to be "stored" for overnight use but those technologies are not available right now."
Nevada Solar One, the third largest solar power plant in the world, generates 64MW, as of June 2007, when it went online for commercial use. It was constructed over a period of 16 months. It puts heat into phase-changing molten salts, and this energy can then be drawn upon at night.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Solar_One
Discontinuities in the output of individual wind and solar power facilities can be resolved by (1) linking a mix of technologies (solar, wind, tide, wave, geothermal, hydro) from different regions, using (2) High Voltage Direct Current links over longer distances, as well as by (3) storing energy (in lithium-ion batteries, capacitators, hydrogen, fly-wheels, pumped-up water, compressed air, steam, etc) and by applying (4) market mechanisms and the resulting price incentives which will make some heavy (industrial) users move to off-peak times. This will lead to cheaper grid power and cheaper electrolyzers, hydrogen fuel cells and batteries. In case a fuel cell broke down, one could fall back on grid power or battery power.
Dan E: "... building of coal fired power plants is occurring at record rates across our planet."
This happens in countries like China, precisely because the US has failed to take the lead in negotiating a renewed Kyoto agreement. If the US continues down this obscene and disastrous track, it will face economic ruin and depression, as the rest of the world will boycott imports from the US. There is a growing commitment to reduce emissions and the US is the main obstacle in making this a global commitment.
SAFEGE monorail. Twice as fast as light rail, three times faster on turns. Automated-no driver. A medium/high speed rail at less cost.
Good point, Patrick! Read my article Small houses - perfect for communities without roads
Graph for above post, showing that most trips are short, so lithium-ion batteries alone will suffice to power electric motors in cars making such trips.
Anyway, a notable example of such an economic approach is the Stern Review, October 30, 2006. Stern estimated the global cost at an annual $450 billion, or 1% of a Gross World Product (GWP) of about $45 trillion, if spending started last year and continued until greenhouse gas concentrations would be at acceptable level (550 ppm CO2 equivalent). Costs would include decarbonizing 60% the power sector, and cost would amount to a lot more the longer action was delayed.
There have been further studies, some actually pointing at a gain in average GDP as a result of action to combat global warming, e.g. see the studies mentioned by the World Resources Institute and this IPCC presentation
In my view, we have no choice but to act against global warming in the first place, we have to dramatically reduce emissions as soon as possible. But also, the sooner we act, the better off we'll be economically. Making deeper cuts than other countries sooner will put us at an economic advantage, rather than disadvantage us economically.
Action would mainly amount to a reallocation of resources, rather than extra expenditure. Right now, the cost of securing oil is horrific (Iraq!). If we did incorporate just a part of that cost in the price of oil, we would have electric cars on the road everywhere within a few years. Similarly, government spends huge amounts of money to subsidize farms to produce animal feed, while these animals emit large amounts of methane, and while the fertilizers that are used to produce this feed also cause emissions of nitrous oxide. If coal-fired power plants had to pay the price of only a small part of the harm caused by their pollution, renewables would already be a lot cheaper by comparison.
The New Reality is that renewables are less expensive than fossil fuel and nuclear. If market mechanisms were allowed to set prices, then renewables would have long priced fossil fuel and nuclear out of the market. The problem is that government keeps distorting the market by supporting the wrong industries. The nuclear industry seeks loan guarantees. Biofuel is also heavily subsidized, while road users do not even pay for the full cost of roads. Meanwhile, the better alternatives that we really need, such as wind and solar, receive comparatively little money, as is evident given that they constitute such a small proportion of the current market.
In January, the CEO's of 10 major U.S. companies urged President Bush to support mandatory industrial greenhouse gas emission cuts. In November, officials from more than 150 companies around the world singed a petition, companies jointly worth nearly $4 trillion in market capitalization, companies such as Shell UK, GE International, Coca-Cola Co., Dupont Co., United Technologies Corp., Rolls Royce, Nestle SA, Unilever, British Airways and Volkswagen AG. The petition was aimed at the UN conference in Bali, and contrary to the argument that mandatory pollution cuts would harm the economy, the business leaders' petition says ambitious emissions reductions would "create significant business opportunities."
Business Leaders Seek Action on Warming
"Nuclear is UNSAFE and NOT CLEAN,"
Anyone who has question concerning the safety of nuclear power should conduct their own research and make their up own mind.
I have done some research and have posted a lot of what I have found at
nuclearenergy.gather.com it would be a good starting point for someone interested in finding the facts about nuclear energy.
"Nevada Solar One,"
Glad to hear about it, that plant is a good step forward for alternatives. I checked around trying to find more information about it's heat storage capacity and all I found was this.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6166113.html
"The molten salt vats also give solar thermal systems insurance against cloudy days, something that PV doesn't have. One hundred thousand square feet of molten salt holds enough heat to provide electricity for four hours."
Promising but not quite there yet.
"Discontinuities in the output of individual wind and solar power facilities can be resolved by (1) linking a mix of technologies (solar, wind, tide, wave, geothermal, hydro) from different regions, using (2) High Voltage Direct Current links over longer distances, as well as by (3) storing energy (in lithium-ion batteries, capacitators, hydrogen, fly-wheels, pumped-up water, compressed air, steam, etc) and by applying (4) market mechanisms and the resulting price incentives which will make some heavy (industrial) users move to off-peak times. This will lead to cheaper grid power and cheaper electrolyzers, hydrogen fuel cells and batteries. In case a fuel cell broke down, one could fall back on grid power or battery power."
Yes Sam,
All of those suggestions you make are possibilities, but right now they are just that future possibilities.
Hydro is the only power source you listed that is currently a substantial source of reliable power, the rest are in their infancy and today they do not have the capacity to supply even a minimal amount of energy our society needs.
I'll also remind you that in that statement you are contradicting your prior statement,
"Furthermore, nuclear power plants don't fit into the distributed type of network that we need."
So when it's nuclear we need a distributed energy system but when its alternatives a centralized distribution system is just fine.
"This happens in countries like China"
That's a load of bull.
And the balance of that statement is pure unadulterated fear mongering. close comment
Your description of the future is actually not far off. The same dynamics and technologies that have driven information industries and cellular phone industries are now driving new energy industries. New kinds of solar panels use nanotechnologies, as do new kinds of transmission lines. Nanosolar is building manufacturing plants in California and Germany, producing solar panels 100x thinner, 100x faster than traditional solar panels - at 1/10th the cost. Already, in California, Solar Powered Homes Sell Quickly Despite Market Crunch . Companies investing heavily in these newer technologies include Google, so it may well be that traditional energy companies may ultimately cede market share to companies not even yet associated with energy in the public perception. Ford hiring Boeing's CEO and appointing Amory Lovins and Paul Hawken to a "transformation" advisory council, points to a serious efficiency move on that company's part toward "lightweighting" with carbon fiber composites. Google has also invested heavily in Nanosolar: Bright Days for NanoSolar . So I'm not so sure that American companies aren't rignt in the middle of these developing industries - just not necessarily the traditional energy companies. The same might happen with cars, and you have noted the Tesla car company.
I do advocate to let market mechanisms work things out. Nevertheless, the market distortion is such (due to the government support for polluters over so many years) and global warming is such a pressing problem, that we need to facilitate a shift. The most effective way to facilitate this shift is to implement a framework of taxes on emissions with - in each case - the proceeds going directly to local supply of better alternatives. As an example, a 10% tax on fossil fuel would quickly create a giant pool of money to subsidize supply of electricity from clean and safe sources, such as solar and wind energy. Similarly, a 10% tax on fertilizers could help farmers put agrichar in the soil. As the shift to less emissions eventuates, less tax will come in, while the alternatives also need ever less subsidies, so eventually the invisible hand of the market can more effectively work things out, while the long arm of the law can be withdrawn.
The idea of combined taxes and subsidies seems hard to digest for many, and I am therefore inclined to instead use the term FeeBate for the joint policy proposal. I'd love to get some feedback on that. Do you think using the term FeeBate would help making things more clear?
Anyway, there are plenty of companies eager to jump at the many opportunities that are there. Let's just hope that more politicians see the light. Let's keep following developments as they unfold.
That's the term that Lovins uses, charging a fee for gas guzzlers and a rebate for efficient hybrids. It certainly clarifies the actual proposal, rather than the headline the NY Times used for the energy bill story: Senate Approves Energy Bill Without Tax Increase.
Sam: "Let's just hope that more politicians see the light."
The vote was 59-40 in favor of the bill. That was 1 shy of ending the fillibuster. Bush would have vetoed it, but it would have made it even more obvious that renewables are thwarted by republicans protecting oil/coal companies. As it is, there has been virtually no media coverage.