Renewable Energy

[John Raabe]

Interesting information on "renewable" and non-renewable energy sources.



Click image or HERE for the article. The blog author is Matt Ridley and his book The Rational Optimist has changed my thinking on a lot of ideas about economics and and our predicted dark future.

[Windpower]

So with 10 times more wind energy -- a modest increase IMO
nuclear energy could replaced.

not a bad idea in light of the Fukushima disaster

[John Raabe]

According to that chart that is about right. The big issues with wind power (and solar) is its fickle flow pattern. This means that some other energy source must be able to meet demand spikes when it is dark and still outside. Some major breakthrough in dense power storage is really needed here!

[OlJarhead]

According to that chart that is about right. The big issues with wind power (and solar) is its fickle flow pattern. This means that some other energy source must be able to meet demand spikes when it is dark and still outside. Some major breakthrough in dense power storage is really needed here!

True enough!  In Oregon the wind farms are getting free energy from the Hydro dams...that's right, they are GETTING energy.  Why?  Because the dams are having to push so much water through the turbines that they can't take anymore from the windfarms.  Since the wind farms would go broke if they can't sell their energy Uncle Sam decided to give them free energy from the dams to sell until (theoretically) the water level drops enough that the wind farms can once again sell.

This is a major issue if you think about it.

[Windpower]

Theere are lots of ways to store power


pumping water up hell to a large resevior for example -- the Japanese army did this in the mountains of Taiwan when they captured it during WWII

[John Raabe]

While water can be used as a battery, it is a very expensive and inefficient one. Lots of pumps and generators spinning around and then you need to have a dam and reservoir handy. And, what happens in the situation OlJarhead mentions where the reservoirs are full and are dumping water they can't store? That's the condition in much of the Pacific NW right now.

In the linked article Ritley points out that bakeries in Haiti are cutting down the few remaining trees (and even digging up roots!) to burn charcoal for their ovens. This is not exactly the picture we had of our green renewable future.

I think the main takeaway of the article is that it is making me more likely to give up my simplistic judgements about what type of energy is "good" and what is "bad". There are problems created by all energy sources, and the concept of "renewable" energy being somehow morally or ecologically superior is not likely to standup to a thoughtful reality check.

[peternap]

John, the problem isn't with the power source, it's with excesses.
Sure it's bad if you burn more trees than you plant. Coal is a good energy source but not renewable and now the companies are leveling mountains to get it.

Nuclear is dangerous and I think we are finding that out now.

The answer is to use renewable power and use less.

[John Raabe]

It is true that there are enormous amounts of wasted energy in our systems and daily lifestyles. In the developed world our wealth allows us to drive a truck to the local store to purchase ice cream that came from a factory 1500 miles away. Most of us could probably reduce our energy use by 75% and end up with a healthier lifestyle. So doing more with less is of benefit to both the consumer and the planet and makes sense no matter what energy source you are using.

In poor countries where most income and energy is used for survival food and shelter, people don't have the wealth cushion we do and are much more impacted by the recent food and energy price hikes. It isn't fair. However, as a group, both the poor and the well-to-do have been increasing their energy usage over the last 50 years. Both are also wealthier and healthier than they were 50 years ago.

And since we left the profession of hunter/gather behind us about 10,000 years ago, the per capita energy use of humanity has been continually rising and that measurement is the single most accurate indicator of social progress and development. So with a historic timeline like that it seems unlikely that humanity will willingly decrease its per capita energy use (there were times when such progress stopped going up - such as that nasty 1000 yr thing called the "dark ages").

Maybe this time the pessimists and doom-sayers will be right and we will enter into a new dark age where per capita energy consumption goes down. However, there are a lot of people on the job right now and it seems more likely that we will once again pull a rabbit out of the hat and new technology will open up new ways to make even more energy available inexpensively.

We generally seem to find a way to muddle through and avoid the seemingly obvious cliffs we expect to fall off of.

[OlJarhead]

And since we left the profession of hunter/gather behind us about 10,000 years ago,

I think many peoples of the world would look at that statement quizzically...heck the native American's were still 'hunter/gathering' up to about 100 years ago in some places and MOST places just 150 years ago.

Saying 10,000 years ago is really kinda silly John.  Even in Europe most people were hunter gathering en masse as little as 2000 years ago and in places perhaps closer to modern times.

We're really not that far from it now....but I don't mean to highjack the thread as we tend to agree much on this topic I suspect

[peternap]

I understand what you're saying John and I have a healthy respect for all of your opinions. Generally we feel the same way with some exceptions.

While your muddle through theory is based on countless years of history, I think we may have run out of space to muddle in.
That doesn't mean I think technology is dead. It exists and therefore it is.

When I made the decision to go off grid, I didn't do so with the idea of going back to my childhood with no electricity, television, electric appliances or most comforts. I knew I could do more with less and it has worked by combining the old with the new.

Fuel is still an issue but I've pared that down considerably. LED technology has solved most lighting problems and when my power requirements exceed my capacity, the generators take over.

I'm still sitting back and watching both our economy and the core values of this nation melt down, our infrastructure is old and I see no way it can be brought up to specs in our current economy but....I'm comfortable doing with less and not being inconvenienced.

I'm also seeing a growing trend in that direction.

[John Raabe]

It's true that there are still people living with the energy usage pattern of hunter/gathers - and their lifestyle has likely remained pretty constant as well.

But that's beside the point. We have to look at the rise of civilization as a whole and for better or worse we call "civilization" what happens in more complex civil (city) environments. That is the place where the inventions are made and the history books are written. Only very recently (25 years) has technology allowed us to live in a rural environment and talk (type) to others anywhere in the world. Accordingly my energy consumption is much more like a current city dweller than the fisherman/berry picker that lived here 200 years ago.

In order to fully sidetrack this thread let me give you this for a parting message for the day...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJtq6OmD-_Y

Now aren't you glad you could share in that? And wasn't it worth the energy it took to watch it?

[Sassy]

   That was great, thanks, John!

[Tickhill]

Enjoyed that John, yes it was worth the energy to watch!

[Native_NM]

I agree that in the short-term the easiest thing is conservation.  As long as there is cheap energy there is no incentive, however.  I'm a proponent of energy taxes from a conservation standpoint.  I'd also like to see the building code adopted for new construction that would make it easy to power portions of a home's needs from alternative energy.  For example, if a house was wired so that one could easily power just home lighting with solar or wind, but still rely on the grid for the high-draw needs, I think lots of people would buy it.  Lighting is collectively huge.  LED and fluorescent bulbs could run from a single panel or small turbine.  If done correctly there would not be a need for batteries. Just draw on the power when it us there and switch to the grid when it's not. 

[Windpower]

Excellent take on thngs NM

conservation first

I prefer carrots instead of sticks -- it worked in Germany, huge financial incentives to go solar

[firefox]

Right on, Windpower.
Bruce

[waggin]

Great conversation in this thread and a wonderful video...Thanks everyone!

[Ajax]

Ridley should stick with stuff like Genome.  The Rational Optimist is full of crap

[Native_NM]

Excellent take on thngs NM

conservation first

I prefer carrots instead of sticks -- it worked in Germany, huge financial incentives to go solar

These are the kinds of carrots I like to see the government hand out.  Policy that affects the collective good of the nation as opposed to policies that benefit the individual person or family.  A sound energy policy benefits the nation.  An educated population benefits the nation.  Safe food and drugs, defense, and the like are good use of government.  I'd love to see a 500 watt solar panel on every roof, tied right to the grid.  

[Don_P]

If we are proposing writing further energy conservation or alternative energy hookup requirements into building code I can't agree. Although it might make us feel good about ourselves to mandate that the other guy do what we think he should that is not the intent of the building code. Once we step away from basic life safety all further law does is endanger lives. Each time we pile more laws into the front of the bus real people fall off the back. Being homeless is a basic life safety issue.

[Native_NM]

I think there is a difference between mandating implementation and mandating access.  Some building practices are best done during the construction stage, and add little to the cost.  Adding a bit of extra wire or changing circuit layout to accommodate future solar or wind is different than mandating every new home have a panel.   

Solar water heat in my region is easily rough plumbed during the construction stage.  It might never be implemented, but if one wanted to later the plumbing is there.  I think that is a good use of the building code.  I understand your position, and respect it. 

In our area alarm wiring is standard practice.  I bet 75% of homes don't have an alarm, but every new house built here has the low voltage wire run during construction.  Adopting a standard for alternative energy or solar water is no different in my mind. 

[peternap]

If we are proposing writing further energy conservation or alternative energy hookup requirements into building code I can't agree. Although it might make us feel good about ourselves to mandate that the other guy do what we think he should that is not the intent of the building code. Once we step away from basic life safety all further law does is endanger lives. Each time we pile more laws into the front of the bus real people fall off the back. Being homeless is a basic life safety issue.

Amen!