“I have been studying our energy options for more than 30 years,” writes Steve Heckeroth, “and I am absolutely convinced that our best and easiest option is solar energy.”
Commentator Jim Stack, who lives in a grid tied solar home, makes the same point to Mother Earth News readers that this blog has made previously: photo voltaic solar power operates without the need for any water, unlike power generation from coal, nuclear or natural gas.
This blog had overlooked a more obvious point that Heckeroth does make in his article. With solar power, there is no need to wait for a new technology to save us.
Germany is currently the world’s largest PV market. Its PV Industry comprises the world’s leading PV manufacturers of silicon, wafers, cells and modules.
Gristmill contributor David Roberts agrees. We now have existing technology with which we can ensure that new buildings are net energy generators. We also can utilize the technology to retrofit existing buildings, which “can reduce energy consumption by well over 50%, in some cases 90-95%.”
Recently, Roberts rejoiced when a coal plant application was rejected in the state of Washington. Yet, such is the influence of the coal industry that, if COMTEX re-submits the application with firm plans to add a questionable new technology, then approval is most likely guaranteed.
AsRoberts notes, CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) is a technology “always almost ready, but never quite.” So, the challenge presented by commentator Sean Casten to Gristmill readers, and relayed by this blog, still stands: “If we’re willing to pay 18 cents/kWh for base load power, would you preferentially buy Coal, the Enemy of the Human Race?”
While there are growing signs of state disapproval of GHG emissions from coal-fired electric power gneration, such is the influence of the coal industry that our elected “representatives” in Congress accept the questionable assurance of carbon capture and storage.
In his treatise, “Sustainability and Energy”, Ulf Bossel points out that a characteristic of “below-ground” energy is dwindling EROEI (Energy Returned On Energy Invested). “At some point, neither increased prices nor increased energy conversion efficiency can overcome” when “an energy source becomes an energy sink.”
Bossel speaks directly to the CCS issue:
“Clean coal” can never be a sustainable energy option because of the dwindling coal supplies. In the event CCS (carbon capture and sequestration) becomes commercially feasible, it is likely to suffer from similar exponential increases in the energy fraction used and in cost.
A carbon tax simply foreshortens this eventuality. Instead, we are watching WKTRPS? (Who Killed The RPS (This Time, and the Time Before That and the Time Before That, and…), i.e., the filthy coal interests have stopped a federally mandated RPS (Renewable energy Portfolio Standard) again. With the complicity of Congress destruction of life on the planet as we know it continues.
Fossil fuels, and coal in particular, are unsustainable because our oceans are losing the capability to absorb carbon dioxide and increased levels in the atmosphere leads to global heating with eventual disastrous consequences.
In contrast, renewable energy sources exhibit no such exponential increase, because no energy is required to make the sun shine or the wind blow. After the initial energy investment in a renewable energy plant, the “energy return” is always positive and, averaged over time, remains the same. The fuels generate no harmful emissions; the only emissions come from constructing the generating, storage and distribution facilities.
While reporting projected GHG emissions, it was economic issues that mainly were considered when European Strategic Energy Technology Plan compared different sources of electrical generation, i.e., cost, efficiency, import dependency, fuel price sensitivity and proved reserves.
Since, as Ulf Bossel notes, only certain ones satisfy sustainability criteria, when one considers utility-scale energy supply, you might think that the federal government would be promoting those renewable energy sources. You would be incorrect.
Both a two-year extension of the PTC (Production Tax Credit) and the small wind credit fell one vote short of the 60 needed to avoid a filibuster. Those wind credits, the solar investment credit and most federal renewable energy tax credits are set to expire in 2008.
That uncertainty of the credits’ renewal means that renewable energy projects could come to a standstill. In past years, as an extension of the PTC comes down to the wire, wind projects have stopped 6-8 months before its expiration. If that trend holds true, we could see a similar slow down in 2008 if the PTC isn’t renewed quickly.
To repeat Steve Heckeroth’s forewarning, there is no need to wait for a new technology to save us. “It’s time to harness the world’s virtually inexhaustible supply of solar energy and start building a brighter future.”
5 Comments
Brian Beutler, who is staying tuned — in between futile bouts of wincing / screaming / crying into his beer — to give us a report on the “always willing to be shilling” U.S. Congress:
important question: When they talk about reducing energy consumption, are they talking about total (electrical) energy consumed by the inhabitants of the building or are they talking about reducing energy consumed from the grid?
Both energy consumption viewpoints are important. For example, we can significantly reduce energy consumption by migrating to more efficient technologies if and only if it is economically viable to do so, i.e. the dollar value of energy saved fully covers the purchase price in less than half of the product lifetime. the other perspective, the amount of energy consumed from the grid is important because it helps reduce the stress on the grid thereby making the grid more reliable.
Both are important. Which is easier? I suspect it’s reducing how much you consume from the grid. Slap up a few panels and offset your daytime power consumption. Reducing consumption is much more difficult because once you get past the easy stuff, convenience and a lack of economic incentive discourages further change. Which means come until we change the devices in our lives, we are not going to significantly change baseline power consumption.
In order to institutionalize lower energy consumption in products, we will need to set standards for levels of power that can be consumed at different states of existence. For example, I should be able to power down my laptop to the point where it consumes a fraction of its fully on state but at the same time, it must be able to maintain active TCP connections so that by running applications won’t break. Another example is my DVR. It’s on 24 x 7 because it records programs for me all week. A smart DVR would power down until about five minutes before time to do something and reconnect to the satellite.
The problem with baseline consumption may be seen by some as an excuse to discard many aspects of our current life but I see it as an impetus to change in incremental and accessible ways. Putting grid connected photovoltaics in the house solves one problem of providing extra power without extra generator plants. A demand for devices that are smarter about energy consumption will bring about the second part of the power consumption revolution. You can’t have one without the other and both of them have to be attractive changes versus punitive orders.
People are like three-year-olds. If you try to drag them, they will put up one heckuva fuss but if you promise to McDonald’s, they will go with you willingly. As far as I can tell, environmentalists haven’t offered even the hint of a happy meal to the population at large which explains why people are in favor of the idea but are not making significant changes or investments on their own.
Ugh. Big White Fadder speak with cheezburger.
You don’t seem to be buying the 3E’s, CM. Is it business as usual and above all else for your Grid?
I am a strong believer that you cannot force people to do anything. You have to make it attractive otherwise there will be no change. If you can supply new tools to allow people to do things as usual, then you will win. At that point, you have positive feedback which will give other parts of the system room to change. For example, I believe that individual transport systems (i.e. cars) are fundamental components of individual freedom. They also have a very positive economic effect in that it makes it possible for people to go to different merchants and spend their money wisely. In contrast, limited domain public transport systems create all sorts of interesting price distortions in real estate and retail spaces. After all, if there’s only one merchant you can go to for a class of product, what incentive does the merchant have to provide a fair price?
So, if we can make individual transport systems significantly more energy-efficient and discourage the use of the older systems through tax disincentives, we have a win while permitting the familiar and comfortable business as usual.
In the context of the power grid, it is far easier through tax incentives and low-interest loans to get people to add a local power source (i.e. solar panels, windmills etc.) than it is to convince them to replace household power consumers. It is also a significant ecological advantage in that keeping what you have causes relatively minor environmental damage versus buying something that was just made. most importantly however is that when you add a local power source, you have the opportunity to add to the household visible indications of power consumption. This awareness will subsequently alter peoples product decisions thereby increasing demand for energy Smart devices. notice however that the change doesn’t alter the familiar significantly but adds information to make it possible to change the familiar.
Everything described here is classic change management. Find a leverage point and change is easy. it’s as simple as identifying you are natural constituency and express your concerns and away they can hear and take action on.
For example, coming back to cars. There are lots of good designs for hundred mile per gallon cars. They are aerodynamic and look like something George Jetson would drive. They’ll never be manufactured at an affordable price because there’s no mass market. With the right market research, one could find a design that would appeal to many people. But since Detroit will never build them, why don’t folks like Sierra Club and others environmental organizations put their money where their mouth is and manufacture a truly green car such as those proposed by the Rocky Mountain Institute. It would make one hell of a statement and it would kickstart the market. again, providing a better tool without changing the familiar.
There are other energy savers that green organizations could get behind and make reference implementations. They may have to bend their "moral" stance and have the devices manufactured in China so the prices will be affordable by average people. The important thing is, energy conservation requires awareness and devices. We are getting the awareness but we don’t have the devices. We won’t have the devices until somebody comes up with a significantly better design saving significant amounts of energy (a studley 50%, not a wimpy 10%) with other benefits or at least no loss of current functionality.
Examples of loss of functionality would be a green car without air conditioning. I don’t know about you but when I get overheated in the car, I am a much less safe and focused driver and I am more easily angered. Air conditioning keeps me cool focused and aware. Other people must have radio or navigation systems. A green car must be functionally equivalent to current automobile designs. yet again, a better tools that does not disturb the familiar.
Part of the reason I’m such a geek on this topic is that I have been involved in dealing with light pollution issues for more than a decade. We have made almost no progress in controlling light pollution (another major energy waste to the tune of $13 billion+ a year) because we don’t have the tools or even awareness in the general population. If you go to Home Depot, all you find are energy inefficient outdoor lighting. High glare, high wattage, dusk to dawn fixtures. reducing or eliminating light pollution is a low hanging fruit for energy conservation. But the world doesn’t do anything about light pollution because they are significantly more polluting light fixtures than there are nonpolluting fixtures. You cannot buy nonpolluting fixtures at Home Depot. eliminating light pollution changes the familiar and there’s no immediate economic benefit capable of justifying the expense of the change.
from my experience of light pollution, I’ve become sensitive to the fact that most Green change doesn’t make sense. It ignores the familiar, it makes too many assumptions about what is possible (i.e. transferring real estate assets from suburban to urban space without individual financial devastation), and for the most part, ignores how people think (unconscious economic motivation).
So yes, in a way it’s business as usual because that’s the only way you can start change. Make any change familiar and reversible and you will go a long way to changing the definition of business as usual.
Renewable Energy Access tells us:
4 Trackbacks
[...] power from the heavens, a challenge to the efficacy of solar power is its intermittent nature, thus the need for systems [...]
[...] merit on how to keep the crackers hap-hap-happy, while performing an ecocidal intervention, a.k.a., Sustainable Utility-Scale Energy Supply. Nor did the idea of Explicit Carbon Accounting enter into the discussion. This entry was written [...]
[...] thought to whether the term sustainability can be used in a
meaningful way. The way he explains Sustainable Utility Scale
Energy Supply is with a Heaven and Hell metaphor. We need to eschew
fuels from underground and foster energy from [...]
[...] blog about geothermal power and further development certainly
is underway. Such development of sustainable, utility scale, energy
supply occurs in geologically active locales scattered throughout
the Western and Southewestern United [...]