A Convenient Solution to An Inconvenient Truth
Posted by Glenn on August 30, 2006 - 11:28am in The Oil Drum: Local
Wiley Norvell, of Transportation Alternatives wrote an essay of the same title as this post (PDF) in which he attacks some of the misconceptions of how we can reduce our carbon footprint (err..SUV tire tracks) in a real dramatic way, in contrast to the many small "success stories that are touted in the media as progress." More under the fold.
Just when the collective conscience of New York's car-owning minority could relax ("something is finally being done about global warming!"), commonsense dealt a startling blow. A new study titled "Global Warming on the Road: The Climate Impact of American Automobiles" effectively dismisses global warming initiatives that fail to tackle private auto emissions. Released by Environmental Defense in June, the study estimates the greenhouse gases emitted by our rolling stock of cars are nearly twice those of major electric power companies. This should actually come as good news, insofar as global warming has good news.
Indeed, while most people think of the Federal government as the only level of government that can really have an impact on global warming, through carbon taxes or subsidies for alternative energy, it may actually be municipalities that have the most power in curbing one of the most important polluters - automobiles:
Well-meaning municipalities have nibbled around the edges of their CO2 problem for years while the federal government failed to act on industry emissions and vehicle fuel standards. As it turns out, the silver bullet to global warming is a tool of local government. Muscular municipalities like New York can reduce demand for driving, effectively slashing
the biggest source of emissions. And we can start now.Mode switching--pushing people from one form of transportation (cars) to another (feet, bicycles or mass transit)--is the key. Every trip we switch from the automobile to a more efficient mode of transit not only reduces the emissions of that trip, it reduces the collective emissions of other vehicles by decreasing congestion.
Which for dense urban areas, like New York, can be a pretty convenient way to reduce our carbon footprint.
It is not as if the politics of climate change are paving the way to reform in places like Portland, Chicago and London. They have found the same policies that improve quality of life bear dividends when it comes to CO2 reduction. It is a convenient solution to the most inconvenient and dangerous situation have ever created. If we just plan for a more livable city, maybe we will not have to try so hard to stop global warming after all.
Local zoning, parking regulations, transit planning and other municipal functions can improve quality of life while also reducing the carbon footprint of a local area.
So how about it Mayor Bloomberg? You signed the Mayor's Climate Change Agreement over a year ago and we have not heard from him on how he plans to implement this citywide. The Kyoto Protocol emissions reduction target for the U.S. would have been 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. Time's running out and trends on auto-usage are in the opposite direction. Certainly, ideas like congestion pricing and High Occupancy Vehicle restrictions would improve things, but these would have to be part of a citywide initiative to reduce autotrips and increase mass transit, walking and biking.
One local elected official, Borough President Scott Stringer, will be having a conference on Transportation Issues called "Manhattan on the Move: A Transportation Agenda for a Growing City" which will be held on October 12, 2006 at Columbia University, Alfred Lerner Hall from 9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. Please come to express your perspective on how to Green our Transportation System and create a higher quality of life for local residents.
Personnel
Classic posts
Archives
- November 2008 (1)
- August 2008 (1)
- July 2008 (4)
- June 2008 (4)
- May 2008 (3)
- April 2008 (1)
- March 2008 (1)
- February 2008 (2)
- January 2008 (2)
- December 2007 (4)
- November 2007 (4)
- October 2007 (6)
The Oil Drum: New York City archives
- September 2007 (3)
- August 2007 (2)
- July 2007 (3)
- June 2007 (8)
- May 2007 (1)
- April 2007 (8)
- March 2007 (2)
- February 2007 (3)
- January 2007 (5)
- December 2006 (5)
- November 2006 (12)
- October 2006 (10)
- September 2006 (9)
- August 2006 (14)
- July 2006 (15)
- June 2006 (11)
- May 2006 (18)
- April 2006 (35)
- March 2006 (14)
- February 2006 (13)
- January 2006 (12)
- December 2005 (17)
- November 2005 (13)
- October 2005 (25)
- September 2005 (36)
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
This initiative will be supported by the powerful tourism industry if approached in the right way.
Oh, and would the powerful tourism industry be interested in my proposal to build a streetcar line on Grand Street. It's close enough to Canal street, falls neatly on the south of Soho and the north of Chinatown, and goes to the subway-less lower east side.
Amtrak goes to Portland now, but only with a broken link in Boston where you have to take a 'T' from North to South Stations. Didn't make sense with a week's worth of baby-stuff and food in Tow.
I'm with Vonnegut: Too little, much too late...
Absolutely. There's no joy in saying it -- but c'mon. This peppy "let's save the world by driving higher mileage Japanese sedans!" garbage is just totally detached from reality.
If there is hope, it with massive near-term changes in our societies, not incremental measures. For instance, James Lovelock says climate change is already going to be catastrophic and will make the world at tropical and subtropical latitudes uninhabitable. That's done. The best we can do now is mitigate to make the planet a little bit more survivable in the future. He suggests massive construction projects for nuclear plants. I think it's an extremely good plan.
"Environmental" opposition to it is wrong-headed and deluded. Read a bit about the Amazon and its ongoing two-year drought that threatens the forest's existance and the Great Plains beginning to revert to dustbowl conditions.
The effect of a nuclear accident palls in comparison.
Lovelock is giving the straight dope. The way society works, it's very tough for a public figure to say, simply, "We're f*cked." He does this. You might not agree entirely with his calculus, but most of the evidence seems to point to the fact that his perspective is the one to be taken more seriously.
If we're going to demand any action it needs to be serious -- not worthless feel-good stuff.
Just a tad bit more info on my rant -- I tend to believe that the climate models we're using are conservative in taking to account positive feedback loops (melting bogs, and so on), and so are quite possibly (and being conservative we must then plan for the worst) underestimating the effects of global warming and related effects like ocean acidification.
This is a very good intro to Lovelock and his ideas though -- plenty of criticism:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=256
How about in conjunction? This is like the argument about fighting them there so you don't have to fight them here. The way we've gone about it, we have every likelihood of getting both a climate collapse and some fine nuclear disasters. As if we don't have enough crap in our environment with Lead, Mercury, PCBs, Dioxin etc, to insist on the 'Safe and Right-headed' build out of a massive nuclear program, with a waste stream that we don't have any outlet for.
To me, this rosy promise of great, safe Nuclear power everywhere is the 'Worthless Feel-Good' argument, the cornucopian dream that another overly wieldy, complex and monopolistic power-structure is going to keep us flush with kilowatts, with no concievable downside.
Sorry, but just cause all the other 'solutions' aren't good enough either, doesn't mean this one is. It's wrong for too many reasons, and I don't think it could live up to the promise to solve our dilemma even if it was not so flawed otherwise..
Produce your own power, learn how to live with WAY less. Try to feel good.. stress will make you sick.
Bob Fiske
He's afraid of global collapse, but he's more worried about saving the view??
He dismisses solar as too expensive, with no analysis at all.
Careful reading of the book indicates to me that, despite the other reasons he gives, he really objects to wind turbines on esthetic grounds. This can only be described as bizarre given the scope of the threat he describes.
If he were to say that the magnitude of the threat meant that we needed all solutions (wind, solar and nuclear), I would understand that completely. I think it's possible that would be an appropriate proposal, though I'm not so enthusiastic about nuclear.
So, yes, I think this contradiction hurts his credibility. He seems to be willing to allow wishful thinking to override a sensible analysis of the situation.
Like I often say, some people are choosing to live in the real world. At the moment you convince me that this slogan will be voluntary and actively accepted and implemented by the majority of the humanity (as opposed to some 0.001% as of now) I will give up my support for nuclear power.
In the meantime all opposition to nuclear power represents nothing else than a promotion of coal, period.
As far as 'The Real World', we all live in it, complete with the many constructions that let our minds organize and understand it in one way or another. But to get too certain that your solution is the "Real" one lacks humility.
I don't see either Nuclear or Coal as safe enough, clean enough or reliable enough to advocate, and I am working to get around both of them, as soon as I can.
Still, they are part of the current picture, like oil and gas, and I will be using their energies to move us in a direction away from them.
I voted for Nader. That was in no way a vote for Bush, even if it gets painted that way. To tar the greens is the most easy and unproductive way of opposing coal.
I can do nothing but quote Eskribage:
"you can't oppose both nuclear and coal and still claim to live in anything but a dream world"
The biggest delusion by so-called enviromentalists is that by opposing both energy sources they will make the big business and the big money go to renewables. In the real world, the money goes to where it is mostly secure and will achieve greatest ROI. Now that it does not go to nuclear because the opposition is too high (which makes it insecure) of course it will go to coal, because it offers the greatest ROI from alternatives. In the real world coal opposition is limited to the enviromental groups. There is no such thing as "coal paranoya" as opposed to the radiation paranoia which is very successfully induced and kept by the media and the enviromental groups. In the real world the average Joe & Joanne do not give a s&#t for how many million tons of CO2, ashes, heavy metals etc. did the coal plant 10 miles from their house release this year. So please, give me a break. Do not overestimate your power and try to learn what politics is all about.
Citing one of your peers in looniness does not an argument make.
the average Joe & Joanne do not give a s&#t for how many million tons of CO2, ashes, heavy metals etc.
Of course, THIS is what has to be tackled, because BOTH coal and nuclear are lethal.
NOT if it goes along with an EQUALLY STRONG opposition to coal.
And fine -- I totally support strong opposition to coal. 100%. But you can't oppose both nuclear and coal and still claim to live in anything but a dream world.
I'm sorry, it would be lovely if we could run bulldozers and smelt metal and so on with wind and solar. But you're deeply deluded if you think that's possible.
For the record, I think there should be massive spending on windfarms and solar farms all over the world. Put 'em up everywhere. But that isn't going to be enough.
The opposition of otherwise intelligent people to nuclear power on a large scale is terribly frustrating. It's raw dogmatism.
We have a models that show that it can work very well. France, to name one.
But here's the real rub. That opposition shows a deeply flawed ability for sorting threats according to their significance. Sure, who wants the possibility of a nuclear accident? And who wants the possibility of a leaking containment site or whatever. We often here this "it will be dangerous for 10,000 yrs" stuff.
But, kid, radition leaking in 10,000 years or 2,000 years or 500 years, aint our problem right now. By analogy, it's like you're in a car hydroplaning toward a brick wall and you're worried about spilling your coffee on the upholstery.
Look, we've had Chernobyl. We've done atmospheric H-bomb tests. There have been some adverse consequences, but they've been marginal. Mortality from Chernobyl has, in fact, been much much lower than was first predicited. It has basically killed about as many people as one of those nasty coal mining accidents that happen every so often in China and Russia. So, yes, if we do a serious build-out of nuclear plants, there will probably be some increased cancer mortality associated with it. But it will generally afflict people in old age. Statisitically more people will die of cancer at 78 instead of heart attacks at 80. That's a bit broad, but not wholly inaccurate in characterizing the threat.
In any case, that's much better than the alternatives. Namely, making the climate situation worse than it already is; or, pretending that we can get through the energy crunch w/o making some very uncomfortable choices.
Try to be realistic.
I know, I am from France.
This only buys us a temporary reprieve, doesn't solve anything long term.
I wish more money had been put into solar which we started investigating long ago.
By analogy, it's like you're in a car hydroplaning toward a brick wall and you're worried about spilling your coffee on the upholstery.
Coffee isn't as TOXIC as radioactive waste, as far as I know.
Mortality from Chernobyl has, in fact, been much much lower than was first predicited
No, it has been higher.
Still, the MAIN POINT ABOUT NUCLEAR RISK, above "know" problems in current operations protocols, is that we cannot guarantee that the REQUIRED LEVEL OF TECHNOLOGY can be maintained over a "few thousand years", this is a deadly "gift" to future generations.
What normative duties do we owe to future generations? [PDF]
pretending that we can get through the energy crunch w/o making some very uncomfortable choices.
I am not pretending that, I am IN FAVOR of "very uncomfortable choices", namely POWERDOWN!
Try to be realistic.
I am, would you?
It will last only up to the first major accident, even if not so immediately lethal (a few thousands deaths), a Chernobyl in California or the like.
http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium.html
Basicaly uranium is in the position of oil in the late 19 century. People then also thought they had some several years of oil left.
Fine, let it be so, but I'd be very curious to see anyone of these guys smelting silicon or assembling wind turines in the toolsheds of those "eco-communities" they dream about.
I noticed.
Even more so when they are PAID for spreading denial and confusion.
(does not necessarily applies to you...)
You didn't reply to my essential point.
I agree that nuclear is a less than ideal option. It produces toxis waste. Containment might be problem while the waste is still radioactive.
If there is an accident (but keep in mind there's been one serious accident in 50+ year worldwide record of nuclear power generation, and technology is better now) there will be fatalities, possibly tens of thousands. There are problems with terrorism.
Yes, yes, yes.
But the point is: all that is much better than the situation we face in climate change.
Quite literally it and PO threaten human human civilization, and (in the case of climate change) the existence of a majority of species on earth.
THESE ARE MUCH MORE SERIOUS PROBLEMS THAN ANY OF THE PROBLEMS WITH NUCLEAR.
That is why nuclear makes sense.
Or I guess you support coal. Which is far more dangerous to life on earth than the any of the (substantial) problems with nuclear.
Please respond to this essential argument, not side points. In this thread there is no response to that fundamental point: We are in a hideous jam and we can't pretend otherwise; nuclear kinda sucks as an option -- but we have to stem greenhouse gas emissions
This is such a classic case of missing the forest for the trees. It kind of turns my stomach. In terms of intellectual coherence, about on a par with Lovelock reject wind farms because he finds them ugly.
Liberals don't care for nuclear in any form (except maybe medicine). Therefore even if nuclear is one of the last best hopes for staving off a mass extinction and the likely dissolution of human civilization, it is still wrong. Why is it wrong? 'Cuz we don't like it.
Boggles the mind. This is reflective of why humanity is screwed. Hopefully brighter minds will prevail in this argument.
What we should do: suspend all local, state, and national laws and rights to sue, design a national plan and begin building an alternative (including nuclear) energy infrastructure with the speed and dedication that are only possible in centralized wartime economy. It is literally our only hope, in my ever-so-humble opinion.
Which? This?
I'm sorry, it would be lovely if we could run bulldozers and smelt metal and so on with wind and solar. But you're deeply deluded if you think that's possible.
I am not deluded, ONLY A SMALL FRACTION of what is done today as "run[ning] bulldozers and smelt[ing] metal" can be done with wind and solar, yet it CAN.
THIS IS THE POINT.
There WILL BE a powerdown, whether you like it or not and I don't like it either except for the decreased impact on the environment.
So, the realistic approach is to sort out the essential uses of metals and bulldozers and skip current idiotic practices like planned obsolescence and huge amounts of throw away stuff.
If there is an accident (but keep in mind there's been one serious accident in 50+ year worldwide record of nuclear power generation, and technology is better now) there will be fatalities, possibly tens of thousands.
How MANY MORE nuclear plants will be needed to sustain the current levels of energy consumption?
If "technology is better now", by which factor security wise?
Does this cancel the increase in the number of risky plants?
Anyway security is NOT MUCH a matter of technology but a matter of human error and (un)awareness, there has NOT BEEN ANY IMPROVEMENT here and there will not be, ever.
Even the lousy technology of Chernobyl would have been doing fine is not for human error.
Quoting a previous TOD comment.
'Swedish nuclear expert Lars-Olov Högland, who served as chief of construction for Vattenfall until 1986, put it far more dramatically. "It was pure luck that there was not a meltdown," he said. "It was the worst incident since Chernobyl and Harrisburg,"
More info for you : The incident at Sweden's Forsmark plant underscores the vulnerability inherent in the process of producing nuclear energy. Experts say the accident won't be the last of its kind.
There are problems with terrorism.
Nuclear IS akin to terrorism with respect to its' impact on public opinion, I said it just above "[nuclear] will last only up to the first major accident, even if not so immediately lethal (a few thousands deaths), a Chernobyl in California or the like.".
What's the point engaging all these tremendous expenses only to fold down some years or decades after?
Mankind CANNOT AFFORD SUCH A LETHAL BLUNDER.
But may be your are thinking of "solving" this problem the same way terrorism is dealt with right now.
A "war on nuclear opponents" in addition of the "war on terror" ?
YOU didn't reply to my essential point either :
What normative duties do we owe to future generations? [PDF]
That is why nuclear makes sense.
You are pretending that nuclear will solves GW and preserve the existence of a majority of species on earth.
Energy production is not the only source of CO2 and overpopulation is a far more lethal threat to the "majority of species on earth".
Or I guess you support coal.
I already rejected that, DON'T SPEAK FOR ME!
Please respond to this essential argument, not side points.
...
but we have to stem greenhouse gas emissions
POWERDOWN!
Therefore even if nuclear is one of the last best hopes for staving off a mass extinction and the likely dissolution of human civilization, it is still wrong.
"IF"
Betting on "IF" and furthermore IT IS NOT "the last best hopes for staving off a mass extinction and the likely dissolution of human civilization".
For many reasons which appear on this whole thread, not only from me.
Hopefully brighter minds will prevail in this argument.
Brighter minds rarely prevail in politics this is why the advent of nuclear is truly an EXISTENTIAL RISK.
What we should do: suspend all local, state, and national laws and rights to sue, design a national plan and begin building an alternative (including nuclear) energy infrastructure with the speed and dedication that are only possible in centralized wartime economy. It is literally our only hope, in my ever-so-humble opinion.
The FINAL TOUCH.
Please be submissive to the forecoming police state it will save the earth.
One can see this police state coming, it will not save ANYTHING but the privileges of the NEW WARLORDS, those idiots will shoot themselves in the foot with this AND crash civilisation and the earth ecosystem.
Because they are so utterly short sighted.
You should be ashamed to work for them for a pittance, they won't care for you once your job is done.
Which guarantees did they offer you?
Wow, you're tough to follow.
I'll keep this real short. Two points:
I say that we are in fix of decline oil and gas supplies which means that will we begin drawing heavily on some combo of coal and nuclear. You say "powerdown" -- I say groovy as a slogan, but not very good as sole solution. Of course, powerdown has to a part of the solution and it will be necessity.
All your horsesh*t about me wanting a police state is ridiculous. I mean I agree with you that it's a serious threat, but it's a serious threat anyway with the chaos of a prolonged energy crisis ahead of us. I hardly think that aggressive WW2 style effort to stabilize our energy situation seriously lowers the long-term odds of becoming a police state.
My typing may have confused things. I didn't mean suspend "all laws" -- but those that would interfere with TVA-style energy infrastructure buildout I was talking about. And I'm not some mole for the pro-nuke neocons (I favor the same strategy for all viable carbon neutral energy technologies. Nuclear is simply the most effective at the moment.)
As has been pointed out, Britain during WW2 was a very different place than it was before or after -- why did they do that? B/c they faced a threat that could destroy them. That's the situation we;re in now, like it not.
You sed:
What normative duties do we owe to future generations? [PDF]
That is why nuclear makes sense.
You are pretending that nuclear will solves GW and preserve the existence of a majority of species on earth.
---
I think our primary normative duty is to try and arrest, as much as possible, the catastrophic spiral of rising surface and atmospheric temperatures on this planet. All other duties pale.
I'm pretending nothing. I'm pretty gloomy about our chances. But given what's at stake, I think we need to try very hard, and realize in the scheme of things that the dangers of nuclear are minute by comparison.
Anyway, no more on this with you.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14515702/
And then, more interesting, there were these reader responses:
http://boards.live.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?BoardID=472&ThreadID=64256&BoardsParam=Page%3 D24
I'm really interested (concnered) about the average Joe's understanding of what is happening and then his response. These responses are not generalizable to the larger population - they have to be taken exactly for what they are, i.e. the people who were attracted to the article and then felt enough to respond, but, nonetheless it provided much food for thought in terms of how people are reacting and might react as things get tighter.
http://boards.live.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?BoardID=472&ThreadID=64256&BoardsParam=Page%3 D1
Yet we have almost complete control over our road infrastructure. We decide the widths of the roads, signal timing, priority signalling for transit, bike accommodations, pedestrian infrastructure, and even most parking. The transportation support for sprawl is at least a third our own decisions. We have signficant influence over the other two thirds, but we do nothing with that either.
Any why do we keep making these two-faced decisions? Because from the point of view of businesses, customers and employees come only cars. Even in pedestrian choked areas of this college town, business owners wet themselves if you talk about removing even a single on-street parking space. We've had a number of proposals to convert narrow four-lane streets to a "road dieted" three-lanes plus bike lanes. So far, each time the business community has shot them down.
The single easiest and cheapest thing cities can do to support transit is to dedicate lanes to the bus or streetcar. Plenty of cities in Europe do this routinely. Install a low curb in place of the dashed line, space the stops every 1/4 mile (instead of every block) and you've got yourself an efficient, competitive transit infrastructure. You can get across town, even in peak hour traffic, as fast as any car can.
If you really want to get high tech, you can switch the traffic lights green when the bus approaches (like the system in L.A.). But with dedicated lanes, even that expense isn't absolutely necessary.
rail & electric light rail being 2 alternatives.
i also think it means working on demand reduction, in a manner that is palatable to the general public.
for this i think a government sponsored push to encourage people to take 4-6 weeks stay-at-home, take your kids to the park, feed the ducks vacations, would be a good step.
sort of like Europe. they got the longer summer vacations.
>> anybody know what happens in Europe when they take their vacations ? energy consumption go up or down ?
would a good Republican candidate promote this plan as resulting in fat ducks, from what American pate' can be made, thereby dovetailing with their neanderthal Freedom Fries initiatives ?
well, i'm just kidding about fat ducks, but not about green-er transportation alternatives and twisting corporate America's arm to give employees more time for "stay-at-home & drive less" vacations.
http://www.logicalscience.com/technology/
That list is a start. The technologies on that list could very easily make oil an obsolete and clumsy technology.
"We just use it to fund an Apollo program."
There, I hope that's clear.
Outlook: Physicists widely consider the success probability to be high. The construction timeline is lengthy and the first 500MW pulse is projected at 2022 and commercial fusion isn't expect unil 2040. So it is a while off. Hot fusion is very different than the cold fusion that many consider to be a pipedream. One drawback is that the technology is a very long way off. It will not get here in time to ease anthropogenic climate change or an energy crisis in the short term.
Is that not clear enough? Do I need to adjust it?
I have some experience working with solar cell arrays, and also stirling engines coupled to parabolic mirrors. I'm glad to see that the technologies are being developed.
I've talked to a lot of guys in the field. They seem to have a completely different outlook. I've heard nothing but "odds are high".
It's uncertain whether economically viable fusion power is possible. (It's always been a couple of decades away.)
And they've never had the funding. The guys at princeton's plasma laboratory has spent a lot of time documenting the extent of inaction and feet dragging:
http://fire.pppl.gov/
So I don't buy this "always a couple decades away" argument. It's extremely misleading.
Europe has been much more supportive of fusion energy research than the U.S. In the EU, almost € 10 billion was spent on fusion research up to the end of the 90s. Also, the €10 billion ITER magnetic fusion reactor planned to be built in France is merely proof-of-concept. It won't actually be used to generate electricity. A couple of Nobel Laureate physicists think ITER won't work.
fair enough. But this doesn't discredit them by itself.
Also, the €10 billion ITER magnetic fusion reactor planned to be built in France is merely proof-of-concept. It won't actually be used to generate electricity.
I covered this already.
A couple of Nobel Laureate physicists think ITER won't work.
Yes, I've familiar with the papers that came out in the 90's but they were rebutted. If there are newer papers let me know. I guess the critical question is what is the consensus among those that don't have a conflict of interest and are up to date with the current tech. The emeritus William Gray is an icon of early weather forcasting but his views on global warming are just plain nonsense. His most recent attempt at a paper violated several laws of physics. All this is why he can't get anything published and he's had memberships to conferences revoked. You really have to know your sources. If you have any published peer-review papers denouncing fusion please share.
"Inside ITER, the fusion reaction produces high energy neutrons, of 14 MeV... Although scientists have already experienced the manipulation of low energy neutrons, these 14 MeV neutrons are totally new and at the present time, nobody knows how to manipulate them".
Highly energetic neutrons will be slowed by collisions with the reactor housing, releasing damaging gamma-ray energy, and eventually reducing the neutrons' energy. These low energy neutrons can be captured by nuclei, making them radioactive. Thus, the generation of intense fluxes of high energy neutrons is likely to damage the reactor housing and make it radioactive. Apparently, one of the purposes of ITER is to investigate this. If the materials problem is severe, it could dim the future prospects of fusion power. If we achieve fusion but the neutron flux destroys the containment materials and makes it highly radioactive, it would be a much less attractive or "clean" alternative.
No future for fusion power, says top scientist
I found Parkins article in science. It references papers from 1976 and 1991. I will have to look into this further as this may be the "resurfacing of the rebutted papers from the 90's" I've heard about from physicists I know. Right or wrong I should probably take it off or make a seperate list as my goal is "low or even medium hanging fruit".
thanks for the headsup.
An argument this well sourced belongs in the whitehouse, not the oildrum.
We should also be very heavily gearing up renewable electricity generation on the micro to medium scale, doing much more distributed generation. Much more conservation and similar 'good' habits, too. There is lots we should and must do, and could do.
But my guess is time has probably run out for our current population / energy / food production / economics model. Given the path we have taken we needed fusion generation of electricity to be ready for widespread commercial deployment by now. We have probably missed the boat by 50 years. Ultimately it may result in a decent solution for our species and this planet but in the short to medium term (next 5 to 50 years) the implications are not good for humans, we will probably need to 'lose' between 20% and 80% of our population before too long.
Does easily means cheaply? quickly?
What is the EROEI of each?
Could any be working and FULLY DEPLOYED 5 years from now?
Some of these are expected to be cost competitive with coal.
Could any be working and FULLY DEPLOYED 5 years from now?
Well australia and china are building #19 Tower of Power right now. #22 Dirty Silicon is working NOW. #25 E3 Biodiesel is being built NOW and is endorsed by Robert Rapier. #9 Hydraulic Hybrid Truck could be employed NOW. Just read the list.
What we need is supercaps or solid state batteries. Those would make oil very old, very clumsy, very slow and very expensive tech. Even if we got 10% of the nation going electric on "OK" batteries that would alleviate a tremendous amount of pressure on the oil market. But we really don't have that much time left so we have to start very soon.
Yes.
When will it happen?
That's anyone's guess.
(but i'd say right about now...money has been flowing heavily out of commodities...soon it will flow out of stocks as well...into bonds and cash)
Read Item #7.
http://www.rgemonitor.com/blog/roubini/143257/
Here's a snippet from it.
<<<
As bad as the above numbers look, the thinking behind them is worse:
"Lenders have encouraged people to use the appreciation in value of their houses as collateral for an unaffordable loan, an idea similar to the junk bonds being pushed in the late 1980s. The concept was to use the company you were taking over as collateral for the loan you needed to take over the company in the first place. The implosion of that idea caused the 1989 mini-crash.
Now the house is the bank's collateral for the questionable loan. But what happens if the value of the house starts to drop?"
A good example of how this is unfolding at lending institutions comes from Washington Mutual: You may recall Washington Mutual laid off 2500 employees in their mortgage broker department earlier this year. As LTV went above 100%, and then as property values decayed from recent peaks, the collateralized aspect of these mortgages suddenly is at risk.
Here's how this has played out over the past few years via WaMu's ARM loans (data via Washington Mutual's annual report):
- 2003 year end, 1% of WaMu's option ARMS were in negative amortization (payments were not covering interest charges, so the shortfall was added to principal).
- 2004, the percentage jumped to 21%.
- 2005, the percentage jumped again to 47%. By value of the loans, the percentage was 55%.
So each month, the borrowers' debt increases; Note there is no strict disclosure requirement for negative amortization -- Banks do not have an affirmative obligation to disclose this to mortgagees.Thus, a large part of our housing system have become credit cards. And according to Witter, "WaMu's situation is the norm, not the exception."
Even worse, Witter notes that negative amortization is booked by the banks as earnings. "In Q1 2005, WaMu booked $25 million of negative amortization as earnings; in the same period for 2006 the number was $203 million."
This situation is unsustainable. Witter's housing and market forecast is rather bearish:
"Negative amortization and other short-term loans on long-term assets don't work because eventually too many borrowers are unable to pay the loans down -- or unwilling to keep paying for an asset that has declined in value relative to their outstanding balance. Even a relatively brief period of rising mortgage payments, rising debt and falling home values will collapse the system. And when the housing-finance system goes, the rest of the economy will go with it.
By the release of the August housing numbers, it should become clear that the housing market is beginning a significant decline. When this realization hits home, investors will finally have to confront the fact that they are gambling on people who took out no-money-down, interest-only, adjustable-rate mortgages at the top of the market and the financial institutions that made those loans. The stock market should then begin a 25%-30% decline. If the market ignores the warning signs until fall, the decline could occur in a single week."
JC
In all politically-incorrect honesty I think the biggest problem that most people have with public transportation is loud and impolite behaviour of certain lower class members of society. If you have ever been on an urban metro bus you know what I'm talking about. People screaming at the top of their lungs at each other, running around, spray painting graffiti, talking way way too loud, smelling badly, being dressed in gangster outfits, acting in a fashion of a very mentally ill person or someone under the influence of illegal drugs.
If they made you get a membership to participate in public transportation and could revoke it for illegal or grossly inconsiderate behaviour I think you'd see a lot more adoption. Even with all these incoveniences, public transportation gets quite a bit of use in my area.
6 years ago wasn't oil at $10 a barrel? Now it's ~$80. Since then the EIA has said "production plateau" and China is getting ready to open their oil markets. A nickel per gallon is the least of our worries. We need to get off of oil and we can do it. These technologies will solve global warming, go a long way to fight terrorism, help our economy, eliminate the largest contributor to our national debt, and on and on and on...... Lets not forget global warming which is a much bigger problem then people realize.
An apollo program would cost a fraction of the war on drugs. We give larger tax breaks to oil companies then we spend on alternative energy. Seriously, our countries treatment of basic energy science is a joke.
How come I never hear of this proposal to combat global warming?
- Creation of artificial (early) ice in the arctic ocean by pumping sea-water through snow cannons.
- Chopping down all the threes in Siberia in order to keep the snow from thawing in spring.
- Releasing or in other ways making available, nutrients in the sea, in order to facilitate algae growth that will absorb CO2.
- Launching some kind of solar shade.
- Releasing particles, in practice SOx, into the atmosphere to increase global dimming. (This was tried during the 60s and 70s and worked. Wouldn't it be nice to have to deal with the acid rain problem all over again?)
Did I overlook any suggestions?Anyway, once you're done painting the roofs white, please start on all the asphalt roads.
Asking the Tooth Fairy.
Has ANYONE put numbers on your "suggestions".
Looks like we have a small new contingent of singularitarians coming at TOD.
The good side is that singularitarians are somewhat "creative" the bad side is that they NEVER run the slightest numerical modelling of the energy/entropy balance for their pie-in-the-sky ideas.
NO.. and they aren't my suggestions..
I was just pointing out what pie-in-the-sky ideas people have come up with for offsetting GW rather than trying to stop the increase in CO2-levels.
Of course, the reason they have never made it past pie-in-the-sky ideas is the fact that they're either hideously expensive or has the potential for ecologic/environmental devastation.
This is why I wonder if and how Jevons' paradox kicks in. I mean, this convenient solution to CO2 emission reductions makes perfect sense, but what if it means that more Chinese will be able to drive cars at relatively low cost ?
You do have to set a good example. Right now, we are the worst example on the planet. And I'm not sure burning all that carbon has really improved Quality of Life or Happiness in the US.
I'm surer than ever that our political system cannot grasp the urgency of the GW/PO confluence and we have to prepare at a personal level.
Could be sensible way to reduce trucking intown, wear on NYC streets, pollution in town and in general, efficiency boost, use of space. It would take some building out of the stations or alternate stations, etc, but could be great.
Bob Fiske
I hope this is an appropriate thread to ask a question of westexas, or any refinery expert:
Airlines consume about 10% of world pertroleum output, no?
If the world were to get serious about confronting peak oil, it seems that it would make sense to sacrafice at least 90% of the airline industry and redirect its fuel to more essential uses.
Question: Since airliners basically burn kerosene, would the world be left with surplus kerosene, or could refineries reformulate that output as gasoline and diesel?
(May G_d strike me dead if I don't keep my posts few, brief, and high-value ('gulp')).
But, the main problem is too many people. I'm 54, andd when I was born the Earth had about 2 billion people, and only about 10% of them lived in countries that had much consumption of fossil fuels for transportation. Now we have 6.5 billion and a couple of billion aspire to the Western lifestyle.
Let's stop the insanity! I had a vasectomy after one child, and I suggest the world would be much better off if we all did the same.
http://Cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2j.html.
astronomer1
I encourage people to continue working on the micro-policies (I'm slowly working on a few myself), but I think that the make-or-break policy needs to be pushed as well.
Thats where the technology discussion gets really distracting and draws attention to a sort of holy grail gizmo solution. Thats one reason why you can't put together a political economic program that works and both political parties are running in the opposite direction, lowering fuel taxes.
You should completely decouple the discussion politically from "solutions" to taxes. It doesn't really matter what you use the taxes for taxes themselves decrease demand. But in the end the higher fuel prices will have a negative effect on consuption. The higher prices for oil by themselves will be good for the "alternatives", whatever they are, wind, solar, green buildings.
But it has not been a good sale politically, and you need to sell taxes politically, the rest is all just distraction.
To sell taxes politically it should be coupled with National Health Insurance. Something like, Medicare for everyone. Pay for it with carbon taxes. Hell the carbons do enough damage to your health.