The Energy Oath: In Production and Use Do Good or No Harm

“The physician must be able to tell the antecedents, know the present, and foretell the future — must mediate these things, and have two special objects in view with regard to disease, namely, to do good or to do no harm.”  Hippocrates.

He said this in Of the Epidemics written in 400 B.C.E as opposed to the Hippocratic Oath to which it is more widely attributed.

Regardless of its origin, “to do good or to do no harm” is an excellent maxim to follow with respect to the production and use of energy, which is fundamental to the quality of modern life, or for that matter virtually any enterprise.

Increasingly it is becoming clear that in our extraction, production, transportation and utilization of existing energy sources that are in the main finite we are doing considerable harm to our environment.

As the following Wikipedia diagram shows our renewable energy options are extensive and our global consumption modest by comparison. Even if we were to quadruple our current consumption in order to provide all 10 billion people on the planet by 2050 the level of energy prosperity we in the developed world are used to.

Clearly solar power is the most abundant. As Wikipedia points out, almost all of our energy comes from the Sun; the exceptions being tidal, nuclear and geothermal power.

Wind comes from the uneven heating of the earth’s surface, and can provide about 1% of the energy that is available from solar power.

Solar power is more predictable than wind but more variable considering it is not available at night and limited by cloud cover. Nevertheless the Scientific American article A Path to Sustainable Energy By 2030 suggests that at least 580 TW of solar power can be produced.

Thermal energy and pumped energy storage have been suggested as ways to overcome the intermittence of wind and solar.

Global warming is the most significant consequence of current energy use and as the following graphic indicates is a problem of thermal energy storage, mostly in the world’s oceans.

Logic dictates therefore that it is this excess energy that we should be depleting by putting it to productive use or at least moving to a location where it can do the least damage.

The consequence of upper ocean heat storage are; thermal expansion and sea level rise, the melting of polar icecaps leading to more sea level rise, increased concentrations of water vapour in the atmosphere, which arguably leads to more intense storms, and potentially catastrophic temperature increases of as much as 4^oC by the end of this century.

We can do good for the planet by converting some of the upper ocean energy to at least as much power as we derive from fossil fuels by the process of ocean thermal energy conversion and in the process move about 20 times more heat into the deep ocean that has both a great capacity to absorb heat as well as a coefficient of expansion less than at the surface. Not only is sea level rise reduced as a consequence so too is the intensity and possibly the frequency of tropical storms.

In his 2006 State of the Union Address, George W. Bush stated, “America is addicted to oil.”

All addictions are destructive.

A pledge to stay sober for today is a common refrain amongst addicts. The rationale is; if I stay sober today, I don’t have to drink for the rest of my life because it’s always today.

Getting off fossil fuels will not be easy. Weaning ourselves day by day is the only way we will get to where we need to be but for every terawatt we get rid we will have to find two to four times as many terawatts from sustainable sources.

Energy is hugely important as is its impact on the next nine most significant problems we face.

There are not however that many ways to do good while producing energy so we must start maximizing the impact of those that are available to us as rapidly as possible.

It is long past time we took the pledge to do good AND do no harm as we produce and use the energy we need!

Energy Collective

14 Comments on "The Energy Oath: In Production and Use Do Good or No Harm"

Makati1 on Sat, 11th Jan 2014 3:20 pm 



Techie dreams…

J-Gav on Sat, 11th Jan 2014 4:20 pm 



Is this total BS or is it just my imagination?

rockman on Sat, 11th Jan 2014 5:16 pm 



Dreams for sure. But dreaming can lead to big changes. But only when such dreams are applied. Which is almost universally ignored in the solution propositions. It’s really easy to come up with theoretical solutions. But it appears that little or no thought is given to how to get the population and govt’s to implement these changes.

To be honest it’s becoming a point of irritation with me. It seems many of these “solution designers” think that once they offer a path forward the job is over. Climate solutions are not a technical problem but a policy problem. As I just outlined in another post the very dominant policy ruling the world today is expanding the extraction of fossil fuel energy for the sake of expanding or at least stabilizing economies.

Before any technical solution can be applied to any significant degree some method of changing the policy goals of the vast majority of the planet’s inhabitants has to be devised. Telling folks they are doing the wrong thing appears to be ineffective at best and counter productive at worse.

There’s the real challenge: changing the primary goal of the vast majority of the world. And today it seems nearly insurmountable.

Twin Performance on Sat, 11th Jan 2014 6:15 pm 



As we need fossil fuels in the production of such magnificent energy capturing devices…. this leads us where exactly.. hypocritical really. You bombast oil companies large reserve numbers but green tech idealists are guilty of the same sin. If it is so big and will provide costless energy then why isn’t it implemented?

GregT on Sat, 11th Jan 2014 6:36 pm 



“It is long past time we took the pledge to do good AND do no harm as we produce and use the energy we need!”

The only energy that we ever ‘needed’, was provided to us naturally by the Sun. All man made sources of ‘energy’ generation, cause ‘harm’ to the Earth’s natural bio-systems.

It is long past time we took the pledge to do good AND do no harm, and return back to living within the natural confines of the Earth. The longer we continue to pursue human ‘technology’, the worse the consequences will be, for all life on this planet.

rollin on Sat, 11th Jan 2014 6:54 pm 



The radiative imbalance is closer to 2 watts per meter squared not 0.75.

The available energy is huge, however the dark and sinister forces connected with fossil fuels and BAU will never admit it or allow a large implementation of this energy source.

Arthur on Sat, 11th Jan 2014 9:56 pm 



The energy potential is there, has nothing to do with ‘techie dreams’. And many techie dreams come true.

So, and now tap on the submit button and the entire world can read this message.

Jamie DeVriend on Sat, 11th Jan 2014 10:44 pm 



I think that right now, we have a sort of Catch-22 when it comes to producing the solar equipment and then providing the benefit to others. If we continue to invest in the technology, however, and make solar use the norm instead of an “alternative”, we’ll see its production also become less of an impact on our environment.

Makati1 on Sun, 12th Jan 2014 1:09 am 



Arthur, many techie dreams turn out to be nightmares. Name one not used for war or control of humans? Most of them had their birth in military/government funded labs. Even the first metal working was used for weapons.

Techie dreams are killing the earth and all that is on it. Seems it is more like devil worship than that of a saving god.

Makati1 on Sun, 12th Jan 2014 1:13 am 



Jamie, solar panel systems cannot exist without oil burning in huge quantities to mine/manufacture/instal/maintain and replace them. At best, they may extend civilization a few years, but they too will die when the last one wears out.

You cannot manufactur a complicated technical system with dirt roads, sailing ships and hand shovels.

Kenz300 on Sun, 12th Jan 2014 1:40 am 



Wind, solar, wave energy, geothermal and second generation biofuels made from algae, cellulose and waste are the future.

PapaSmurf on Sun, 12th Jan 2014 1:43 am 



Makati1, this drivel gets old. You are completely in the fetal position. Doesn’t it get old being wrong all of the time?

Rich on Sun, 12th Jan 2014 9:12 am 



Can you show what global consumption would have to be to power the global manufacturing process necessary to build the energy upconvertors required to concentrate the diffuse solar radiation into forms that industrial society (only) can consume?

Or – remove your graphic – as it is profoundly misleading.

J.R. on Sun, 12th Jan 2014 6:26 pm 



“Global warming is the most significant consequence of current energy use and as the following graphic indicates is a problem of thermal energy storage, mostly in the world’s oceans.”

Not so. Global warming is the most significant consequence of POPULATION GROWTH. This in turns has escalated energy demands.

No point in trying to solve energy consumption if you don’t do something radical about population. You will wind up exactly where we already are.