[Carlhole]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'Y')ou can even shovel in those old electric meters you won't be needing.

[Pops]

Come on carl and p for once try to stay away from the ad homs and useless tit for tat.

Mr X (whoever he may be ) even broke down and guessed it would take a 70s style shortage to prompt the .gov to be able to convince the .pubs and .rats to really swing together and make the huge changes that are needed. Not to bring in too much politics but a large number of people think the POTUS is a foreign born Muslim and Al Gore will profit personally from people "believing" in global warming so I'm not sure even odd/even fillups and gas lines would do any more than stoke the divisiveness.

Personally I think we need to change the demand more than the supply but that's not the point. What is the point is we will burn it till it's gone, when the price hits whatever the pain threshold we'll eliminate a few more jobs (notice I didn't say lay people off - eliminate) and retrench till the next uptick.

How many renewables projects were completed last year compared to this?

[ian807]

While we're on the topic of solution to the power problems, here are a few you rarely hear about:

1) Conservation and efficiency. How much energy would we save if every building in the world was build 1 foot thicker with insulation. How about every refrigerator? How about low-e glass for windows everywhere? Conservation and efficiency aren't sexy, but they'll give us immediate payback.

2) Electrify the transportation sector. Trains, buses, trucks with batteries or just plain old wires like the trolleys in San Francisco or light rail in Houston. Oil is finite. Electricity is less so.

3) Fully exploit small-scale hydroelectric power everywhere it makes sense. Thousands of small dams are cheap and easy technology. This can be done without creating an environmental disaster. We could be harnessing the Mississipi, for example for much of its length. Paddles aren't sexy either, but thousands of them lining the river would produce quite a chunk of sustainable power.

4) Ubiquitous rooftop solar. If the government can shove 700 billion or so at the banking system, I'm pretty sure we can spare a few billion for the equivalent of latter-day rural electrification.

5) Ocean based stirling engines designed to exploit the temperature difference between the surface and deep water.

6) Geothermal energy. Very practical in some parts of the country like Washington State or Montana.

The problem of course is that none of these is economically feasible now. To prepare for the future, we'd have to think ahead of, and outside of, the economic box of the profit motive. From all appearances, this is possible in China, but not in the USA.

[Carlhole]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'T')HERE IS NO WAY A CASH-STRAPPED POPULACE OR A SUPPLY-SIDE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO FUND YOUR PIPE DREAMS.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ian807', '
')
4) Ubiquitous rooftop solar. If the government can shove 700 billion or so at the banking system, I'm pretty sure we can spare a few billion for the equivalent of latter-day rural electrification.

[Carlhole]

Prescription For The Planet lays out facts and a big, global energy recommendation. James Hanson has recommended the book. I'm about 100-pages into it and not into the meat of it. Later, I write my review and thoughts.


From Nuclear Green
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') don’t agree with Blees’ dismissal of the conclusion of most energy experts that there is no ‘silver bullet’; they argue that we need a mix of technologies. Blees sees a ‘depleted uranium bullet’ that could easily provide all of our needs for electrical energy for hundreds of years. His argument is fine for pointing out that existing nuclear material contains an enormous amount of energy (if we extract it all, rather than leaving >99% in a very long-lived waste heap), but I still think that we need a range of energy sources. Renewable energies and nuclear power are compatible: they both need, or benefit from, a low-loss grid, as it is more acceptable to site nuclear plants away from population centers, and nuclear energy provides base-load power, complementing intermittent renewables.

BTW, nuclear plants being proposed for construction now in the U.S. are 3rd generation (the ones in operation are mostly 2nd generation). The 3rd generation reactors are simplified (fewer valves, pumps and tanks), but they are still thermal pressurized reactors that require (multiple) emergency cooling systems. France is about to replace its aging 2nd generation reactors with the European Pressurized Reactor (EPR); a prototype is now being built in Finland. According to Blees, OECD ranks EPR as the cheapest electric energy source, cheaper than pulverized coal – that evaluation doubtless presumes use of a standard design, a la the French procedure for its 2nd generation reactors. The prototype in Finland, according to reports, is running behind schedule and over budget – that was also true in the prior generation, yet the eventual standard French reactors have been economical. Current efforts to start construction of 3rd generation nuclear plants in the U.S., so far, do not seem to have achieved a standard design or to have avoided project delays (partly due to public opposition) that drive up costs.

Blees argues that the 4th generation technology basically exists, that the design will be simplified, especially due to the absence of a need for emergency cooling systems. He foresees a standard modular construction of the reactor per se, smaller than earlier generations, which can be built at the factory, shipped to the site, and dropped in the prepared excavation. His cost estimates have this nuclear power yielding cheaper electricity than any of the competition. The system is designed to eliminate long-lived nuclear ‘waste’ and minimize proliferation dangers. There is enough fuel available without further uranium mining to handle electricity needs for several centuries, for whatever fraction of electricity needs cannot be covered by renewable energies. If these claims are anywhere close to being correct, we could phase out use of fossil fuels for electricity generation over the next few decades.

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ian807', 'W')hile we're on the topic of solution to the power problems, here are a few you rarely hear about:...
From all appearances, this is possible in China, but not in the USA.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '
')• Even higher CAFE standards/gas guzzler excise tax

• Nationaly required energy specific building code based on CAs Title 24 that gives points for zero cost stuff like reducing north facing glass.

• Change zoning regs to encourage mixed use, higher density - require sidewalks, grey water irrigation, on,on,on

• Make Energy Star the minimum - outlaw anything less. I guess you could give a rebate based on income.

[Carlhole]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '.').. while we squabble over which color we want for our our model of Mr Fusion® and throw stones at a billion Muslims.

[efarmer]

I think the Carlhole and Pstarr / Pops posts reflect more of a reality gamut that runs from major technical innovation and deployment to the more doomish view of being unable to do much mitigating, while sharing the core principle that it is not a trivial or innocuous process.

The original post seemed to be based on the old market model of replacing any commodity that gets too expensive or in permanently limited supply with an equivalent after a period of adjustment.
I guess I would call that a "resilient BAU" approach. I find this notion simply unbelievable on liquid hydrocarbon fuels or even a revamp of same to a natural gas derived liquid fuel.

The original post style reminds me of our veteran poster Shorty, or the thinking of the same school of thought.

With all the speculators on petroleum in the stock market and elsewhere, I think we have a redundant and easy to spot "Canary in the Coal Mine" indicator, with the Canary getting fat from undulations if he is a good bird and at some point owning high priced futures that unable to be delivered and billed, become almost worthless and ruffle his feathers.

Pops, the one issue I have with Energy Star mandates is that they will be force fed by government lobbying by major appliance manufacturers and mandated for all new houses, any house put on the market to sell, or rental properties that need an occupancy inspection and permit to change tenants.

For people who don't intend to run 40 gallon legacy water heaters, they will have to buy new high tech water heaters to build or buy or occupy and then leave them OFF instead of the old hulk that was there before. I.E. this good idea will be abused to force sales of new appliances on a massive basis in line with standard codes and community standards instead of actual consumer usage patterns or strategies. Same with central air system, stoves, refrigerators, lighting , ...
I am sure many of us know people who aren't going to run a big central air unit on their living space,
but who will have to drop an extra $8,000 to get a brand new, high SEER, unit so they can get permission to occupy their dwelling, and then leave that $8,000 sitting unused as an ornament.

The local governments are going to be all over Green programs that are tied to permitting fees and inspection fees and with new home sales down for a long period to come, they will focus on making the exchange of existing housing or rental space more lucrative under the scenario. In addition to the fees, each new appliance sold will give them a shot at a big chunk of sales tax revenue as well.

[Pops]

I'm a librul ludi, of course I hate 'merica.

---
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'Y')ou must be talking about the resource-rich regions of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. How do you get the notion of a "Mr Fusion®" out of that?

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '
')Cripes, 8,592 posts and I haven't come up with a fresh idea yet!

[Outcast_Searcher]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ian807', '
')4) Ubiquitous rooftop solar. If the government can shove 700 billion or so at the banking system, I'm pretty sure we can spare a few billion for the equivalent of latter-day rural electrification.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Outcast_Searcher', '
')Sorry, but this snarky attitude that the left has that spending CAN'T be the problem for ANY program they advocate just makes my head explode after awhile.

[gaelenb]

You know what would be incredibly useful? Reaction quotations from people in response to Hubbert's prediction of Continental US Peak Oil in 65-70. I bet they were saying much of the same things deniers are saying now, and that would be a knock-down point in the the argument for our side.

[peripato]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ian807', 'I')t's not like there aren't solutions. It's that we don't seem to be implementing solutions in a time-frame that matters to reduce the impact of an oil depletion whose economic and political effects hit us long before we actually "run out" of oil..