The Energy Thread

I mean humanity destroys ecosystems. we build cities, etc. it's kinda what we do. you can attempt to manage it as best as possible, but let's not pretend like there's some entirely benign way to run human civilization.

Giant mirrors in the desert. It's proven and it works. Why isn't this being done NOW in the Chihuahua desert, the Sahara, Mexico, Gobi, etc? I don't remember the stat but it's something ridiculous like an area the size of Rhode Island filled with these things could store up enough electricity to power the entire world. I suspect the answer has to do with batteries and distribution but fuckin come on.

um that very prospect is discussed few posts up

lawsuits!

environmental impact studies!

tortoises!

Big oil!

Big coal, I meant

uuuuuuuuugh

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced yesterday an enormous expansion in coal mining that threatens to increase U.S. climate pollution by an amount equivalent to more than half of what the United States currently emits in a year.

In other words, despite his administration's rhetorical embrace of clean energy, Obama is effectively using modest wind and solar investments as cover for a broader embrace of dirty fuels. It's the same strategy BP, Chevron, and other major polluters use: tout modest environmental investments in multi-million dollar PR campaigns, while putting the real money into fossil fuel development.

jesus fuck

I'm sure the atmosphere will understand that it was a political move.

And once again, for this unprompted giveaway, Obama gets........????

"Maybe THIS time the republicans will love me!"

I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt te first few times, but this is just psychotic

Fucking COME ON

I don't see how he gains from this at all, other than perhaps stabilizing energy prices?

probably has inside info about peak oil

Incremental coal will be exported to China via a new port being developed at Cowlitz County, Washington. The chief competition from cheap natural gas has made export markets more attractive for coal.

This of course means that even if the U.S. went on a carbon diet its global effect would be neutralized if someone else just emitted our carbon.

Obama was made aware of PO during his presidential campaign, McCain was aware during the late 90s, advisors to George W. were aware (though maybe not W himself). Every national politician remembers what happened to Carter and simply hopes it happens after their term. I expect unprecedented numbers not seeking reelection in 2014.

thinking about this makes me want to go on a Leaving Las Vegas downward spiral.

He's either ignorant or he cares more about getting reelected than the misery of 100s of millions of people. Either one makes voting for Obama in 2012 painful. So sad that th alternative (republican) will be so much worse, somehow. Good luck planet.

MIT unveils sweet new artificial leaf tech.

Obama sets insufficient goals, defines clean coal, nuclear, natural gas as "clean energy", and promotes an increase in domestic fossil fuel production

Booooooooooooo!

fact sheet here, which leads with a nice discussion about expanding oil and gas production.

I don't think this is all bad but it's a far cry from all good lol

would love to see some actual "clean coal" lol. bugs the shit out of me how people talk about it like it's a real, operative thing (and often giving short shrift to actual working renewable technologies in the process) rather than a pipe dream

a la "solar will never generate enough power to meet demannd - BUT HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT HOW AWESOME THIS HYPOTHETICAL THING CALLED CLEAN COAL IS?????"

No excitement over the artificial leaf?

is that the same thing that was written up in Discover? I was into it, but it hardly seemed ready-to-market or anything

I don't think this is all bad but it's a far cry from all good lol

The problem is that unless we rapidly shift to "all good", (and manage to convince future presidents to stay with the all good plan) we are fucked.

As usual, David Roberts is right:

The paucity of imagination shown by Obama's list is just dismally
depressing. It's telling that he says nothing of electric cars, rail
infrastructure, public transit, smart growth, congestion pricing, a gas
tax, bicycles, or simple conservation. He is choosing fare straight from
the barren cupboard of Beltway conventional wisdom, contenting himself
with the tepid "center" of a conversation dominated by the interests of
plutocrats.

Stupid iPhone formatting, sorry

would love to see some actual "clean coal" lol. bugs the shit out of me how people talk about it like it's a real, operative thing (and often giving short shrift to actual working renewable technologies in the process) rather than a pipe dream

I don't know too much about clean coal or carbon capture and sequestration, but I do know that, though they are a long way off, they're being considered very seriously by utilities and coal companies.

Obama's speech was pretty disappointing, but there were some highlights. For instance, he plainly said that oil was going to run out. Sure, he didn't say we were hitting peak production, but as far as a political speech goes, he stepped out front on some things. He did speak at length about electric cars and high-speed rail, as well. And I do appreciate him stressing the insignificance of off-shore drilling, as it relates to oil prices. I guess this is classic triangulation, trying to appease republicans. I don't know that it will work, but I think he's got a better plan than previous Presidents.

Regardless, all the progressive work is happening at the state and city level. I work in this field and have been impressed by the forward movement in cities around the country.

just throwing this out there to see what you all think. it really seems like the political strategy of the environmental movement for the last few decades - relying on the big name groups to make progress (sierra club, EDF, NRDC, etc) - has totally failed. i pretty much agree with 350.org's perspective:

Not for forty years has there been such a stretch of bad news for environmentalists in Washington.

Last month in the House, the newly empowered GOP majority voted down a resolution stating simply that global warming was real: they’ve apparently decided to go with their own versions of physics and chemistry.

This week in the Senate, the biggest environmental groups were reduced to a noble, bare-knuckles fight merely to keep the body from gutting the Clean Air Act, the proudest achievement of the green movement. The outcome is still unclear; even several prominent Democrats are trying to keep the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.

And at the White House? The president who boasted that his election marked the moment when ‘the oceans begin to recede’ instead introduced an energy plan heavy on precisely the carbon fuels driving global warming. He focused on ‘energy independence,’ a theme underscored by his decision to open 750 million tons of Wyoming coal to new mining leases. That’s the equivalent of running 3,000 new power plants for a year.

i'm curious about what everyone here thinks about the likelihood of big green groups succeeding vs grassroots action. does one outweigh the other? are they both necessary? is one useless? are we all doooooooooooooomed

I think EDF, NRDC, and the big environmental groups have done solid work, but I don't how much of a real impact they make. I feel the same way about many of the grassroots efforts. They do a great job at rallying support from liberals and young people, but they aren't trusted in the business community and they don't actually do a good job at lobbying the government. I have serious issues with Shellenberger, Nordhaus and the Breakthrough Institute, but I agree with much of their Death of Environmentalism (and it's recent update). I don't think enviros should entirely abandon messaging about climate change, but they need to get smarter about where the opportunities are. People gravitate to the idea of energy independence and businesses are very inclined to embrace energy efficiency (if taught how to do it effectively). EDF has been trying to build up a stronger business-focused arm, and they've done a good job, but they'll never have the trust or large corporations.

Don't get me wrong. I believe that policy is necessary to really make this stuff happen. But it's not happening any time soon. Until all this tea party hysteria dies down, enviros should take a different angle. And grassroots organizations need to learn the industries they're trying to shift. Whenever I go to a "greendrinks" or some event like that, I'm amazed at how little the grassroots crowd knows. I don't pretend to be a genius, but it doesn't surprise me now that we are as far away from a real energy policy as ever. But I also think the Obama administration carries a bit of the blame as well.

enviros should take a different angle. along these lines, David Roberts had a recent piece that generated a fair amount of attention:

...So here's my proposal:

First, green groups abandon the pretense that they are nonpartisan education groups. It's a legacy model that makes no sense in current circumstances. The Republican Party has officially and irredeemably aligned itself against public health and a clean energy economy. That's not greens' fault -- it's part of a process of the parties ideologically clarifying that's been going on for decades -- but it is what it is. No sense pretending otherwise. That means shifting lots and lots of resources out of 501(c)3's and into 501(c)4's and PACs.

Then, green groups all contribute to a common electoral fund. Build up, say, $300 million or so. Be public and explicit about what the money is for: not ads, not canvassing, not clever websites, nothing except primarying the next Dem who f*cks with them on a big priority issue like EPA climate regs. It's just a big, loaded primary gun.

And then ... use it. Take somebody out. My personal suggestion would be the loathsome Joe Manchin. Or if that's too big a target to begin with, start smaller, with a few state attorneys general, mayors, even school board members. Collect some wins and work up the food chain.

To respond to a few predictable objections: Yes, there are some cases, perhaps even many, in which a primary challenge would weaken the Dem and allow a Republican challenger to win. So be it. Remember, the Tea Party sacrificed several winnable seats in the midterms (see: Christine O'Donnell). In return, they got an astounding degree of fealty from Republican lawmakers, who now live in terror of them. They have become the tail wagging the dog. It doesn't take many high-profile hit jobs for that lesson to sink in.

key to any discussion of global energy supply/demand in this century:

UN Population forecast bumped up to 10.1 billion by 2010, 9.3 billion by 2050

10.1B by 2100.

So we increase by 3 billion in 40 yrs, but only 1 billion in the next 50? That sounds like the carrying capacity of planet earth makes itself known in latter half of the century.

Actually, the giant caveat with the UN estimate is that it assumes that massive food shortages, climate change, etc, won't have an effect on population. Instead, the gradual leveling off comes from declining fertility rates as a result of improving economies.

And whoops, just saw my typo, should be 10.1 billion by 2100, not 2010

what the people writing those articles don't always let on is that the population itself is just a number, and is not positive or negative per se. as this thread has consistently shown, it is consumption, not population, that is the problem. a discourse of 'look at african/asian population growth rates! how will we all cope!' fundamentally misses the point: that overpopulation is brought about when a population's consumption far exceeds its available resources. there are enough resources that can provide for consumption in the developing world many times over without compromising the global ecosystem - the problem is with the parts of the world that are consuming significantly more than what's required, while dictating the economic terms by which developing countries are(n't) able to provide for their populations

panic about growth rates in the third world strikes me as being driven by a particularly nasty strain of selfish hypocrisy, with a side-order of quasi-racist oxygen-fear

I just learned about this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountaintop_removal_mining

and it's like, damn...

panic about growth rates in the third world strikes me as being driven by a particularly nasty strain of selfish hypocrisy, with a side-order of quasi-racist oxygen-fear

^^^OTFM> arguments about the "threat" of overpopulation drive me up the wall. the real issue is resource management, not the number of people.

also - people have been trying to stop mountaintop removal mining for years

it's hardly a new thing. back in the late 19th century in CA, mining companies would literally just blast entire mountains away with water cannons and then sift through the rubble for the shit they wanted, letting everything else just wash away. quality resource mgmt there guys...

...and then there was the 19th century proposal to burn down lots and lots of forest in patterns to bring more rain to the Midwest. Sheesh.

I'm hiring again. I need a process engineer, manufacturing engineer and an Electrical engineer (we're also looking for an accountant, and manufacturing techs). Contact me through the email link and I'll send details.

can i just

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/06/09/behind-big-fight-at-opec/

Oil prices may rocket around for a while, due to tensions in the Mideast. That's what happened in the Arab oil embargo of 1973 and 1974, slapped on this country after the U.S.'s support of Israel in the seven-day war. Oil prices soared higher after the Iranian revolution in 1979, and a year later after war broke out between Iraq and Iran the next year.

Saudi Arabia, the central bank of oil, may win the fight here, which means lower gas prices. Saudi Arabia has the spare capacity to pump, an estimated 4.5 million extra barrels a day.

No one really knows what Saudi Arabia's estimated spare capacity is. Fox says 4.5 million, the NYT article the other says "2.5 million to 3 million". Others would argue for a lower figure, particularly the late Matt Simmons, who suggested that Saudi reserves were overestimated and that production would peak soon. Simmons also joined a chorus of other people who are critical of the cloak of secrecy surrounding reserve figures in OPEC countries, and their unreliability. This is a fossil fuel that's pretty much the cornerstone of modern life, and OPEC countries are clearly making shit up when it comes to reported reserves.

There's a good discussion of this here: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7149

According to the BP statistical review of world energy 2010, the big six Middle East OPEC oil producers (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Unite Arab Emirates (UAE) and Qatar) had 743 billion barrels (Gbs) of proved oil reserves (1P) between them, representing 56% of reported proved global oil reserves. Knowledge of this bounty provides OECD governments with much comfort. The trouble is there is no chance these figures are correct.

http://www.theoildrum.com/files/MEOPEC_booked_1P.png

would be very curious to see what sanpaku/others have to say about that

lol at that graph

reserves just keep getting bigger and bigger! peak oil is a myth!

actually, i posted it w/ nearly complete disregard for her analysis. it's the most poorly written thing ive ever seen posted on major website, it's hilarious.

reax in office:
"i almost feel sorry for her having that under her byline."
"dude, she was an editor at forbes and works at foxnews business. i wouldn't feel bad if she keeled over stomping grapes."