Obama - "cheaper electricity with renewables"

Yep, I agree. Even if I believed Obomba (I like that, I hope you don't mind if I steal it) had a firm grasp on the state of the biosphere, and I don't, the outgoing administration has already plundered the national treasury and handed the loot over to the Federal Reserve to divvy up among the finanical elite.

That means Obama is reduced to stealing pennies from the poor, elderly, and sick to pay for any new programs he wishes to persue.  As a result, he will instead focus on a "stimulus package" that will transfer yet more wealth to private investors via corporate entities and any eco programs including energy will be shelved or reduced to token efforts.

M. Spector wrote:

The agrofuels "solution" only turns the energy crisis into a food crisis, as arable land is diverted from food production to ethanol production.

Agrofuels are a disaster.  I don't know any measure by which the idea to use agrofuels has been successful. 

M. Spector wrote:

 

And if you believe cheaper electricity is on the way, then I have a nice bridge I know you'll be interested in buying.

That is correct.  Greener energy is going to be a lot more expensive. 

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

Quote:

Energy-Secretary-Designate Steven Chu told a Senate Committee on Tuesday that the incoming administration would have an increased commitment to alternative energy sources like solar, wind and geothermal, but also made clear coal and nuclear would be part of the energy mix....

Chu was questioned closely by Republican and Democratic committee members about the new administration's plans for nuclear and coal. Chu said in a public lecture last year, available on YouTube, that coal was his "worst nightmare."

"That quote is ricocheting around the Internet," Chu said. "The context was whether we will continue using coal as we do today . . . that is a pretty bad dream."...

The U.S. has immense stores of coal, and Chu said he was "hopeful and optimistic we can use those resources in a clean way."

The only way to burn coal without increasing the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is to capture it and store it underground, something that's not being done at any of the nation's 450 coal-fired power plants.

As for nuclear power, Chu said that a federal loan program to provide funding to build new nuclear power plants needs to be accelerated, but he acknowledged that finding a way to safely dispose of the waste could be more difficult.

[url=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/260/story/59625.html][color=mediumblue][u]Sou...

Fidel wrote:

As M Spector says though, creating dependence on biofuels is not good for the overall food supply or the environment.

Certainly not biofuels from corn or other grain grown for that purpose instead of food. Ethanol from agricultural waste or biofuels from algae may be considerably better for the environment. One way or another we are going to use much less energy.

And let's not forget the massive amounts of hydroelectric power flowing south from Canada, a net exporter of electrical power to the US. Michael Ignatieff came to the realization fairly recently that most of the power transmission lines along the border are oriented north-south and not inter-provincial in Canada. The most wasteful and most oil-dependent economy in the world needs to practice conservation and efficiency on a much wider scale.

[url=http://socialistworker.org/2011/06/23/case-for-clean-energy]We already have the technology to make fossil and nuclear fuels obsolete[/url]

[excerpt, with emphasis added]

Quote:

Can solar panels in the Southwest really power factories in the Midwest and tens of millions of homes and businesses on the coasts? Won't we need so many windmills that metallic giants will colonize every peak and plain? And what happens when the sun goes down at night or the wind stops blowing--won't we still need a robust back-up system based on the same dirty coal, oil and uranium we are trying to supplant?

It may seem hard to believe, but [b]it is fully within our means today to make the alternative energy dream a green reality. All the technologies exist.[/b] The engineering is relatively straightforward, especially when compared to the epic size of our oil-powered, automobile-based societies. The need is obvious. Unless we want to consign humanity to a broiling, toxic swamp called earth, alternative energy is an imperative.

[b]The tricky part, however, is society and politics. How our society and economy is organized; how wealth and resources are generated and distributed; which institutions have a vested interest in the status quo; and how to create radically different forms of decision making are the major obstacles to greening the global economy.[/b]

The first question is: Are there even enough alternative sources of energy to harvest? Different studies provide the answer.

Last August, Science magazine [url=http://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5993/786.summary]reported[/url] that 101,000 terawatts of solar energy strikes the ground each year. This compares to annual global energy consumption of 15 terawatts for everything: heating, electricity and transport. (One terawatt is a million megawatts, roughly equivalent to the output of 1,200 nuclear power reactors.) Therefore, [b]we only have to capture a little more than 1/10,000th of incoming solar radiation to satisfy all of humanity's energy needs[/b].

Wind energy is not so abundant, but still plentiful. A [url=http://www.nrel.gov/wind/news/2010/816.html]recent report[/url] by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory put the total wind energy available in the United States was 37 million gigawatt hours of electricity, which is 12 times the demand. A [url=http://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/may25/wind-052505.html]2005 study[/url] by Stanford University researchers found worldwide 72 terawatts of "sustainable class 3 winds," meaning they are highly efficient for generating electricity. This estimate, which researchers call conservative, is [b]nearly five times global energy demand[/b].

A comprehensive 2006 report by MIT, [url=http://web.mit.edu/mitei/research/studies/geothermal-energy.shtml]"The Future of Geothermal Energy,"[/url] estimated that [b]if the United States accessed just 2 percent of its geothermal potential, it would amount to 280 times our entire annual consumption[/b]. One recent study carried out at Stanford detailed how 100 percent of California's energy needs could be reliably met by 2020 with a mix of geothermal, solar and wind power alongside existing hydroelectricity.

The [url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-e... 2009 issue of Scientific American[/url] featured another study detailing how to generate 100 percent of the world's energy from renewable sources by 2030. It would require manufacturing 3.8 million large wind turbines and 90,000 solar plants, and deploying geothermal, tidal and rooftop photovoltaic installations. [b]The cost estimate was significantly less than if the same power was generated via fossil fuels and nuclear power. The construction of 3.8 million wind turbines might sound like a lot over a 20-year period, but as 70 million cars are manufactured every year, it is very feasible.[/b]

Clearly, the amount of energy available from solar, wind and geothermal sources, even without adding in tidal and wave energy, dwarfs current and foreseeable demand.

People will get interested pretty quick once the full effects of climate change have settled in.

If the capitalist "solution" of carbon taxes is implemented, utility bills will double before long, so people will be paying much more and not getting the benefit of saving the planet into the bargain.

Besides, the full implementation of renewable energy supply and the substantial discontinuance of fossil and nuclear fuel sources will never happen under the present system. It will require regime change, and for that to happen requires a hell of a lot more commitment on the part of the population than a mere $60 increase in their utility bills.

In addition, a socialist society would have abundant wealth at its disposal to pay for the capital and transition costs of going renewable - wealth that right now is in the private hands of a tiny minority of corporations and individuals, all of it appropriated either from nature or from the labour of the working classes. I wouldn't rule out an actual reduction in renewable utility costs once private profit is removed from the equation.

@ Sven

When you think that people used to build houses here on the prairies with no insulation whatsoever - our house had no insulation until we bought it in 2003 - and that burning barrels and dumping oil changes straight into the sewer was the norm when I was a kid, I think people have adapted to the changing costs and other environmental factors a bit more than you might think. 

Sure there are a lot of hard-nosed people, but it is not all about money, nor has it ever been. Besides, as M. Spector said, the price is going up one way or another. If people don't change, ultimately  they will be changed.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I think people have adapted to the changing costs and other environmental factors a bit more than you might think.

I think there has been a significant increase in awareness and sensitivity to many environmental issues.  I suspect that people litter less, recycle much more, are more conscious of energy-saving appliances, etc.

But, as the annual Gallup poll of Americans' concern about global warming indicates (see 2011 Gallup results), the belief that warnings about the dangers of global warming have been "exaggerated" has actually increased, not decreased, over the years (although they were stable this year relative to 2010).  As Gallup noted:

Quote:

Implications

Americans are clearly less concerned about global warming and its effects than they were a few years ago. While concerns across various Gallup measures did not continue to trend downward this year, they generally held stable near historical lows.

The reasons for the decline in concern are not obvious, though the economic downturn could be a factor. Gallup has shown that environmental concerns tend to take a back seat to economic matters when the economy is in poor shape.

Another possibility is that Americans worry less about environmental concerns under Democratic presidents, who are generally rated higher on environmental protection than Republican presidents.

Additionally, there have been controversies about the integrity of the data and analysis offered by global warming proponents in support of their positions.

The Gallup data do suggest that greater awareness and understanding of the global warming issue do not necessarily result in greater concern about it. The two moved upward in the mid- to late 2000s, but in recent years, concern has fallen as Americans' self-professed understanding has held steady or increased.

In other words, the trend regarding concern for the issue is not favorable.

And, with the world's biggest polluter, China (although not so on a per-capita basis), refusing to even consider any meaningful binding reduction in that country's production of GHGs (same with India, I believe), the prospects for a significant reduction in GHG production any time soon seem remote, at best.

But, the time will soon come when oil becomes so expensive that people will be forced to shift to alternative sources of energy.  I just don't see much evidence of that happening sooner, do you?

It seems to me that big, long-term issues like climate change strike many people as being almost "other-worldly".

For example, the Congressional Budget Office just released its annual report on long-term debt projections.  The CBO is projecting that the debt-to-GDP ratio will be 101% by 2021 and about 150% by 2030 (which is where Greece is today).  And, just seven years later, will have skyrocketed to 200% (and my guess is that the ratios will actually end up being higher than that -- after all, just last year the CBO had projected that the ratio would "only" be 91% in 2021).

Yet, it seems like such an other-worldly non-issue for most people.  It's not affecting them today...so, why worry too much about it?  In the mean time, spending continues to increase significantly, there is no entitlement reform, and taxes are held pretty much static...thus, the gap keeps getting wider and wider.

Eventually, like energy, circumstances will take choice away as an option and people will be forced to deal with the issue -- but with much, much greater pain.

M. Spector, are China's commitments legally binding commitments or merely aspirational commitments?

Well, we'll see if their deeds mirror their words.  But count me a skeptic.

M. Spector wrote:

I only chided you because you claimed China and India  were "refusing to even [i]consider[/i] any meaningful binding reduction in that country's production of GHGs". 

Fair enough.

Now, I'm going to consider flying up in the air around my house for a while....