+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 51
Latest: JUST4TheFACTS
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 14133
Total Topics: 268
Most Online Today: 27
Most Online Ever: 137
(April 21, 2019, 04:54:01 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Author Topic: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Procrastination  (Read 4616 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31121
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Robert F. Kennedy Jr: In the next decade there will be an epic battle for survival for humanity against the forces of ignorance and greed. It’s going to be Armageddon, represented by the oil industry on one side, versus the renewable industry on the other. And people are going to have to choose sides – including politically. They will have to choose sides because oil and coal, they will not be able to survive – they are not going to be able to burn their proven reserves. If they do, then we are all dead. And they are quite willing to burn it. We’re all going to be part of that battle. We are going to watch governments being buffeted by the whims of money and greed on one side, and idealism and hope on the other.

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/06/interview-with-robert-f-kennedy-jr-on-environmental-activism-democratization-of-energy-more/#JSW31ABzPkmZ6PTh.99




ONLY Renewable Energy AND its prudent use can get us from the Baked in left to the Biosphere Harmony right. I know what I want. How about YOU?
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

Eddie

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Put me in the green camp. Oil and coal should be only used to build the next stage of sustainable systems and then conserved for their non-fuel uses.

Nice site, AG, and best of luck. You deserve wide readership.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31121
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Thank you Eddie. I will do my best to provide some food for thought and discussion.

I'm still trying to figure this 'administrator' thing out. I feel like I'm in an aircraft cockpit with my start up checklist but I haven't found the location of the switches, fuel selector valve, throttle and most of the gages.  ???



I'll get it. I'm very stubborn about figuring something out. All this mental exercise will ward off Alzheimers too!  ;D

Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 554
AG, you can vote my proxy on this one. Am with eddie.
Have always enjoyed RFK Jr. and would wish for bigger things for him, except that I am afraid he would then be targeted by the same machine that has removed the Kennedys from the electoral process.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31121
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Than you Surly. We are going to win this, my friends.
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31121
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution

Going All In with Renewable Energy

Is the goal of using 100 percent renewable energy crazy, idealistic or achievable?

 Elisa Wood, Contributing Editor 
 September 27, 2013  |  21 Comments 

After a monster tornado wiped out Greensburg, Kansas in 2007, killing 11 people, the community decided to rebuild with meaning. It set out to become one of the world's greenest communities.

Today the town is among a growing number of jurisdictions that generates all of its electricity from renewable energy.

Greensburg achieved a goal that many see as pie-in-the-sky. Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore several years ago drew jeers from his political critics when he proposed that the U.S. go all green within a decade. The jury remains out about the plausibility of a U.S.-size economy functioning with all renewables anytime soon. But Greensburg, with a population of less than 1,000 people, has demonstrated that it can work on a small scale. Others have done the same, among them Güssing, Austria; King Island, Australia; and Naturstrom, Germany.

It's not just cities with the ambition. Eight nations are 100 percent renewable or moving in that direction: Denmark, Iceland, Scotland, Costa Rica, Maldive Islands, Cook Islands, Tuvalu, and Tokelau. Add 42 cities, 49 regions, 8 utilities and 21 organizations, and going 'all green' looks like a bona fide trend.

Times have changed since the mid-2000s when a group that included the late Hermann Scheer, TIME magazine's 'Hero for the Green Century', first explored the idea. The group formed the Renewables 100 Policy Institute, but in the early years found that the concept was too "bleeding edge" for established non-profits, which declined to sign on.

"Now that is starting to change," said Diane Moss, the institute's founding director. The Renewables 100 Policy Institute held its first international conference in April, drawing a crowd of more than 200 people. The presenters were not from the fringe of the green world, but were representatives of established advocacy organizations, elected officials, corporate executives and the head of the California Independent System Operator Corp.

"If we want to fill our goal on a global scale it is important that regions like California, like Germany or other regions unify together in a movement to 100 renewable," said Harry Lehmann, Director of the German Federal Environment Agency at the conference. "We have to share our experience."

Today, the Renewables 100 Policy Institute is actively supporting the trend and reports on global progress via the Go 100 percent Renewable Energy project it created. An interactive map on the site tracks those pursuing and achieving the all-renewables goal. (The site is the source of the numbers above on how many jurisdictions the movement encompasses.)

full article here (plus some choice comments from yours truly  ;D and Leon Lemoine )


http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/09/going-all-in-with-renewable-energy
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31121
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Proof a one to two Decade Transition To 100% Renewable Energy is DOABLE



The other day, a knowledgeable mechanical engineer I know stated this concern about the colossal challenge and, in his opinion, impossibility of switching to renewable energy machines in time to avoid a collapse from an energy to manufacture and global industrial capacity limitation in our civilizational infrastructure.

He said:

Quote
I admire your enthusiasm, and I agree with many of the points you make. Yes ICE (Internal Combustion Machines) waste high EROEI (energy return on energy invested) consistently, yes fossil fuels and conventional engineering has a warped distorted perspective because of the ICE, and yes we have an oil oligarchy protecting its turf.

However say we hypothetically made all the oil companies dissappear tommorow and where able to suspend the laws of time and implement our favorite renewables of choice and then where tasked with making certain all of societies critical needs were met we'd have a tall order. The devil is in the details and quantities.

Its the magnitudes, it's 21 million barrels per day we are dependent on. Its created massive structural centralization that can only be sustained by incredible energetic inputs. Not enough wind, and not enough rare earth material for PV's to scale and replace. We have to structurally rearrange society to solve the problem. Distributed solar powered villages, not big cities and surely not suburbia. I fear we'll sink very useful resources and capital towards these energy sources (as we arguably have with wind) when the real answer is structural change.

I have shown evidence that there are several multiples of the energy we now consume available just from wind power. This data came from a recent study by Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Scientists.

He thinks we CAN'T do it even if we had enough wind because of the colossal challenge and, in his opinion, impossibility of switching to renewable enrgy machines in time to avoid a collapse from an energy required to manufacture and global industrial capacity limitation in our civilizational infrastructure.

His solution is to survive the coming collapse with small distributed energy systems and a radically scaled down carbon footprint. Sadly, that option will not be available to a large percentage of humanity.

Hoping for a more positive future scenario, I analyzed his concerns to see if they are valid and we have no other option but to face a collapse and a die off with the surviving population living at much lower energy use levels. :P

I'm happy to report that, although the mechanical engineer has just cause to be concerned, we can, in reality, transition to 100% Renewable Energy without overtaxing our civilizational resources.

This a slim hope but a real one based on history and the word's present manufacturing might. Read on.


I give you the logistics aiding marvel of WWII, the Liberty Ship. It was THE JIT (just in time), SIT (sometimes in time) and sometimes NIT (never in time because it was torpedoed) cargo delivery system that helped us win the war.

This was a mass produced ship. These ships are a testament to the ability to build an enormous quantity of machines on a global scale that the U.S. was capable of over half a century ago.

Quote
The Liberty ship model used two oil boilers and was propelled by a single-screw steam engine, which gave the liberty ship a cruise speed of 11 to 11.5 knots. The ships were 441.5 feet long, with a 57 foot beam and a 28 foot draft.



Quote
The ships were designed to minimize labor and material costs; this was done in part by replacing many rivets with welds. This was a new technique, so workers were inexperienced and engineers had little data to go on. Additionally, much of the shipyards' labor force had been replaced with women as men joined the armed forces. Because of this, early ships took quite a long time to build - the Patrick Henry taking 244 days -

but the average building time eventually came down to just 42 days.



Quote
A total of 2,710 Liberty ships were built, with an expected lifespan of just five years. A little more than 2,400 made it through the war, and 835 of these entered the US cargo fleet. Many others entered Greek and Italian fleets. Many of these ships were destroyed by leftover mines, which had been forgotten or inadequately cleared. Two ships survive today, both operating as museum ships. They are still seaworthy, and one (the Jeremiah O'Brien) sailed from San Francisco to England in 1994.

These ships had a design flaw. The grade of steel used to build them suffered from embrittlement. Cracks would propagate and in 3 cases caused the ships to split in half and sink. It was discovered and remediated.

Quote
Ships operating in the North Atlantic were often exposed to temperatures below a critical temperature, which changed the failure mechanism from ductile to brittle. Because the hulls were welded together, the cracks could propagate across very large distances; this would not have been possible in riveted ships.

A crack stress concentrator contributed to many of the failures. Many of the cracks were nucleated at an edge where a weld was positioned next to a hatch; the edge of the crack and the weld itself both acted as crack concentrators. Also contributing to failures was heavy overloading of the ships, which increased the stress on the hull. Engineers applied several reinforcements to the ship hulls to arrest crack propagation and initiation problems.



Heavily loaded ship

http://www.brighthubengineering.com/marine-history/88389-history-of-the-liberty-ships/

Today, several countries have, as do we, a much greater industrial capacity. It is inaccurate to claim that we cannot produce sufficient renewable energy devices in a decade or so to replace the internal combustion engine everywhere in our civilization. The industrial capacity is there and is easily provable by asking some simple questions about the fossil fuel powered ICE status quo:

How long do ICE powered machines last?

How much energy does it require to mine the raw materials and manufacture the millions of engines wearing out and being replaced day in and day out?

What happens if ALL THAT INDUSTRIAL CAPACITY is, instead, dedicated to manufacturing Renewable Energy machines?



IOW, if there is a ten to twenty year turnover NOW in our present civilization involving manufacture and replacement of the ICEs we use, why can't we retool and convert the entire ICE fossil fuel dependent civilization to a Renewable Energy Machine dependent civilization?

1) The industrial capacity is certainly there to do it EASILY in two decades and maybe just ten years with a concerted push.

2) Since Renewable Energy machines use LESS metal and do not require high temperature alloys, a cash for clunkers worldwide program could obtain more than enough metal raw material without ANY ADDITIONAL MINING (except for rare earth minerals - a drop in the bucket - compared to all the mining presently done for metals to build the ICE) by just recycling the ICE parts into Renewable Energy machines.

3) Just as in WWII, but on a worldwide scale, the recession/depression would end as millions of people were put to work on the colossal transition to Renewable Energy.


HOWEVER, despite our ABILITY to TRANSITION TO 100% RENEWABLE ENERGY, we "CAN'T DO IT" ??? because the fossil fuel industry has tremendous influence on the worldwide political power structure from the USA to Middle East to Russia to China.

In other words, it was NEVER

1. An energy problem,

2. A "laws of thermodynamics" problem,

3. A mining waste and pollution problem,

4. A lack of wind or sun problem,

5. An environmental problem,

6. An industrial capacity problem or

7. A technology problem.




EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE ABOVE excuses for claiming Renewable Energy cannot replace Fossil Fuels are STRAWMEN presented to the public for the express purpose of convincing us of the half truth that without fossil fuels, civilization will collapse.

It was ALWAYS a POLITICAL PROBLEM of the fossil fuel industry not wanting to relinquish their stranglehold on the world's geopolitical make up.

It drives them insane to think that Arizona and New Mexico can provide more power than all the oil in the Middle East. Their leverage over lawmakers and laws to avoid environmental liability is directly proportional to their market share of global energy supplies.

They are threatened by Renewable Energy and have mobilized to hamper its growth as much as possible through various propaganda techniques using all the above strawmen.

It is TRUE that civilization will collapse and a huge die off will occur without fossil fuels IF, and ONLY IF, Renewable Energy does not replace fossil fuels. It is blatantly obvious that we need energy to run our civilization.

It is ALSO TRUE that if we continue to burn fossil fuels in ICEs, Homo sapiens will become extinct.
This is not hyperbole. We ALREADY have baked in conditions, that take about three decades to fully develop, that have placed us in a climate that existed over 3 million years ago.

We DID NOT thrive in those conditions or multiply. This is a fact. We didn't really start to populate the planet until about 10,000 years ago.

The climate 3 million years ago was, basically, mostly lethal to Homo Sapiens. To say that we have technology and can handle it is a massive dodge of our responsibility for causing this climate crisis (and ANOTHER strawman from Exxon "We will adapt to that" CEO).

Fossil fuel corporations DO NOT want to be held liable for the damage they have caused, so, even as they allow Renewable Energy to have a niche in the global energy picture, will use that VERY NICHE (see rare earth mining and energy to build PV and wind turbines) to blame Renewables for environmental damage.


 

In summary, the example of the Liberty ships is proof we CAN TRANSITION TO RENEWABLE ENERGY in, at most, a couple of decades if we decide to do it but WON'T do it because of the fossil fuel industry's stranglehold on political power, financing and laws along with the powerful propaganda machine they control.

 

What can we expect from the somewhat dismal prospects for Homo sapiens?

1) Terrible weather and melted polar ice caps with an increase in average wind velocity in turn causing more beach erosion from gradually rising sea level and wave action. The oceans will become more difficult to traverse because of high wave action and more turbulent seas. The acidification will increase the dead zones and reduce aquatic life diversity. But you've heard all this before so I won't dwell on the biosphere problems that promise to do us in.

2) As Renewable Energy devices continue to make inroads in fossil fuel profits, expect an engineered :evil4: partial civilizational collapse in a large city to underline the "you are all going to die without fossil fuels" propaganda pushed to avoid liability for the increasingly "in your face" climate extremes. ;)

3) Less democracy and less freedom of expression from some governments and more democracy and freedom of expression from other governments in

direct proportion to the percent penetration of Renewable energy machines in powering their countries (more RE, more freedom)

and an inverse proportion to the power of their "real politik" Fossil Fuel lobbies in countries. (more FF power, less freedom).


The bottom line, as Guy McPherson says, is that NATURE BATS LAST. Nature has millions of "bats". Homo sapiens has a putrid fascist parasite bleeding it to death and poisoning it at the same time. The parasite cannot survive without us so it is allowing us to get a tiny IV to keep us alive a little longer (a small percentage of renewable energy machines). It won't work.

But the parasite has a plan. The IV will be labelled a "parasite" (the villain and guilty party) when Homo sapiens finally figures out he is going to DIE if he doesn't fix this "bleeding and poison" problem. Then the real parasite will try to morph into a partially symbiotic organism and Homo sapiens will muddle through somehow.

I think that the parasite doesn't truly appreciate the severity of Mother Nature's "bat".

THREE FUTURE SCENARIOS:

1. If the parasite (as a metaphor for a fossil fuel powered civilization) does not DIE TOTALLY, I don't think any of us will make it. :emthdown:

2. If the the parasite takes MORE than 20 years to die, some of us will make it but most of us won't. :emthdown:

3. If, in 2017, when the north pole has the first ice free summer (as I estimate), all the governments of the Earth join in a crash program to deep six the use of fossil fuels within a ten year period, most of us will make it.

 

A word about political power and real politik living in a fossil fuel fascist dystopia.

IT simply DOES NOT MATTER what the 'real world", "real politik" geopolitical power structure mankind has now is.

IT DOES NOT MATTER how powerful the fossil fuel industry is in human affairs.

Fossil fuels have to go or Mother Nature will kill us, PERIOD.

Pass it on. You never know when somebody on the wrong side of the Darwinian fence will read it and join the effort to save humanity.

 
« Last Edit: October 20, 2013, 03:40:10 pm by AGelbert »
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31121
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
 A. G. Gelbert   


Anonymous (Of COURSE!) said, "Anyone who believes that we can eliminate fossil fuel and nuclear from the grid, without an unprecedented breakthrough in long term energy storage, needs a refresher course in Physics and Engineering."

Anyone that thinks fossil fuels and nuclear power plants are not poisonous technology that remain the main source of energy use in civilization by any other means than corruption, externalizing costs and gaming the subsidy playing field needs a course in empire politics in the 20th century and a review of the history of Standard Oil and the Rockefeller empire. Neither the physics nor the thermodynamic properties of fossil fuels or nuclear fusion have anything whatsoever to do with it. The Manhattan project ALONE was bigger than the automobile industry while remaining secret. Not one penny of that was EVER recovered by the American public.

As far as Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) is concerned for fossil fuels, long before PV or wind power was envisioned, ethanol from farm crops was CHEAPER than gasoline but a huge alcohol tax and then prohibition forced ethanol out of the competition even though it is a HIGHER OCTANE FUEL than gasoline.

And for those who think the lead spewing poison additive now banned from cars, tetra ethyl lead, is no longer poisoning children and adults, I'm sorry to tell you that in the USA it is LEGAL to put tetra-ethyl lead in aviation gasoline! So if you live near an airport with a lot of light plane general aviation traffic, you are getting showered with it. Of course they can design aircraft engines to run on ethanol instead of high octane tetra ethyl lead gasoline for high compression aircraft engines. Brazil has been doing it for years. The reason WE don't do it is because big oil is protecting more of its turf.

For those who want to understand the ACTUAL physics and engineering proving renewable energy has ALWAYS been more cost effective than fossil or nuclear fuels, this detailed, multi-page article comparing the various energy source EROEI numbers (with ALL THE COSTS included) will clear up the doubts about the insanity of fossil fuel and nuclear power use in human civilization.

In short, unlike renewable energy, fossil fuels and nuclear power never have been cost effective for civilization and the biosphere because governments controlled by these industries massively subsidize them though taxes, turn a blind eye to health costs the people must pay, and reward the small group of elite investors that hold stock in these poisonous industries. That is corruption, not thermodynamics.

Hope for a Viable Biosphere of Renewables

Why They Work
and Fossil & Nuclear Fuels Never Did


Published July 17, 2012. | By A. G. Gelbert.

 
Hope for a Viable Biosphere of Renewables

Snippet:

When they fall back on the EROI formula Procrustean Bed with the claim that EROI only deals with energy density in fuels and not efficiency coefficients in different engine types, calmly remind them that gasoline is not customarily used for furnaces, room lighting, barbeque grills or to boil water; it’s used almost exclusively in the ICE (internal combustion engine).

For these fossil fuel lackeys, water carriers and quislings to refuse to measure gasoline’s EFFECTIVE USABLE ENERGY when it is actually used in an ICE to do work is the height of duplicity.

But this subterfuge by Rockefeller’s admirers is not new. As I have mentioned before, way back at the end of the 19th century, Rockefeller was flushing his gasoline waste product in the rivers by his refineries at night. He could not avoid producing gasoline in his refinery cracking towers (about 19 gallons of gasoline for every 42 gallon barrel of crude refined)*. When the automobile came out in the early twentieth century, the early car fuel called benzene had to be eliminated because that hydrocarbon is a carcinogenic. As you read above in the 1906 Edison lab study, ethanol was considered competitive energy wise with gasoline.

What did Rockefeller do? He lowered the price of gasoline (remember his cost was near zero because it had been a waste product of the refining process) so much that ethanol was priced out of the market**. It was a win-win for Rockefeller.

It was only a matter of time before his nasty habit of flushing gasoline into rivers at night was going to get him and his refinery employees facing the wrong end of a shotgun from some irate farmer who noticed his horses and cows getting sick or dying when drinking the river water downstream of an oil refinery.

So Rockefeller managed to change the flush operation from the rivers to the atmosphere and make a bundle out of it too. But this predatory capitalist wasn’t done killing ethanol yet. He gave millions to a temperance group that ultimately succeeded in Prohibition legislation banning the production and use of ethanol (ethyl alcohol), not just for drinking, but for ICE fuel as well (and you thought Prohibition was just the fundies not wanting you to get high on booze. Rockefeller USED the fundies to block ethanol competition).

The reality was that the “cheap” gasoline was far, far more expensive than ethanol due to the atmospheric poisons introduced. It got even worse when tetra-ethyl lead entered the mix in the 1920s. It wasn’t until about 1973 that the severe damage from leaded gasoline was recognized and even so, to this day, unleaded gasoline is not mandatory in off road vehicles.

Now that ethanol is out there and available once again as a competitor to gasoline, the fossil fuel enablers return with the familiar FALSE claims that ethanol is not competitive with gasoline and the poppycock that gasoline gets better mileage than ethanol.

Call out these overeducated, Procrustean Bed, creative thermodynamics “geniuses” carrying water for the fossil fuel industry on their lies and distortions. Accuse them of being well aware of the above and deliberately distorting the fuel facts when they are actually applied to their use in engines. Tell them their Procrustean Bed EROI BS isn’t going to fly anymore.



"*On average, about 19.5 US gallons (16.2 imp gal; 74 L) of gasoline are available from a 42-US-gallon (35 imp gal; 160 L) barrel of crude oil (about 46% by volume), varying due to quality of crude and grade of gasoline. The remaining residue comes off as products ranging from tar to naptha.[4]"

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


** "The gasoline engine became the preferred engine for the automobile because gasoline was cheaper than alcohol, not because it was a better fuel. And, because alcohol was not available at any price from 1920 to 1933, a period during which the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol was banned nationally as mandated in the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The amendment was repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment on December 5, 1933. In time to produce alcohol fuels during World War II. By the time World War II ended, the gasoline engine had become “entrenched” because gasoline remained cheaper than Alcohol, and widely distributed – gas stations were everywhere."

http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2012/07/17/hope-for-a-viable-biosphere-of-renewables/

http://thehalloffame.wikidot.com/agelbert

Full Knock Down Drag out Thread from above with article fueling the debate here   
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31121
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
The Official Explanation for the German Energy Transition


America's Power Plan 

By Bentham Paulos

 October 28, 2013

In a recent posting, John Farrell of the Institute for Local Self Reliance lays out three clear drivers for why Germans are going renewable at all costs.  He lauds their focus on bills (rather than rates), a clear long term energy policy, and the widespread participation in the energy economy facilitated by feed-in tariffs.

Another side of the coin is what the politicians think of the energiewende.  Critics abroad seem convinced that German leaders will come to their senses and change course on energy.  Based on what the leaders say in their official documents, these critics are likely to be disappointed.

First, some background.  There are two federal ministries responsible for energy, the Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) and the Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWi).  Until the recent election these were headed by Peter Altmaier and Peter Rosler.  (Rosler has resigned due his party's loss in the recent election.)



With near unanimous support, the German parliament adopted legislation in 2010 that sets ambitious targets for carbon reductions, renewable energy and energy efficiency, and commits to a phase-out of nuclear power.  According to Altmaier, the environment minister for the Merkel Administration, “this is unprecedented and brings to an end decades of public debate in Germany.”

While much international attention is paid to the rapid growth of solar energy and the phaseout of nuclear power, the legislation is a comprehensive energy policy, covering transportation, heat, and electricity use across the whole economy.

German Energy Policy Goals


Source: Dr. Martin Schöpe, Federal Ministry for the Environment

Now that the political debate about whether is over, the issue now is how.  Most of the debate hinges on how to minimize costs.

The bulk of our energy is to come from renewable sources by the middle of the century,” writes former economics minister Peter Rosler.  “At the same time, Germany is to remain a competitive business location.  This requires a complete restructuring of our energy system.”  With typical German practicality, member of parliament Hans-Josef Fell has said, “This is not a problem, it is a task.”

Full article here:  http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2013/10/the-official-explanation-for-the-german-energy-transition#comment-127506

My comments to this positive, but overly conservative , article.
 A. G. Gelbert   

 October 28, 2013 

I agree that Germany has exactly the right rationale and motivation to transition to 100% renewable energy as evidenced by this statement, “A policy of responsibility for the future, policy that also takes account of the interest of our children and grandchildren, means that wherever technologically and economically feasible it is our duty to choose an alternative form of energy supply.” .

However, I do not agree that the transition must be so slow (100% STILL not reached by 2050).

The renewable energy marketplace is extremely dynamic, unlike the ossified fossil fuel and nuclear power marketplace that responds at a glacial pace to consumer needs and health.

Who would have said in the year 2000 that China would, in a mere decade, so completely overwhelm the solar panel market with mass produced, as well as reliable PV panels, that the price would drop vertiginously and the pace of implementation of this renewable energy technology would accelerate far beyond electrical grid penetration estimates?

Germany, as well as most other countries in the world, CAN be powered totally, not just in the electrical grid, but in transportation systems too, by renewable energy technology by 2030.

How? What is lacking now that makes erudite individuals like Dr. Martin Schöpe, Federal Ministry for the Environment for Germany, make such conservative predictions?

Large scale financing is what is lacking, not the desires of the people. The people want a 100% renewable energy powered civilization. The issue, as you pointed out, is not WHETHER, but HOW. I will add that, just as important, if not more so from a human civilization health perspective, is WHEN.

To answer the question of financing, we need to zero in on who is mainly responsible for profiting from the old dirty energy infrastructure. This group of fabulously wealthy individuals has a much higher responsibility to aid the renewable energy transition by paying civilization back for what they owe the 99% for the environmental degradation that polluting energy has brought the biosphere.

Simultaneously, these individuals that wield enormous financial leverage as well as political influence are dragging their feet because their fossil fuel and nuclear power assets turn into liabilities in direct proportion to the implementation RATE of a renewable energy powered civilization.

For this reason, the powerful 1%, who, as I have detailed in a recent blog, OWN over 80% of the polluting energy infrastructure, must be held responsible for footing the bill for 80% of the renewable energy transition as well.

This is vital because, otherwise, civilization will have to deal with the exponentially harmful effects on the biosphere of the snail's pace of renewable energy implementation favored by the elite while they orchestrate a transfer of responsibility for all the decommissioned fossil fuel and nuclear power plants to we-the-people. They profited from them. NOW they MUST pay the piper. It is in their best interests to do so but their greed is obviously interfering with logical thought.

It's our job to convince the 1% that the longer they stand in the way, while pretending otherwise, the greater the negative biosphere consequences, not just for the "little people", but for the elite as well.

A Renewable Energy Global Transition Tax of 80% of the net worth of the One Percenters may sound punitive and economically destructive but it is a simple cause and effect calculation that any serious analysis of our global economy would conclude is the BENEFIT the 1% have gotten and continue to get from polluting energy technology.

Tell your government officials, "The 1% must carry the burden of responsibility in order to justify their continued privilege and power".

It is the duty of the governments of the world to transition to a 100% renewable energy civilization, not some pie in the sky "nice" tree hugger thing to do. The free ride for the 1% is over. Let's make them pay their way instead of continuing to allow them to greedily force the rest of us to shoulder the lion's share of the renewable energy transition in order to allow them to cushion their polluting energy assets turned liabilities.

Article Here:

The 1%'s Responsibility to Shoulder 80% of the COST of a 100% Renewable Energy World

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2013/10/one-percents-planetary-assets-equals-80-responsibility-for-funding-a-100-renewable-


A. G. Gelbert   
 October 28, 2013 

Tax the One Percenters to accelerate a transition to a 100% Renewable Energy Powered civilization. We CAN do it by 2030 if we make those that profited so much from polluting energy assets pay their proper (80%) share of the cost of the new technology.

"Half of the world's richest one percent are Americans. According to Milanovic, the other half of the global one percent live in Germany, the rest of Europe, Latin America, and a "few Asian countries."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/americans-make-up-one-half-of-the-one-percent_n_1183713.html
« Last Edit: October 28, 2013, 04:13:47 pm by AGelbert »
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31121
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Costa Rica Launches Carbon Trading, a First For a Developing Country


SustainableBusiness.com News

 
In September, Costa Rica's President, Laura Chinchilla, signed a decree launching the developing world's first carbon trading program, part of its plan to be carbon-neutral by 2021.

Called the "Costa Rican Voluntary Domestic Carbon Market," carbon credits will be issued and traded between local companies to compensate for emissions they can't reduce. As the name indicates, however, it is a voluntary program. 

 Polluters can also buy Certified Emissions Reductions from the United Nation's Clean Development Mechanism, which invests in projects in developing countries.

 The credits will be used for forest protection and reforestation and other projects that capture and sequester carbon, reduce emissions and increase energy efficiency.

Yes, Costa Rica has a "Department of Climate Change" - which is administering the program. Credits have started to be issued and trading begins next year. 

In a unique move, Costa Rica launched an environmental bank, aptly named BanCO2! - to broker carbon trades. The bank is setting up an exchange where companies can buy and sell carbon credits. Currently, it costs $5 for a ton of carbon.

Costa Rica Carbon Bank

 BanCO2 will also make lower interest rates available to finance fuel-efficient cars and home energy retrofits. 

Costa Rico is one of eight countries to receive a $350,000 grant from the World Bank to assist in the design and implementation of a carbon market. And the World Bank's Carbon Fund is buying up to $63 million worth of forest-based carbon credits in Costa Rica's program. That will allow Costa Rica to expand its program that pays landowners to protect forests to an additional 340,000 hectares.

 About 8000 landowners are paid $25 million a year to protect their forests. Most of the money comes from a tax on gasoline - the world's first national fee used to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.

Costa Rica has tripled its GDP over the past 25 years while doubling the size of its forests.


http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/25332
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

Grace Adams

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Replacing fossil fuel with renewable energy in 30, 20, 15, or even 10 years is certainly technically feasible.  Compared to burning every bit of fossil fuel left, it had better be economically feasible.  Main obstacle is political.  National government of United States is owned by too big to fail corporations including 12 too big to fail fossil fuel firms that still provide most primary energy used in US.  Major stockholders and high executives of our too big to fail corporations are our ruling class and just as much entitled to respect, power, and lion’s share of income, as old nobility in Europe ever was.

Much money will be needed for both renewable energy and coal as mineral rights to keep it underground.  Prohibitive tariff effect is needed both for emissions for incentive to reduce as much as soon as possible and for energy to reduce demand to what renewable energy will fit in space available.  From what Tom Rand said in “Kicking the Fossil Fuel Habit” c 2007, replacing fossil fuel fired electricity with renewable energy including a national smart electric grid to integrate wind and solar assuming prohibitive tariff effect of 70% tax to reduce demand 25% should cost between $4 and $5 trillion total.  I hope algal bio-fuels can replace petroleum starting sometime in 2020s for similar amount assuming prohibitive tariff effect of 25%. To reduce amount of reserves to buy, I recommend making a deal with our 12 too big to fail fossil fuel firms to put all small independent fossil fuel firms out of business by fiat (so too big to fail firms get their market share) in exchange for 5 years to phase in tax on emissions to $35/metric ton CO2eq= $116.67/short ton carbon content of coal before starting to buy coal as mineral rights. From 5th year also phase in tax on energy to bring total of both taxes to 70% of consumer spending on energy. And also demand electric utilities wait their turn for leases of renewable energy equipment, so replacement of fossil fuel with renewable energy will be orderly.  Since all 12 firms are publicly traded they must file P&L, so government can tell when their revenues and profits decline from taxes and renewable energy and start buying fossil fuel reserves to bring their sales up to business as usual.  In return, fossil fuel firms suspend exploration. 

Our too big to fail fossil fuel firms also need to be kept busy with tasks more constructive than extracting fossil fuel:  1) Starting this summer, use dredges and compressors mounted on barges towed by tugboats to capture as much as possible of methane leaking along coast of Alaska, and offer whatever technical assistance other nations with Arctic coasts will accept from us.  In winter rather than get frozen in, explore coasts of lower 48 states plus Hawaii and Puerto Rico for methane about to leak.  Government should buy most of it for strategic reserve to help stabilize price of both natural gas and US dollar.  Some of it can replace natural gas from fracked wells. 2) Drill wells and frack hot rock reservoirs for enhanced geothermal systems.  Since at greater depth and object is to extract heat, not fossil fuel, less chance of contaminating drinking water.  Once all top layers of hot rock reservoirs are done right, fossil fuel firm can deal direct with utility for re-drilling.  3) Drill nice tunnels (like Disneyland’s basement) for both desalinated seawater to adapt to drought and HVDC lines for national smart electric grid (to get them away from weather-related disasters).  4) When Algae Systems algal bio-fuels get almost cost competitive with petroleum products, fossil fuel firms should start operating Algae Systems modules leased from government and selling algal bio-fuels.  Once algal bio-fuels get fully cost-competitive with petroleum products, government should barter Algae Systems modules for tar sands reserves as mineral rights to get them off market. 
« Last Edit: June 11, 2014, 08:06:20 pm by AGelbert »

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31121
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Welcome Grace Adams.


This knowledgeable and down to earth realist who sees clearly the possibly insurmountable difficulties those of us, who want a viable biosphere for future generations, face, is a worthy and erudite advocate of what is possible and what is not. Listen to Grace Adams. She knows of what she speaks!


Thank you for your presence, Grace Adams.
                                                                       
 

Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31121
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Grace,
I have an idea to spread your posts around the internet. I'm going to do my hour of walking exercise now but later I will link to your post a packaged link that you can provide a few different labels for and then post them in replies on Disqus. That way, more people can hear your voice. That will bring people here who want to comment on your views and you can have a sort of multifaceted blog right here with the rest of us. This is one time when we need more "cooks" to keep the "soup" from spoiling. ;D

I will explain the difference between forum code links and Disqus HTML if you are not versed in them. Every bit of truth we can get out there helps. 


Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

Grace Adams

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
I don't even get html on Disqus.   Sorry to be such a luddite.  I am getting old and absent minded.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31121
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Grace,
No problem.

Here's a quicky 5 minute course in posting a link to any post you make here to forum and or Disqus:

First, below is the link to your post:

http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/general-discussion/global-warming-polictical-obstacle-to-fighting/msg1348/#msg1348

Now, you could just slap that down directly on Discus comments or some forum but it looks kind of long. You want something short and snappy that will catch the eye and the interest of the reader.

This link below goes to your link in forum code:
Political Obstacles to Needed GW Actions


This below goes to your link in Disqus with the text "Political Obstacles to Needed GW Actions" (but any text, no matter how short or long will work). :

<a href="http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/general-discussion/global-warming-polictical-obstacle-to-fighting/msg1348/#msg1348"><b><i>Political Obstacles to Needed GW Actions  </i></b></a>

Make a wordpad document titles something like, "My posts" or "Today's posts". Copy the above format into it like several times like this:

<a href="LINK HERE"><b><i>TEXT HERE</i></b></a>

<a href="LINK HERE"><b><i>TEXT HERE</i></b></a>

<a href="LINK HERE"><b><i>TEXT HERE</i></b></a>

<a href="LINK HERE"><b><i>TEXT HERE</i></b></a>

<a href="LINK HERE"><b><i>TEXT HERE</i></b></a>

Then, every time you read something you like or post something that you want to disseminate, just insert the link in the canned format  and add eye catching text. You can then paste that in any Disqus comment. You save your document every day and you slowly build up a record of posts that you may remember to use another day to answer or educate someone on the internet. It saves a LOT of time.  ;) ;D

Don't hesitate to ask any questions. I, for example, still do not know how to do colored text in disqus but I can do just about everything in forum code.

In forum code, whenever you want to see the guts of the code of a post that has a link, just right click on the QUOTE button and OPEN IN NEW TAB. You can then copy and paste the code for a link to your "Today's Posts" wordpad document.

If you are interested in livening up forum posts with animated graphics, save the following link as a "How to" reference with lots of examples of snappy graphics ( ) :


http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/general-discussion/how-to-make-a-comic/msg1302/#msg1302
.

Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

 

+-Recent Topics

🌟 IMPEACHMENT SCORE 🌠 by AGelbert
November 19, 2019, 08:16:10 pm

Science by AGelbert
November 19, 2019, 04:09:49 pm

Plants Which are BOTH Nutritional and Medicinal by AGelbert
November 19, 2019, 03:39:22 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
November 19, 2019, 02:35:56 pm

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
November 19, 2019, 02:29:30 pm

2020 Presidential Election by AGelbert
November 19, 2019, 02:08:15 pm

Doomstead Diner Daily by AGelbert
November 19, 2019, 12:56:45 pm

Future Earth by AGelbert
November 18, 2019, 09:31:24 pm

🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️ by AGelbert
November 18, 2019, 09:18:31 pm

Pollution by AGelbert
November 18, 2019, 05:58:47 pm