FYI: JH Kunstler to be on Glenn Beck on CNN-HN tonight, 7 & 9 EDT

[phantom power]

[kristopher]

1. Perfect

Charles Bensinger, co-founder of Renewable Energy Partners of New Mexico, describes Kunstler's views as "fashionably fear-mongering" and uninformed regarding the potential of renewable energy, biofuels, energy efficiency and smart-growth policies to eliminate the need for fossil fuels.<4> Contrarily, Paul Salopek of The Chicago Tribune finds that, "Kunstler has plotted energy starvation to its logical extremes" and points to the US Department of Energy Hirsch report as drawing similar conclusions<5> while David Ehrenfeld writing for American Scientist sees Kunstler delivering a "powerful integration of science, technology, economics, finance, international politics and social change" with a "lengthy discussion of the alternatives to cheap oil."<6>

Kunstler, who has no formal training in the fields in which he prognosticates, made similar predictions for Y2K as he makes for peak oil.<7><8> Kunstler responds to this criticism by saying that a Y2K catastrophe was averted by the hundreds of billions of dollars that were spent fixing the problem, a lot of it in secret, he claims.<9>

In June 2005 and again in early 2006, Kunstler predicted that the Dow would crash to 4,000 by the end of the year.<10> <11> The Dow in fact reached a new peak of approximately 12,500 by the end of 2006. In his predictions for 2007, Kunstler admitted his mistake, ascribing the Dow's climb to "inertia combined with sheer luck". <12>

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

Part in bold certainly has a familiar ring to it. I know I've heard something similar right here recently...

[GliderGuider]

2. It's annoying when the unqualified dare to have opinions about stuff isn't it?

If only we had the decency to to confine our comments to the field of our university degrees and otherwise STFU.

Life's a real pain sometimes.

[kristopher]

4. I see, it's only fearmongering when neocons do it about war...

When some equally fervid zealot with ideological beliefs similar to your own does it, then the experts are fools trying to silence you.

It really isn't a question of "field of study" so much as it is having a comprehensive understanding of the nature of the problem and the possible outcomes. Being ignorant of 3/4s of the relevant components of a problem can happen with anyone; the difference is that most academics seek to rectify the deficiency. Others just press on when confronted with the results of their lack of understanding because, "Damn it! I'm as smart as they are and I know I'm right!"

There is no cure fur pigheadedness.

[GliderGuider]

6. So serious!

Hey, I might be wrong.

Well, that wasn't so hard.

Now you say it :-)

[kristopher]

8. About what?

Pointing out that failing to properly consider alternatives to fossil fuels renders any prediction/projection/prognostication about the energy future facing us fatally flawed.

Can't do that, I'm correct.

[GliderGuider]

10. You might be wrong.

About something...

Right?

Think of it as preventive humility.

"I might be wrong." Ahhh...

[kristopher]

12. About what?

Pointing out that failing to properly consider alternatives to fossil fuels renders any prediction/projection/prognostication about the energy future facing us fatally flawed.

Can't do that, I'm correct.

[GliderGuider]

14. About anything at all.

You might be wrong about what the correct kind of pizza is. I know I am.

[kristopher]

16. Please, we aren't talking about preferences. nt

[depakid]

5. LOL

Trouble is that people with advanced degrees in many separate fields agree with him, and understand the scope and scale of the problem.

[UrsulaW]

9. Check sources

Bensinger makes his living running a for-profit renewable energy corporation. He's also written some wacky books (check out on Amazon.com). Salopek is a first-rate journalist and the Hirsch report was well-researched. (I'm a librarian.)

Current events have demonstrated Kunstler is right far more often than he is wrong.

[GliderGuider]

13. Welcome to DU, UrsulaW

Hope you enjoy this monkey-house. :hi:

[robertpaulsen]

3. I heard he was pretty good on Colbert Report.

Hopefully it will end up on youtube.

[kristopher]

7. Then judge the criticism based on its merits or lack thereof

Short Solutions to the Long Emergency
6/15/2005

Guest
Editorial: James Kunstler's clarion call ("The Long Emergency," El
Dorado Sun, May 2005) for decentralized, localized economies as a
response to a possible societal collapse resulting from unavailable and
unaffordable oil makes sense. This is surely what our society should be
doing in any case if we're ever to approach anything like
sustainability. However, he seems strangely unaware of the numerous
options we have to mitigate or sidestep the doom-and-gloom scenario he
labels the "Long Emergency." In particular, he's failed to do his
homework regarding the potential of renewable energy, biofuels, energy
efficiency and smart-growth policies to eliminate our need for fossil
fuels over the next three decades.

Now, we all know that people don't usually
elect to change unless they're forced to by unusual circumstances. The
good thing about sounding the alarm about "peak oil" is that it may
provide the strong kick in the pants that our society needs to get
serious about reducing our oil dependency. So those with a perspective
akin to Kunstler's do serve a necessary purpose. However, I prefer to
invest my mental energy in human creativity rather than fall victim to
fashionable fear mongering. I see peak oil as "peak opportunity." And I
believe numerous "short solutions" to the Long Emergency exist.

Kunstler claims that "no combination of
alternative fuels will allow us to run even a substantial fraction of
our lives on it." Well, I have news for him. Germany already gets 25...

http://www.greeninstitute.net/node/430

[phantom power]

11. Do you know one thing I think is strange...

It is your assumption that a guy like Kunstler, or myself, or GG, etc, must just be too lazy to have learned enough about "alternatives." I've been reading about alternatives every day in this forum for 5 years, and for that matter I've read about alternatives in magazines, and books, and what-have-you, for most of 30 years before that.

Kunstler, for example, has explained in numerous venues why the availability of "alternatives" isn't the cure people think it's going to be. Perhaps you disagree with his reasoning, but it's not like he's just unaware of Company X's latest organic printable PV technology that's going to sell for 10 cents a watt, any day now. He's aware. He's come to a different conclusion.

We've all heard about the PV, the tidal, the wind, the biofuels, the conservation plans, the mass transit, etc, etc, etc. We've each done our own integration over the variables, and come to our own conclusions.

Just like you. Only different.

[kristopher]

15. Learned enough about alternatives?

How did you learn about analysis though? What tools do you use to judge the accuracy of all that information you've acquired? How do you double check yourself to become aware of when you've made a basic mistake of understanding that throws everything totally in the toilet?

Peer review isn't just a buzz word. It is standing in front of a room full of experts determined to find flaw in your work. It is sending your written work to a similar group with the invitation to dissect it and find what's wrong, and then having the humility to revise your position when warranted. Agreement isn't always forthcoming, but the process is the best defense out there against "The Genius Trap".

That's the difference between us.

[phantom power]

21. I'm familiar with peer review.

I have a masters in computer science from the University of Michigan. I've gone through peer review. I've stood up in front of a room full of experts, determined to find flaws in my work. In fact, I do that for a living. And all that other fancy analysis, judgment of accuracy, and book learnin.

Now that you know I've withstood the mighty battles of peer review, do you respect my opinion? Professionals disagree about things all the time. Even when all of them have been peer reviewed.

What of it?

[kristopher]

22. I don't know much about your thinking.

From what I've seen, you mostly contribute drive-by posts of about 40-50 words that provide little meat for conversation.

If, for example, you reject the field of economics out of hand, then I wouldn't think too much of your opinion. On the other hand, if you take the work of economics that you don't like and explain how it is flawed, then I'd probably respect you, even if I don't agree.

[phantom power]

45. I can describe some things I think economics should address.

A good theory of economics should model agents who have a fairly limited planning horizon. Based on my observation of human and corporate behavior, this planning horizon would rarely be greater than about 5 years, and in many cases limited to about one quarter.

It should include a notion of fitness landscapes that co-evolve with the agents occupying them. In fact, the agents must be considered an integral part of the fitness landscape.

It should include a notion of phase changes in fitness landscapes, from percolating -- lots of adaptation pathways -- to non-percolating, where adaptation pathways become disconnected, and the system enters into a period of recession, that is analogous to an extinction event. Recession/extinction events will obey a scale-free distribution, like the kind of distribution exhibited by earthquakes, or the distribution of biological extinctions in nature. Lots of small, inconsequential events, and occasional catastrophic events.

For that matter, this theory should be, in the end, readily applicable to biological ecologies. Or vice versa.

It should be able to model what happens when an economy becomes highly adapted (over-tuned) to a keystone resource, like oil, and then model what happens when that resource declines steadily over two or three human generations. It should be able to model various scenarios, for instance what happens if the resource declines so fast that the fitness landscape becomes non-percolating.

In fact, ideally it should be able to tell us where the critical decline rate is: how fast does the resource have to decline, to trigger a phase-change from percolating to non-percolating?

[kristopher]

47. I don't disagree.

But to link back to previous discussions, I have stated repeatedly that normative economic theories aren't what I've been talking about. I can't imagine an obstacle to using the tools of economics to address the values you are concerned with.

What I've encountered here are kneejerk reactions that really pay little to no attention to the words I've written and are instead a reflection of (I suppose) preconceptions and mental models that are firmly fixed.

You are obviously focusing your vision of what is being done to the examples offered by the US where corporate personhood is a fact of life. We represent and extremist position on the social responsibilities of corporations. Japan, China and most other countries have been forced by our economic clout to follow along to a degree, but the basic philosophies of what constitutes a social good is fairly far removed from that found in the US. The Japanese have successfully maintained a complex culture in isolation for centuries on an island. Do you think they did that with the limited vision you describe? Why would you think they have abandoned that long term viewpoint?

Since they are very fond of the use of economics, why would you think there aren't people there who are trying to do exactly as you describe? In fact, why would you act as though it isn't being done here? Just because it isn't an explicit subject in the mainstream headlines doesn't mean it isn't an integral part of the values beliefs of many.

I also think you are asking too much. Accurate modeling is closely related to the number of variables that can be captured versus the number that actually exist. The scale of most of your 'requests' is very large and includes many variables that can't be adequately incorporated.

What I really think you are describing, btw, is cultural anthropology - specifically a research strategy known as cultural materialism.

[phantom power]

52. I do agree that what I ask is pretty much impossible to answer...

at least with the tools available to us here in the early 21st century. One conclusion I draw from that, is that I don't think it's possible to say with any certainty what scenario is about to play out over the next 50 years.

Can energy alternatives be brought on line fast enough to "keep ahead" of declining oil extraction rates? In Kauffman-speak, will we be able to keep our world civilization in the realm of percolating adaptation networks? Or, will we be caught with our pants down, and find ourself in a disconnected island, trapped in a dead end?

I don't generally endeavor to prove the optimists wrong, because in fact that's not possible. I do think that events over the last few years aren't very encouraging. For example, Cantarell output dropping 17% YOY, or inflation of the cost of steel, due to high energy prices, thus contributing to a receding-horizons phenomenon for energy sources such as wind or nuclear (or coal and oil, for that matter). For these sorts of reasons, I remain of the opinion the "doomer" scenario remains firmly on the table.

And all of this is completely ignoring other huge elephants in the room, like climate change, and its effects on arable land, or disease vectors, etc.

At any rate, none of our theories or modeling can help us much with such questions. Maybe our descendants will look back on us with pity, that we couldn't properly understand what was happening to us. Actually, I hope they do, since it means they made it through the other side.

As for the Japanese economy, I like to think that any future "complete" economic/ecologic theory would handle every sort of economy, as a matter of parameterization and modeling. But hey, I can believe anything about the future.

The sort of theory I was describing is indeed being worked on, and in particular with respect to economics as well as biology. The work I've been following is coming out of the Santa Fe institute. Guys like Stuart Kauffman and John Holland. I have high hopes for them.

[jpak]

20. The US has done everything it can to *thwart* the development of "alternatives" for 30 years

same for fuel efficient autos

same for public/mass transit

same for the US passenger rail system

same for appliance efficiency standards

etc.

[depakid]

17. So you think Germany is going to run the autobahn on renewables?

[kristopher]

18. Why couldn't they? nt

[GliderGuider]

19. But do you think they're going to?

[kristopher]

23. I'm not sure.

I have a reasonably clear picture of the forces at play here. I think we will.

Beyond that, and the leadership it will show if we do, a great deal will depend on the nature of the perception of the GW threat and their regional options. There are a lot of wind resources offshore that have yet to be developed, and the plans for N.Sea wind development are massive.

There is little question in my mind that they will be switching to battery electric, however. The energy efficiency gains of doing that and of developing a smart grid are much to great to be ignored.

Here is a question back at you. What kind of effect would it have on home energy consumption if the consumer knew the both the instant price of their electricity as well as the cumulative price. Say all your appliances had a readout resembling that of a gas pump, what would happen?

[GliderGuider]

28. After consulting with an expert (the lady of the house)

She says what would help is a readout panel by the front door that has 4 displays: the cost of the house's electrical consumption over the last hour, day, week and month, displayed in DOLLARS, not kilowatt-hours.

She peered over my shoulder, and reviewed this post.

[kristopher]

31. As concieved it is usually part of an appliance.

You know of course, that the price of electricity is extremely variable over the course of a day and across the seasons. Instead of billing you an averaged price monthly, you'd be charged the instant rate that was in effect when you decide to turn on an appliance. ex: It's warm and you think about the AC, but notice that electricity at that moment is $1.40 kWh so you decide to turn the fan on instead.
And certainly, the information you requested would also be available.

[GliderGuider]

35. According to SWMBO

Having them on the appliances would be pointless - it's too much trouble to do the mental math each time you want to switch on your refrigerator :-). She also says, what about the lights? She doesn't think about electricity in terms of individual appliances, she thinks about the electricity bill. She says putting a readout on each appliance is an engineer's solution, not a homemaker's solution.

[kristopher]

37. Interesting point.

However, I think her view is also a reflection of conditioning over time. No arguing the readouts she requested, that is a given. The point of the readout on the appliances with real time pricing is exactly like the $/unit of any other commodity. I wouldn't expect it to apply to refrigerators, my mistake for not being more clear. Continuously running devices like refrigerators and water pumps wouldn't be affected by consumer choice. But tests have shown that people like being able to run the washing machine/dryer (never use dryers myself) when the electricity costs $.04/kWh rather than $1.40/kWh. Strange behavior I know, but the public is funny that way.

It also does a terrific job of reducing the costs of meeting the high peaks in demand. Terrific concept, demand side management.

[GliderGuider]

38. In that case, just add one more "current price" readout to the main panel

No need to replicate it into the appliances. That way you can do your behaviour modification with the installed appliance base too.

[Nihil]

39. That's an interesting concept ...

> Instead of billing you an averaged price monthly, you'd be charged the
> instant rate that was in effect when you decide to turn on an appliance.
> ex: It's warm and you think about the AC, but notice that electricity at
> that moment is $1.40 kWh so you decide to turn the fan on instead.

... and would certainly get most people thinking along the right lines
(as your example suggested).

Without intending to be negative about it, I have two areas of concern:
1) Data lag
2) Data overload

The practicalities of getting accurate spot rates out to the appliances
are incredibly non-trivial - think of the data rate issues between the
NY market and some house in Bumfuck Arizona - and the liabilities for the
power provider when they charge amounts that simply don't reflect the
apparent prices seen at the appliance.

The second concern is the impact on the people once such monitored appliances
become more available: I'm not sure if having too many such indicators on
appliances would degrade the response though as people would start to filter
out the decision process and fall back to the "I need it now" attitude that
most have grown up with.

:shrug:

Having said that, a number of pilot projects whereby families can monitor
their instantaneous *total* consumption (e.g., reading the same meters as
the supplier but with a time integrator rather than just providing a running
total of units consumed) have proved beneficial to the families (though
slightly less so to the suppliers as it always results in less consumption!).

Was this your own speculation or are there real items on the way?

[kristopher]

42. Electricity is priced at 'nodes'

There are points scattered all over the grid, such as transformers, power plants, or just a specifically designated line, and the price is calculated instantly at each location depending on supply/demand and where the points of congestion are. That means the pricing points are in reasonably close proximity to the homes. Also the grid itself is a very good means of data transfer, but they have to put in about one data management unit on the poles for approx every 6 homes.

Real items but getting someone in the 'unbundled' industry to make an investment that deters overall demand isn't very easy. Demand side management is without doubt the biggest loser in 'deregulation'. I sincerely hope they bring back stronger control.

[depakid]

24. Well, for starters, where are they going to get a substitute for petrol?

From liquifying or burning filthy coal? From chopping down the black forest for cellulose based ethanol?

[kristopher]

25. Do you have something against batteries? nt

[depakid]

26. Aside from the fact that their production requires a lot of energy- and produces highly toxic waste

they also have to get their electricity from somewhere.

Where might that be? On that scale (which of course is in addition to "keeping the lights on").

[kristopher]

27. What toxic wastes are produced by LIon SI batteries?

And what is the point you are trying to make? Please cut to the chase.

[depakid]

29. The "chase" as you put it is a matter of scale

or as NNadir puts it: the brazillion solar roofs issue.

There simply aren't enough sources of renewable energy to power the autobahn AND "keep the lights on."

And I'm not even discussing the petroleum and other energy inputs (and carbon and toxic outputs) that go into producing and maintaining the system as its currently run- or even how it could be run if it were at peak efficiency.

[kristopher]

30. I understand that is a popular perception, but it isn't correct.

I take it you acknowledge that producing LIon batteries isn't a particularly toxic endeavor.

In light of the scale of available to be tapped raw resources, renewables are a vastly larger pool of energy than all the fossils we could possible extract; so I don't understand your claim that "there simply aren't enough to power the autobahn and keep the lights on."

Look at the energy requirement as NNadir likes to phrase it, as a massive whole. And lets switch the discussion back to the US so I don't have to grope around for the numbers.

In 2005 the US consumed about 100 quadrillion Btus of energy. About 40 quads of that was petroleum for transportation. The personal transportation sector is about 75% of that for 30 quads. Does that mean we need an additional 30 quads for the grid if we shift to battery electric?

No, it doesn't.

If we start with the grid as it is presently configured, what happens?

First, because of the efficiency gains of electric drive over internal combustion we only need about 15% (4.5 quads) of that 30 quads to be added to the grid. That's right, to provide for the personal transportation sector we need to add only 4.5 quads of delivered capacity to the grid.

That of course, is a rough sketch.


It leaves out a close examination of grid efficiency, and it leaves out reduced driving demand as higher transportation costs for everything push people into a more communal lifestyle; AND it doesn't take into account that it would likely result in more efficient use of the current grid as much of the spinning reserve that operates overnight is now productively used to charge batteries.

With that final point alone, there may be very little need to at any capacity at all to the grid.

A coal generator is huge; they are so long and heavy that the shaft sags if it isn't spinning. So standby power provided by coal, even when it is only going to be used for a couple of hours in the afternoon, is supplied by keeping those generators running 24/7. Utilizing that power is a huge efficiency gain.

I'll stop there, but if you are interested we can put more flesh on this carcass.

Edit: I really should proof this stuff before hitting send... 17 typos...

[depakid]

32. Don't know how popular it is- but it's certainly correct

And this department of energy diagram shows us why:

Energy Flow, 2006
(Quadrillion Btu)



http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec1_3.pdf

Even if you quadrupled the entire renewables capacity, you'd still looking at less than a quarter of the US yearly energy usage. Moreover, much of the renewable sources aren't going to be used for transportation- for a variety of reasons, and the largest sources are hydroelectric- and there ain't much room for new dams in the states.

As to lithium ion batteries- I'm not sure why you seem to assume that everything associated with their production and us is mildly toxic. Not sure how much you know about electronics (or photovoltaic cells) manufacturing but there are some very nasty substances involved. There a concise disccusion about that here:

http://svtc.etoxics.org/site/PageServer?pagename=svtc_lifecycle_analysis

[kristopher]

33. You're kidding, right?

That diagram shows ???

It shows nothing about where the energy from renewables would flow, and it certainly doesn't back up your claim regarding resource availability. Likewise your assertion regarding the toxicity of lithium battery production. You made the claim that their production "requires a lot of energy- and produces highly toxic waste" then act like a link to a community group calling for greener products is a some sort of validation? Why do you want to waste your time that way?

I'm serious and not being snarky - do you understand our energy system at all? What I outlined in my last post isn't just my lunatic imaginings (although being on DUEE might not be the best way to demonstrate that), it is an outline of what is probably the consensus view among the top energy policy wonks in the country. Whether you approve of capitalism or not, I really don't give a damn, the fact is we have a true planetary emergency shaping up and changes are going to be taking place. If you prefer a world led by the Bush/Cheney's of this world, keep dicking around with visions of a utopian hunter-gatherer existence and those good ol' boys are going to carry the day. There is an alternative to fossils, but if even 'enlightened progressives' are too damned stupid to support it or even bother to educate themselves about it, then we are really and truly fucked.

[depakid]

34. Seems to me you're the one must be kidding

I'm not making assertions here- I'm showing you hard cold facts.

The DOE diagram shows CLEARLY the basic energy inputs and outputs for the United States. Non-Hydro renewables represent a very small fraction of total output and will remain small for years to come. It's "magical thinking" to believe that you're going to replace cheap petrol (much less coal and natural gas (which is already in depletion in North America) with wind, solar geothermal and whatnot- AND run the interstate highway system with millions of electric vehicles.

As to toxic waste. Please- That's a group whose actually dealing with the problem at ground zero in Silicon Valley, and the excerpt is quite a nice (if somewhat incomplete) view of what sorts of crap that production of your electric fleet will cause to be dumped somewhere.

No free lunch with energy issues- and cornucopian dreams of retaining what Kunnstler calls the easy motoring utopia are just that. Dreams. Or perhaps more accurately- fantasies.

Wish that they weren't, but wishes are pretty much irrelevant.

[kristopher]

36. Sorry my mistake.

I kept thinking you understood the difference between a conversation about infrastructure that we are phasing out and one that we are transitioning to; clearly that is a little bit too much complexity for you so let me say so even you can understand.

I-n-f-r-a-s-t-r-u-c-t-u-r-e n-e-e-d-s t-o b-e b-u-i-l-t.

I-t m-u-s-t b-e d-i-f-f-i-c-u-l-t b-e-i-n-g s-o c-h-a-l-l-e-n-g-e-d b-y s-i-m-p-l-e t-h-i-n-k-i-n-g. Y-o-u h-a-v-e m-y s-y-m-p-a-t-h-y.


Factoid #18: Renewable Resources Could Provide 99 Percent of U.S. Electricity Generation by 2020



On January 16, 2006, the Energy Analysis Office (EAO) of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) issued for the Office of Science a DRAFT analysis, for comment, of the technical potential for renewables. EAO's preliminary analysis included a summary table representing near-term and ultimate technical potential for renewable energy resources (economic and market considerations are not taken into account). The seven-page document is entitled "Near-Term Practical and Ultimate Technical Potential for Renewable Resources."

The representation for the near term potential is given in percentage of electric generation in the United States in 2020. Near-term potential is restricted by near-term challenges, such as infrastructure and reliability problems, electricity storage, and technological ability to use the resource. Nonetheless, the "near-term practical" potential of renewable resources as a percent of U.S. electricity generation in 2020 is estimated to be 99-124 percent, or - in terms of primary energy - as 47-55 quads/year (electricity only).

The ultimate technical potential is a compilation of previous estimates and calculations based on those estimates. While the analysis assumes some near-term challenges will be overcome, the ultimate potential does account for constraints on technologically insurmountable goals, such as generally accepted restrictions on offshore wind facility distance from shore (200 meters), and on drilling capability for enhanced geothermal systems (10 km of depth). The table suggests that the ultimate technical potential for renewable resources could be as much as 8,529 quads/year

The resulting estimates offer rough estimates of the potential contributions from renewable resources, not economically or market-feasible projections.

The text of the DRAFT paper reads as follows:

METHODOLOGY

Current Renewable Resource Use

Currently used renewable energy resources are drawn from a variety of sources. The current installed nameplate capacity total is a summation of verified, functioning electric-generation facilities (REPIS 2005). Delivered electricity is based on 2004 electricity production (EIA 2005a). For all the renewable electric technologies except biomass, primary energy required to produce electricity is calculated based on an average heat rate of 10,000 Btu/kWh for existing thermal power plants (EIA 2005b). For biomass, a measured heat rate for power plants, 9,000 btu/kwh, is used (EIA 2005b). For those renewable energy forms that also contribute to heat and fuels markets, total primary energy shown is larger than the thermal energy required to produce only electricity (EIA 2005a).

NEAR-TERM PRACTICAL POTENTIAL

The amount of electricity potentially produced by renewables is shown as a percentage of the total projected U.S. generation in 2020: 5,085 billion kWh (EIA 2005b).

BIOMASS

Biomass is the only renewable energy form cited that can be used as either electricity or fuel. Because we cannot predict the distribution of biomass use between electricity and fuel, we make two estimates. The first assumes 100 percent of biomass is used for electricity, and the second assumes that 100 percent is use for fuel. The baseline amount of energy for these is the same, because it is limited by physical availability of biomass. Perlack (2005) estimates 1.3 billion dry tons of biomass is possible with the use of non-food cropland and forestland in the long run. To determine the near-term potential the mid-range scenarios from Perlack (2005) to identify a near-term range of 593 million to 968 million dry tons. The biomass-to-energy conversion used is an average of energy from biomass types of just more than 12 million btus per ton (NREL 2005c). This range yielded a potential of between 8 and 13 quads of energy in the near term. To estimate the amount of electricity that can be generated from the range, we assume a power plant heat rate of 9,000 Btu/kWh (EIA 2005b). The result is 17-28 percent of total U.S. electric generation. Biomass as a fuel potential is expressed as a percentage of projected 2020 petroleum demand: 26 million barrels per day (EIA 2005b). Using 8-13 quads of available biomass energy, and a 49 percent fuel plant conversion efficiency, biomass could contribute 9-14 percent of the national petroleum demand in 2020.

GEOTHERMAL

Because of technology limitations, only hydrothermal energy is considered in the short term. In 1979, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimated that there were about 22 GW of discovered hydrothermal resources (USGS 1979). While this estimate is dated, there has been no authoritative study of the potential since that time. Using a 95 percent capacity factor (NREL 2005c), 22 GWs represents 2 quads of energy (or 4 percent of U.S. electric generation) in 2020.

HYDROELECTRIC

Full hydroelectric potential is 140 GW (Hall et al 2003), which would provide 9.4 percent of electric generation in 2020, assuming today's national average capacity factor of 0.39 (NREL 2005c). Assuming a 10,000 Btu/kWh power plant heat rate conversion, this is equal to about 5.0 quads of primary energy.

OCEAN

In the short term, the full potential of mechanical (wave, tidal, and current) electrical generation is assumed. This resource is estimated to have a full potential of 30 GW installed nameplate capacity. Assuming constant power and a power plant conversion heat rate of 10,000 Btu/kWh, this translates to 2.3 quads of primary energy (or 4.5 percent of the electric generation) projected for 2020.

SOLAR

For the near-term technical photovoltaic potential, it is assumed that there will be no storage for solar energy, and no PV generation will be wasted. This implies that none of the nighttime loads can be met by solar, and much of the load at dawn cannot be met (if PV capacity were sufficient to meet such loads, PV output at midday would exceed loads, wasting energy). These assumptions severely limit the impact of PV on the electric system. The PV impact would be even more limited if one also took into account the many conventional fossil and nuclear plants that must run all the time. In this case, the PV capacity would have to be even smaller to keep from wasting PV generation.

The near-term potential for concentrated solar power (CSP) is assumed to be the minimum of the projected in-state electrical load and the actual CSP resources in that state. In all cases, the projected state electrical load is the minimum. Therefore, the near-term CSP potential is the electric load of the state in which the CSP resource resides. In 2020, the projected load for states for CSP potential is expected to be 12 percent of the total U.S. generation, creating an upper bound for CSP electrical generation. Assuming a 10,000 Btu/kWh heat rate for power plants, the estimated primary energy to create this electricity is 6 quads/year.

WIND

The short-term wind potential is limited by grid reliability/stability concerns to be 20 percent of total generation . Assuming a power plant heat rate of 10,000 Btu/kWh, the primary energy equivalent is 10 quads.

ULTIMATE TECHNICAL POTENTIAL

Ultimate technical potential differs from the short-term potential by a set of general assumptions for each resource type and one more general assumption. The general assumption is that the electricity grid can adjust to the diverse electricity fed into it by adding storage, transmission, ancillary services, etc. Moreover, the ultimate assumptions do not limit the amount of renewable electricity as a function of total projected electricity demand. As with the short-term assumptions, economic and market constraints are not accounted for in this long-term technical potential.

BIOMASS

Biomass is the only renewable energy form cited that can be used as either electricity or fuel. Because we cannot predict the distribution of biomass use between electricity and fuel, we make no assumption regarding the differences between the use of biomass for electricity and biomass for fuel. The baseline amount of energy for these is the same, because it is limited by physical availability of biomass. Perlack (2005) estimates 1.3 billion dry tons of biomass is possible with the use of non-food cropland and forestland. The biomass-to-energy conversion used is an average of energy from biomass types of just more than 13 million btus per ton (NREL 2005c). The total energy potential for biomass is 17 quads. To estimate the amount of electricity that can be generated from 17 quads, we assume a power plant heat rate of 9,000 BTU/kWh.

GEOTHERMAL

The hydrothermal estimate includes approximately 72-127 GW of as yet-undiscovered resource (USGS 1979). The enhanced geothermal systems estimate is based on an estimate of 42 TW, which includes the entire potential heat source (Tester 1994).

HYDROELECTRIC

The ultimate potential is assumed to be the same as the near-term potential.

OCEAN

The ultimate potential estimate or ocean-based power expands the near-term potential to include power from ocean thermal energy of 0.11 TW (Sands 1980). The primary energy required for electricity generation, assuming a heat rate of 10,000 Btu/kWh, is 9 quads.

SOLAR

Unlike the near-term potential, the ultimate potentials for both PV and CSP are not assumed to be constrained by grid limitations, e.g., storage is assumed, transmission is assumed available, etc. For PV, the total resource potential (NREL 2003b) was restricted by excluding federal and sensitive lands, assuming only 30 percent of land area can be covered with PV, allowing only slopes that are less than 5 degrees, and requiring a minimum resources of 6 kwh/m2/day. This results in an ultimate technical potential of about 219 TW or 4,200 quads/year for PV systems, assuming a 22 percent capacity factor.

The CSP resource is restricted to areas with resource potential -- the southwestern United States. The potential reduces that amount of land that can be used for CSP by federal and sensitive lands, land with a slope greater than a 5 percent gradient, major urban areas and features, and parcels less than 5 km2 in area. The remaining area determined the technical potential for CSP, assuming 50 MW/km2 (Price et al 2003).

WIND

The ultimate wind potential is not limited to 20 percent for intermittency and grid stability reasons, as battery storage is assumed. Instead, wind potential is limited by appropriate land selection (exclusions for federal land, etc.) and technical feasibility. For onshore wind potential, using estimated future capacity factors (NREL 2005b), and assuming complete use of Class 3 winds and better, the result is 324 quads of primary energy from wind. For offshore wind, Class 5 and better with a distance between 5 and 200 nautical miles (nm) were assumed. Between 5-20 nautical miles, only one-third of wind energy in Class 5 and better is captured, between 20 and 50 nautical miles, two-thirds; and between 50 and 200 nautical miles, the entirety. Assuming future capacity factors, the potential for offshore wind primary energy is found to be 272 quads.

REFERENCES, DATA SOURCES, BACKGROUND MATERIAL

EIA 2005a - U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Review 2004. DOE/EIA 0384-2004, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy

EIA 2005b - Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2005 with projections for 2025. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Energy

EPRI/DOE. 1997. Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations, TR-109496. Washington, D.C.: DOE

Hagerman, G., R. Bedard. 26-June-2005. "Ocean Kinetic Energy Resources in the United States and Canada." EnergyOceans 2005, Washington, D.C.

Hall, D., R. Hunt, K. Reeves, G. Carroll. 2003. Estimation of Economic Parameters of U.S. Hydropower Resources. Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

Land and Water Fund of the Rockies. 2002. Renewable Energy Atlas of the West. The Hewlett Foundation and The Energy Foundation. Page 10. http://energyatlas.org.

Morse, F. 2004. Presentations: The Concentrating Solar Power Global Market Initiative (GMI) as a Result of Research and Development. Presented at the Renewables 2004 Conference.

NREL 2003a - National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Assessing the Potential for Renewable Energy on Public Lands. 95 pp.; NREL Report No. TP-550-33530; DOE/GO-102003-1704. Golden, CO: NREL

NREL 2003b - National Solar Photovoltaics (PV) Data. U.S. Data http://www.nrel.gov/gis/index_of_gis.html

NREL 2005a - Assessing the Potential for Renewable Energy on National Forest Systems Lands. 123 pp; NREL Report No. BK-71036759. Golden, CO: NREL

NREL 2005b - Potential Benefits of Federal energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs: FY 2006 Budget Request NREL-TP 620-37931. Golden, CO: NREL

NREL 2005c - Power Technologies Energy Data Book. Golden, CO: NREL. URL: http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/power_databook

Perlack, R., Wright, L., Tuhollow, A., Graham, R., Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply, April 2005

Price, H.; Stafford, B.; Heimiller, D; Dahle, D. 2003. California Solar Power Detailed Technical Report for Southern California Edison. 95 pp.; NREL Report No. MP-710-35284

REPIS 2005 - Renewable Electric Plant Information System: http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/repis/

Sands, D. 1980. "Ocean thermal energy conversion programmatic environmental assessment." Proceedings of the 7th Ocean Energy Conference, Volume 1, Paper 4.1., Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Publication No. Conf-800633-Vol 1.

Tester, J.W., H.J. Herzog, Z. Chen, R.M. Potter, and M.G. Frank. 1994. Prospects for Universal Geothermal Energy from Heat Mining. Science & Global Security. Volume 5, pp.99-121

Thresher, R. (NREL). 2005. E-mail communication to Elizabeth Brown. October 14, 2005

TroughNet. 2005. TroughtNet CSP Projects Deployed Web page. http://www.eere.energy.gov/troughnet/deployed.html

USGS (United States Geological Survey) 1979, "Assessment of Geothermal Resources of the United States - 1978". Geological Survey Circular 790, Edited by L.J.P. Muffler, United States Department of the Interior.

Wan Y. and Parsons, B. 1993. "Factors Relevant to Utility Integration of Intermittent Renewable Technologies." NREL/TP-463-4953. National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO. Page 49

# # # # # # #

The DRAFT document had earlier been available for inspection at: <http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/tech_potential/pdfs/tech_potential_table.p df> but now appears to have been withdrawn. Comments on the draft had been requested to be sent to Elizabeth Brown in NREL's Energy Analysis Office at [e-mail]; 303-384-7489.

[depakid]

40. Key terms: "potential contributions" and "not economically or market-feasible projections"

In other words- pipe dreams.

The Hirsh Report (which is a realistic document) sets out the following conclusions:

* Oil peaking will adversely affect global economies, particularly those most dependent on oil.

* Oil peaking presents a unique challenge (“it will be abrupt and revolutionary”).

* The problem is liquid fuels (growth in demand mainly from transportation sector).

* Mitigation efforts will require substantial time.

* 20 years is required to transition without substantial impacts (that's 20 years before peak production)

* A 10 year rush transition with moderate impacts is possible with extraordinary efforts from governments, industry, and consumers.

* Late initiation of mitigation may result in severe consequences.


Like any system that experiences decreasing or more "costly" energy inputs, the US economy is headed for a prolonged (and likely permanent) contraction- it's already beginning- and it'll get much worse as petrol prices inexhorably rise over the next 5-10 years.

Had the US started down the path toward mass transit, responsible land use planning, conservation, renewables and nuclear power back in the 1980's (instead of pretending it was morning in America and getting played by Sheikh Yamani's artificailly low OPEC prices) the situation would be different.

But we didn't and it isn't.

Not to say that America (and Americans) shouldn't be doing MUCH MORE, but the bottom line is that it's too little too late, meaning that everyone's lives are going to change drantically in the next decade- and the states (particularly certain regions) are going to get hit harder than most nations.

Yes, unlike what cornucopians and Dick Cheney like to think- the American lifestyle is negotiable, and the world is about to become a much larger place.

[kristopher]

44. You said there wasn't the renewable resource

You've been shown wrong.

Now you say it doesn't matter because that paper doesn't address the economics of the resource extraction.
Wall Street, fuel prices and global warming is telling you you're wrong.

You said lithium batteries are extremely toxic. You're wrong.

Bottom line: you were wrong in what you said and you aren't honorable enough to admit it.

Sure we are going to go through some big changes. And I agree with what you said in the later part of your post. I foresee that it will probably take 20 years to fully adjust to living in a world of constrained energy, but I also believe we'll be better off in the end for it.

The one thing I'm not sure I agree with you on is the economic contraction - but that is mostly a matter of duration. IMO all of our economic problems have their root in the quest for cheap oil, the sunk costs of coal fired generation, and the fight against lost mineral wealth brought about by a transition from coal. I don't think the switch from petroleum is really so hard to accomplish (new belief within the past three years because of V2G) but breaking the stranglehold on coal is only going to be done by the reality of global warming. If we make the commitment of resources required to move us expeditiously away from fossils, it will be the kind of economic stimulus that pays very large dividends. So the sooner that happens the shorter the downturn will be.

I don't consider each of us living on half the energy we use now to be a sacrifice.

[depakid]

46. You have a strange way of framing things

But, I suppose that's part and parcel to being a cornucopian- it involves wishing for something- and rationalizing about how and why you should have it.

Much like a kid who wants a pony for their birthday: there are plenty of ponies (for you at least- though not for every kid) and you believe your parents can afford it (which they might, were they willing to forego a lot of other things) and you think you could board it in your suburban backyard (a misconception obvious to anyone who's ever been around horses).

Others of us realize, as adults do- that you're not getting a pony for your birthday, but we'll be pleased enough to purchase you a bike.

One of the things that's always annoyed me about cornucopians- particularly American ones, is their arrogance and their reliance on grand scale technological fixes that for all their complexity and seeming attention to detail, often ignore the most basic of natural and economic laws. In addition, they usually tend to have a realistic grasp of scale and scope.

Take the batteries that you brought up and seem to assert will be a non-toxic (or mildly toxic) technology. That involves at least two striking fallacies.

That lithium ion batteries are the only electrical storage medium used- and that the supporting infrastructure (internal and external) used in acquiring, feeding and maintain your fancy herd of ponies. It's a nice technology- but its myopic (or deceptive) to imply that it exists in splendid isolation.

As to the availability of renewables- once again, there's theoritical -and there's practical. Theoretical is the realm of wishing. It's theoretically possible to do a lot of star trek things. In real life- engineering, economic and natural laws (physics and ecology) impose limits to what can and will be done. And that's true even if you think that renewables can someday provide the US with at least 70-80 exajoules? More?

To paraphrase Kunstler once again: You're not going to run the interstate highway system, Disneyland, Las Vegas and suburburbia (with its Walmarts and its debt based service economies) on any combination of renewables- particularly when you understand that the United States is essentially bankrupt with burgeoning twin deficits and pre-existing obligations both at home and abroad.

Inevitably, there will be contraction (one of those natural/economic laws) not expansion both economically and physically, with respect to most forms of capital. There will also be regional integration- as opposed to globalization and grand central schemes reliant on individualized transportation.

Failure to realize this in light of all the mounting evidence, is a form of denial and bargaining. Which is dyfunctional- because it keeps us (and dissuades others) from doing the sorts of things and engaging in the sorts if behaviors that we will need to adapt to a world where petrol (and in North America, natural gas) is in depletion- and where a diet of self destructive "clean coal" is readily available.

[kristopher]

48. Not at all.

I framed the discussion to that point accurately. You have a preconception that renewables can't work. I know you are wrong and believe that if anyone is applying a filter of bias it is you.

You seem to enjoy changing the goalposts as your assertions are disproved. You specified batteries, not the entire infrastructure of EVs. You said the resource didn't exist, not that it can't be developed. It does and the preponderance of the evidence says it can and will be developed. In terms comparing the environmental damage of EVs to fossils, the damage of EVs is virtually non-existent. You obviously consider any human footprint to be some sort of blasphemy, I don't.

You accuse me of being a "cornucopian" simply because I choose not to buy into a vision based on pessimistic self loathing and hate for human culture. Even though I consider myself an extreme pragmatist, I can live with that. But it isn't an indication either way of what the facts regarding our energy future are; they stand independent of either of our views. As evidenced by bibilical prophecies of damnation and destruction, people of all ages have responded to the world around them with the view that humans are a blight and that they deserve to be eradicated. Whether the agent is god or the hand of man himself the underlying belief that embraces such scenarios is one of (IMO) self hate. All I can say is, better you than me.

[depakid]

50. Strange framing yet again

Understanding that the human societies have limits to what they can and what they will be able to sustainably do within their means in no way implies "pessimistic self-loathing and hate for human culture.

Indeed, in many ways, it's a quite hopeful and invigorating- and it celebrates the best of what we're all about. You won't find a lot of pessimists among the permaculture community- but what you will find are many who look at reality for what it is and base their reasoning and prioritizing both deductively- based on fundamental laws- and inductively, on what's been shown to work (both now and from lessons of the past).

Cornucopians, on the other hand, particularly American ones think that we're exceptional. We're not- and as you said, that's matter quite independent of either of our views.

Over 25 years ago, there was a little sign in front of a coop near Oregon State University. It read: "outwardly simple, inwardly rich."

Profound words- and I never forgot them (despite a stint living the fast big money life in LA).

In the coming decades, human societies will simplify, re-localize and de-link from globalization in cheap labor and consumer glory (for the overriding reason that Joseph Tainter posits: there will simply be decreasing marginal returns on complexity).

We won't do this because we're wise- or because we want to, or because we've rediscovered some sense of intergenerational equity- we'll do it to adapt to the inviolable limits posed by natural and economic laws. And- American culture in particular, will likely do it kicking and screaming.

Concepts like community food security presently the province of "elitists," will become household words.

It won't happen overnight (hopefully)- though if you have a read of the Literary Digest (a popular magazine from the early part of the 20th Century, you can see that changes can happen quite rapidly. When you look at the articles from say July of 1929 to July of 1923, what you see is a profound change in their tone and content. When you look at the advertisements and the you see similar things.

Those folks had not clue one about the changes that were in store... nor do we. But one thing that's for certain- inevitable really- like or no, those changes are on the way.

And as always, some will accept them- some with foresight will adapt and make due (some happily- like my granpa, who relished the sense of community and home life from the era) and others will cling to fantasies (just as they did in 1930, when btw: petrol was still cheap and readily available for the taking).

[kristopher]

51. Ok that's better.

If your beliefs are accurately presented in your last post, then we are on precisely the same page. Perhaps we should both step back from characterization of each other; I know you are wrong about me, and I acknowledge that I've been wrong about you. There is an almost inevitable path that living on a tighter energy budget leads to and the degree of control we have when faced with energy based production constraints is very limited. Adaptation will occur as a function of altered values, as you point out well with the food security example.
I think that there is some room for difference in the area of what will happen when, however. My view of renewables and their potential is very well grounded in terms of both technology and cultural behavior; it isn't a reflection of the belief I have about the ultimate disposition of our culture of consumption.

Going forward from the premise that we basically agree, I'd venture that you have perhaps not accounted properly for the presence of global warming as a force for change. Without that as a consideration I tend to be extremely pessimistic about our willingness to make the necessary social changes in a timely manner. My real question is do we still have the option for proactive change, or will there be ecological shifts so severe that we are limited to strictly reactive behavior? At this point that isn't a question that science or philosophy can answer.

[depakid]

53. Aside from the multiple typos- many of us do, after all speak the same language

and sometimes we have some thoughts that could be edited (elocuted) better if only we didn't have to rush to catch a certain train. Quite literally, sometimes.

As to "same language" -that's tough and always has been, for all of recorded history. One can easily go nuts wondering with linguistic maps (WTF is up the the Basque) and one can also also smile and laugh with a Koori child and understand that we all- every single one of us laughs- and acquires language skills the same way. What we all percieve and do isn't mutually exclusive.

[GliderGuider]

41. There aren't many bullies on this board

But I'd say this behaviour qualifies.

[hatrack]

43. Sometimes the use of the "ignore" function makes me curious . . . .

But not that curious, I'm afraid.

:evilgrin:

[GliderGuider]

49. Good point

Thanks for the reminder.