How much would it cost to actually become energy sustainable

[Juche]

I don't know if we have the technology right now to become 100% sustainable with energy (meaning newer and better technologies will keep coming along) or if we have the ability to scale these technologies up right now.

I know the apollo alliance claims $500 billion spent over 10 years (50 billion a year) will get us off of middle eastern oil. However that alone only accounts for about 1/4 of our total oil usage.

I think all power plants in the US combined produce about 800GW or so. I'm basing that on the fact that we have 104-ish nuclear plants that produce 20% of our energy, and nuclear plants are about 1-2GW.

Assuming we keep the nuclear, hydroelectric and other alternatives which combined make up about 30% of our energy, what would it cost to rebuild our infrastructure to make our grid electricity, home electricity (solar, sterling, etc) and transportation energy at least 80% renewable and 80% less polluting both by increasing renewable sources and improving efficiency? Does anyone have any good numbers? I'm guessing 5 trillion or so but I really don't know.

I know that doing this will end up saving endless billions in money that would go overseas, combat climate change, improve people's health and create domestic jobs. So I know its not like we are throwing money away.

[phantom power]

1. It is a multi-trillion dollar project.

How many trillions, exactly, depends on who you ask, what technologies you wish to deploy, and other hard-to-predict things like raw material costs and the future value of the dollar, etc.

But it's going to be trillions of dollars.

[garybeck]

12. uh, you mean, like the Iraq war? n/t

[phantom power]

14. Maybe more(*). Either way, I'm not saying we shouldn't do it...

I'm just saying, it's gonna cost.

(*) Of course, we don't yet know how much the Iraq war costs, since we haven't left yet.

[garybeck]

22. however

one thing most people don't realize in these comparisons is that stupid ideas like the Iraq war are like thowing money in a hole. However, investing in renewables is an investment, it comes back in many good ways - jobs that create tax revenue, lower health care costs, and it helps the economy in general.

[The2ndWheel]

2. Sharpening sticks to hunt increased our impact

Sadly we think carbon is the only problem.

[Juche]

4. I realize we have tons of problems

We are running out of fish, we are running out of various raw materials other than oil, we are polluting using methane, NF3 and various other greenhouse gases.

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. Why is it that some people seem to think humans are the only species to affect their environment?

"Nature" = "Good"
"People" = "Bad!"

"People" ⊂ "Nature"

All living things affect their environment. We're just one of the most effective species at doing it.

[GliderGuider]

6. Well,

We are the only species to systematically exploit our environment for non-survival purposes.

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. Depending on how you define "survival purposes"

Beavers (for example) have a tremendous effect on their environments; not just the (obvious) flooding of land, but the systematic killing of many more trees than they use in the construction of their dams.

http://lib.colostate.edu/research/agnic/damageprobs/econimpact.html

[GliderGuider]

10. And how many beavers are there?

According to David Suzuki, homo sapiens is now the most numerous mammal on the planet, our sheer numbers even surpassing the friendly rat. At 150 lb each, we are the largest animal ever to walk the earth in such numbers.

Aside from the prodigious food and shelter requirements for our mere survival, we have mental machinery that herds us into status displays of non-essential items like McMansions, SUVs, gold jewelery and vacation pictures from remote South Sea islands.

Beavers? Beavers are pikers in comparison.

[Nihil]

17. Two excellent points there ...

> ... we are the largest animal ever to walk the earth in such numbers.

+

> ... we have mental machinery that herds us into status displays of
> non-essential items like McMansions, SUVs, gold jewelery and vacation
> pictures from remote South Sea islands.

Personally, I think the second point is the critical one as this
lifestyle has been identified as being "The Goal" - the thing that
"all people should attain" - and, as such, is being used to justify
the exponentially increasing consumption of resources as "everyone
should have the same chance to live that lifestyle" (viz the recent
pronouncement from the Chinese leadership).

If we could shake that association between pure "status displays" and
"success" then even the bacteria-like growth of population would not
put anything like the same pressure on the environment and, in addition,
it would free up vast amounts of money, effort & time to be directed to
solving the *real* problems that are current.

[OKIsItJustMe]

19. As I said, "We're just one of the most effective species at doing it."

Your contention was that, "We are the only species to systematically exploit our environment for non-survival purposes."

I said, (in essence) no, other species do as well. To which you reply, well, that may be, but there are more of us.

That is true, but it does not contradict the fact that we are not, "the only species to systematically exploit our environment for non-survival purposes."

What I object to is the notion that there is something fundamentally wrong/different about our species. Our biggest "fault," (by this measure) seems to be our "success," relative to other species. (Not our tendency to affect our environment.)

[GliderGuider]

21. There are two things fundamentally different about our species

They are called the neocortex and the opposable thumb. They're not wrong, and they don't make us wrong, but they are the source of our dramatic impact on the world.

Regarding "we are the only..." I'll come half-way. As you point out, other species do change their environment beyond their immediate needs. However, that damage tends to be consequential to survival-related activities (like dam-building). Other species undertake few (no?) activities that are not related to either individual or species survival. Granted, you can view human status displays in much the same light, but the addition of reason and the opposable thumb results in a qualitative change in behaviour as well as a simple quantitative change. We do many things that are neither required for immediate personal survival nor in the long-term survival interest of our species.

Humans are not simple binary machines: we are not just good or bad, altruistic or selfish, short-sighted or visionary. Our triune brain has guaranteed that we are a paradoxical, perplexing and frustrating mix of qualities from both ends of the spectrum and all points in between. Defining "what humans are like" is kind of like trying to nail Jello to a wall.

[OKIsItJustMe]

24. Even those differences are not unique

The neocortex and the opposable thumb do not make us unique. They make us http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate#Distinguishing_features">primates. Once again, it comes down to our species being the more successful.

However, as I've said, we also seem to be the best at altering our environment (one reason for our relative success.) If this is true for ill, it is also true for good.

In the geologic history of cycles of climate change and mass extinction, ours is not the first species to initiate climate change. Ours is the first species (to our knowledge) who has had the capability both to comprehend what we have done and to do something about it.

That's what makes us unique.

[The2ndWheel]

18. Exactly

That's what I'm saying. Even at our most basic of survival states, we're changing our environment simply by existing, by having to eat, by having to drink, etc. To think that with increased amounts of energy available to us, that we would decrease those affects on the planet, in my mind, isn't taking that most obvious of facts into the equation. It is separating us from being part of all living things affecting their environment, to something that exists outside of physical reality, because we're so effective at manipulating it to our needs.

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. Here's one estimate

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan

…

A massive switch from coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power plants to solar power plants could supply 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050.

…

But $420 billion in subsidies from 2011 to 2050 would be required to fund the infrastructure and make it cost-competitive.

…

[Juche]

7. Thats it?

$420 billion over 40 years is chump change.

Then again, those are subsidies to private companies who do much of the investment themselves.

[OKIsItJustMe]

9. "Those are subsidies to private companies who do much of the investment themselves."

Right, companies who otherwise would make those same investments in other things (like coal plants for example.) The idea here is to invest to make the alternatives competitive for future development.

If it's cheaper to build and operate a solar farm than a coal plant, which do you think businesses will build?

(If you haven't already, read the plan.)

[Juche]

16. I know

I am curious as to how much government investment it'll take to rebuild our infrastructure, but I am also curious as to how much private and public (combined) investment it'll take. If we can do this for $500 billion in public funds and $4 trillion in private funds then great. Money talks. My dad is a rabid wingnut and global warming denier, but he was offered money to lease some farmland he owns so a company (maybe GE, I don't remember) can build some wind turbines on it and he jumped at the opportunity since he makes more money leasing the land for wind turbines than he would letting his brother farm it.

What I don't get about the plan is they do not really talk about any renewables other than solar. Other renewables like wind, tidal and geothermal also have huge potential. Wind power is already cheaper than coal and as a result it is growing at nearly 20% a year which means it will double in capacity every 3.5 years or so.

[OKIsItJustMe]

23. "Other renewables like wind, tidal and geothermal also have huge potential."

Well, the plan is called, "A Solar Grand Plan." Solar (in my opinion) shows the greatest promise "in the long run."

Solar has the capacity to provide 100% of our energy needs. What about wind?:
http://nrel.gov/wind/

Wind is a clean, inexhaustible, indigenous energy resource that can generate enough electricity to power millions of homes and businesses. Wind energy is one of the fastest-growing forms of electricity generation in the world. The United States can currently generate more than 25,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity from the wind, which is enough to power about 7 million average American homes. Industry experts predict that, with proper development, wind energy could provide 20% of this nation's energy needs.

…

Geothermal shouldn't be ignored, in some areas especially it has tremendous potential. In some areas (like geyser fields) it's easily accessible. If you don't mind drilling down 6km, there's plenty of geothermal heat to be found almost everywhere.(Even if it's not of industrial quality, it can still be used with heat pumps. However, how much work is it to drill multiple bore holes for all of our existing homes, compared to putting solar panels on our roofs?)

Tidal power has potential (particularly in coastal areas) but it is not ready to be brought on-line today or even soon. Consider that in Europe, they're constructing massive offshore wind projects, but not tidal projects.
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/04/14/14greenwire-marine-power-not-ready-for-prime-time-experts-10525.html

Marine power not ready for prime time, experts say

By COLIN SULLIVAN, Greenwire
Published: April 14, 2009

PALO ALTO, Calif. -- Technology for tapping ocean waves, tides and rivers for electricity is far from commercial viability and lagging well behind wind, solar and other fledgling power sectors, a panel of experts said last week during a forum here on climate change and marine ecosystems.

While the potential for marine energy is great, ocean wave and tidal energy projects are still winding their way through an early research and development phase, these experts said.

… they are simply immature technologies."

…

Solar and wind power are ready to be brought on-line today. However, "in the long run," wind's potential is limited compared to solar.

[Juche]

30. Informative post. However wind energy could provide much more than that

Wind energy at high altitudes could provide far more energy since the equation to determine energy from wind involves is wind velocity cubed and even minor changes in wind velocity can dramatically change power output. I believe high altitude winds in the jet stream around 30,000 feet up can provide enough energy for 100 earths. And groups like kitegen claim that they can build a 5GW wind turbine that (I believe) only requires a few square km of space.

[kristopher]

11. A good resource

This plan by Jeff Greenblatt (alternative energy expert just out of Princeton and working now for Google) is one of the best I've seen. It includes a section on personal transportation and an estimate of costs.

http://knol.google.com/k/jeffery-greenblatt/clean-energy-2030/15x31uzlqeo5n/1#
http://knol.google.com/k/jeffery-greenblatt/clean-energy-2030/15x31uzlqeo5n/1#Personal_Vehicle_Sector

[JohnWxy]

13. I think one thing people forget when they say how much it will cost to go "green" you have to

remember we would be spending a huge amount of money to maintain the same system as current energy plants require replacement. I don't know if any of the total figures I've heard quoted to "go green" are NET the amount it would have taken (over say the next 30 or 40 yrs) to replace non-green facilities as they wear out.

[Juche]

15. The apollo alliance will supposedly pay for itself

It will cost $500 billion, but we will save hundreds of billions in lower energy costs and due to domestic job creation will see hundreds of billions in higher tax revenue. I think the AA plan is revenue neutral or a net gain when you factor in higher tax revenues and lower energy expenditures.

[IrateCitizen]

20. Define "energy sustainable"

I think that's the logical starting point for addressing the question you asked.

[GliderGuider]

25. I ran across a quote from Jay Hanson today:

"If you have to dig it out of the ground, it's not sustainable".

So if we can produce renewable energy without digging anything out of the ground, it will qualify....

[OKIsItJustMe]

27. Are potatoes sustainable?

Potatoes are "dug out of the ground." If you try to dig out too many, too quickly, they're not sustainable. However, if you follow sane potato farming practices, they are.

Seriously, sustainability is a relative thing. Let's say the folks over at EMC2 get hydrogen-boron fusion http://iecfusiontech.blogspot.com/2009/06/boys-at-talk-polywell-have-struck.html">working in a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell">polywell reactor. That means we'll have to find boron to fuse, and some day all of the boron will be gone, and then where will we be?

The thing is, that will take a very, very, very, long time. By the same token, some day, the Sun will exhaust its fuel, so the Sun itself is not sustainable.

So, the question is not "if you have to dig it out" so much as "how fast do you have to dig it out" or "how much do you have to dig out" which matters most.

[kestrel91316]

26. Not much, frankly, compared to the costs of doing nothing.

And not much compared to the costs of our endless Waronterra(TM), either.

[Terry in Austin]

28. It's not the cost in dollars, but the cost in productive capacity

There's a good essay on this very topic from John Michal Greer this week. Considering the scenario where society tries to

save itself by launching a massive program to build nuclear reactors, solar thermal power plants, algal biodiesel, or what have you.... The problem is that massive programs of this sort pile additional demands on an already faltering economy. Any such program has to be paid for... out of current economic output, which is much less flexible {than money}, and already has to cover the rising costs of resource depletion and pollution. This is the trap hidden in the limits to growth; once those limits begin to bite, the spare economic capacity that would be needed to build one’s way out of trouble no longer exists.

I think he makes a good argument, if kind of a sobering one. Definitely worth a read.

[kristopher]

29. Wealth creation

The basis of wealth creation is surplus productivity. The surplus productivity (energy returned for energy invested) of fossil fuels and nuclear energy has entered the range where it isn't off target to just say it sucks and is getting worse. The investments in renewable sources of energy are investments in increasing productivity since both leading technologies (solar and wind) are already doing better than fossils and nukes, and their advantage is steadily growing as we streamline manufacturing and improve technology.

[excess_3]

31. a small country should try first.

or maybe one of perhaps 49 certain US states
could go first


how about California
or New York

[Juche]

32. Germany and Denmark

They have made advances in alternatives. I think France's grid electric is 80% nuclear.