Re-thinking wind power

[4dsc]

Now here's an interesting article!!

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/04/26/a-different-kind-of-revolution/

Wind farms, while necessary, are a classic example of what environmentalists call an “end of the pipe solution.” Instead of tackling the problem – our massive demand for energy – at source, they provide less damaging means of accommodating it. Or part of it. The Whinash project, by replacing energy generation from power stations burning fossil fuel, will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 178,000 tonnes per year.(6) This is impressive, until you discover that a single jumbo jet, flying from London to Miami and back every day, releases the climate change equivalent of 520,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year.(7) One daily connection between Britain and Florida costs three giant wind farms.

Alternative technology permits us to imagine that we can build our way out of trouble. By responding to one form of over-development with another, we can, we believe, continue to expand our total energy demands without destroying the planetary systems required to sustain human life. This might, for a while, be true. But it would soon require the use of the entire land surface of the United Kingdom.

[mike_c]

1. there really is no good technological solution to the energy problem....

Not within our lifetimes, at least. The REAL problem is that there are too many humans, living too demanding a lifestyle, especially in the "developed nations." There is no solution for this except to reduce the number of consumers and dial back to a much less energy subsidized lifestyle. It will be very painful.

[yurbud]

2. problem with most energy discussion is either/or approach

Either we stop using petroleum and switch to all wind or wait until all the oil dries up then die.

Either we conserve or find new energy sources.

The trick is mixing solutions to wean us off oil so as the supply declines, we aren't held hostage by the oil companies like we are now.

Also, a lot of our high tech lifestyle has their own built in demands for energy efficiency. You want your laptop or ipod to go farther on a charge, and one of the solutions to that is making them use less energy.

[silverweb]

3. Who promotes a single-agent solution?

All the green-minded people I know embrace a combination of energy use reduction and a mix of green energy production methods to address the problem.

This is not a valid argument against wind power or a reason to "rethink" the use of wind power.

Wind power is one very good partial solution. No one is claiming it is the entire solution.

Sheesh!

:eyes:

[jpak]

6. This is fallacy we see here often

Biomass as the sole solution to replace all our present energy needs

PV as the sole solution to replace all our present energy needs

Wind as the sole solution to replace all our present energy needs

etc.

Purveyors of Strawmen and Red Herrings are the ones that need to do the "rethinking".

[lumberjack_jeff]

7. You mean the aluminum can I recycled today...

...didn't, by itself, rescue the environment? Well fuck it, then.

:sarcasm:

[silverweb]

8. Amen!

I really need to restudy the logical fallacy directory so that I immediately know what to call these faulty arguments when I see them -- which is very often -- and can call them out properly.

Invalid arguments are recognizable immediately because they "feel wrong," but I don't usually remember what to call them or how to refute them on the spot. That's my fault and I need to bone up on that issue. It's important.

The faulty memory of old age is a Bitch. :D

[elocs]

25. Are your average Americans "green-minded" people?

I don't think so. Your average American wants that one thing that will replace oil and it does not exist and will never be found. I am saying it will take a combination of many things and in their total they will not add up to what oil now provides. When you look at all of the plus sides to things such as biofuels or windpower you need to also look at their negatives and limitations. Since we are all posting at DU we all should be aware that there are a significant number of Americans who view anybody who supports anything "green" as being kooks. They will not do anything until they are forced to and they jump at the promise (which is a loser) of E85 corn ethanol that will allow them to keep driving as much as they want and they also strongly support more nuclear plants being built and to them it would be completely justified.

There are no strawman arguments here. I support energy alternatives that are actually viable alternatives. All alternative should not be looked at through rose colored glasses and only see their upside without looking if the alternative has a negative energy return on energy input (EROEI) meaning that they cost more energy than they give back. There is big money and big business that push energy alternatives such as E85 corn ethanol that are great for corn farmers and ADM, but are not an intelligent energy alternative. Those who are big supporters of hydrogen and tout it as a great energy alternative need to completely study it, including its many downsides.

I do what I can. I last filled up my car on 13 July and may make it a couple of more weeks. I ride by bike as much as possible. I have a solar oven that I use whenever there is sun as well as solar battery chargers. I still believe that most Americans want that one magic solution to replace oil regardless of what those of us on the green fringe may be doing. They want a painless, simple way out of the energy problem so their lives can continue on exactly as they have.

[FloridaPat]

4. 75% of our energy goes to transportation. We could easily start

there. We have all the technology. Start by banning anything that gets less the 25 mpg this year, 30 next etc. We also consume 60% of the worlds oil resources every year. We really know how to waste energy.

[muesa]

5. That is the true key

Not some Malthusian mass starvation -- but re-engineering our transportation systems and paradigms. We need to go to high mpg cars, more reliance on mass transit + tele-commuting + walkable, pedestrian friendly transit villages.

[skids]

9. But but but

What about all those uber-important "face to face" meetings where the really important corporate "players" get to "look the guy in the eye" and discern his inner spirit over a couple of corporate-tab martinis by carefully examining the retinal pattern on the back of their eyeballs and applying their encyclopedic knowlege of eyeball eugenics?!?!?!

Where would we be as a civilization without first-class and business class junkets?!?!?!

How would our over-rewarded CEOs and other betters survive without a steady diet of corporate-expense-account filet mignon?

[muesa]

11. When you get to the 99% of us - below the VP level

those days are over and those perks are gone.

WebCam/WebEx teleconferencing is in.

Collaborative software - such as Outlook + Office is in.

Telecommuting is in.

When I started in industry 35+ years ago the world that you described was "the norm" for worker bees. I haven't seen a business junket - or a first class/business class cabin -- or a five star hotel for years. (We also had defined benefit pensions, good employer paid health insurance, continuing professional education at resort hotels, .....)

[skids]

14. Who are all the schmucks still flying then?

And considering I'm in the videoconferencing business, where are all the clients rushing to build up their VC facilities in my area?

It may be happenning, I'm not debating that, but it sure isn't happenning in my neck of the woods -- companies are still relocating to urban areas and forcing their employees to move into suburbs and spend 2 hours on the highway in gridlock to get to their offices. Rushing in, in fact, to check their daily scheduling calendar for any meetings that the guy 20 paces away from them sends them invitations for rather than move his ass off the chair and just go ask.

(Calendar applications, which I incidentally point out, require the physical presence of probably on average 1/2 a techie to maintain all externals tolled. Not that they would not be good apps to have in a telecommuting environment or huge organization just that bonehead small-time managers seem to think they are must-haves even when the situation does not merit it. But I digress.)

Out here in the sticks, where real estate is cheap, clean vacation-quality air is right in your back yard, one can buy their veggies at a farm stand, and the telco is already here and ready to serve those desk jobs... nothing.

[NNadir]

16. Comapanies are "forcing" people to move to suburbs?

I don't think that's the case at all. People want to move to suburbs.

Nobody forces the people around here to build McMansions on farmland. There is no corporate advisory committee that "forces" people to do this.

[FloridaPat]

10. Don't forget bike lanes!

[muesa]

12. And pedestrian friendly sidewalks

with neighborhood "Mom and Pop" businesses within walking distance.

[jwirr]

19. What is missing in most discussion about alternative energy

is a very old idea. Conservation! One of the first things we can do is start by sacrificing within our own lives. Bring back some of the simple things suggested in the 60s & 70s. Car pooling in rural areas, insulating houses, insulated blankets on water heaters,etc. That is not a new form of energy production but a cut in use. Both are needed.

[greenman3610]

21. Start "Sacrificing" the word "Sacrifice"

you just play into Cheney's hands.

If I install good insulation and use CF Bulbs, I am warm, and
I can read at night, using much less power.
What am I sacrificing?

What we want from our power plants is not
kilowatts, it is the energy services that they
provide, light, heat, electronics.

All of these can be provided using far, FAR
less energy than currently - that's why
it's been said America is the Saudi Arabia
of energy waste.

[petronius]

26. Good point: ixnay on the acrificesay...

And don't forget to mention that so many of those green solutions also save money at the same time...

[muesa]

27. Actually the "word" is "engineering"

Do we remember the old "Energy Star" stickers.

[4dsc]

22. Ever heard of Jevon's paradox

In economics, the Jevons Paradox is an observation made by William Stanley Jevons who stated that as technological improvements increase the efficiency with which a resource is used, total consumption of that resource may increase, rather than decrease.

Inasmuch as conservation should be the number one priority in my book when dealing with resource depletion, unless you require everyone to conserve it won't work IMHO!!

So unfortunately, peak oil is FORCE us to powerdown sooner or later..

[NNadir]

15. Whatever gave you the idea that 75% of energy goes to tranportation?

Actually it's the other way around. About 75% of energy is non transportation.

Electric power alone, consumes about 40% of our energy.

[FloridaPat]

17. I got it from another source online. It is probably for oil use.

Neat chart. Lots of lost energy there.

[NNadir]

20. Yes, many people are trying to repeal the second law of thermodyanmics.

I believe that the steroid crazed Hydrogen Hummer owning Governor of California has introduced a bill to the Assembly outlawing the implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics by 2040, after which new thermodynamic laws will have to be introduced in California. These laws will work by making perpetual motion machines mandatory in 20% of California automobiles by 2030.

The bill has broad bipartisan report and is expected to pass by a wide margin.

There is also a movement afoot to outlaw the laws of gravity during rush hour in California. This will enable to citizens of California to travel to work by levitation, saving 2 brazillion barrels of oil a day.

The laws of gravity may be suspended on alternate Saturdays as well, allowing the citizens to remove any palm fronds that may have fallen on their brazillions of solar cells, or floated there during other periods during which the laws of gravitation have been temporarily allowed to operate as deemed appropriate by acts of the legislature and the governor.

[Dead_Parrot]

18. Probably forgetting electrical losses.

That 27.8 EJ lost in generation & transmission is something I always forget, usually within 30 minutes of you posting that graphic: But the losses from transport seem to stick for some reason.

I knew that D.I.Y. trepanation kit was a bad move. :D

[elocs]

13. People want that one magic bullet that will save us.

That magic bullet that will allow us to continue on merry energy and resource wasting way. Unfortunately, it does not exist. It will have to be a combination of a lot of things which in their total will not add up to be even close to what oil gives us along with big lifestyle changes. Also unfortunately, oil has allowed for the incredible increase in food production that has allowed the world population to mushroom to 6.6 billion people. That won't work and there is no way around the fact that there will be a massive die-off. It's not nice to fool Mother Nature and we have not only fooled her, we have raped her and pissed on her. Payback will be a bitch.

[4dsc]

23. Isn't that magic bullet called "TECHNOLOGY"???

Come on now, most people, including most DU'er, put their collective faith in technology to save the world!!

[elocs]

24. Since you have a quote by pstarr, then you know about PeakOil.com.

Technology may help to save "part" of the world, but surely not the 6.6 billion now here or probably even most of them. The magic bullets I refer to are like ethanol which is being hailed as our savior or hydrogen, which as touted as being another part of the godhead. There is not "one" thing that is going to save us without a severe attitude and lifestyle change by the human population. Lastly, it was technology that brought us to this point. So evidently we seek to be saved by the hair of the dog.

[NNadir]

28. So your alternative is for everyone to become garden slugs?

It is amazing how people with poor thought processes use generic all encompassing words like "technology," as a bugaboo.

Which part of "technology" is most odious? Agriculture? Fire? How about writing? Let me guess? Clothing? Underwear, sexy and otherwise? How about boats?

I have yet to see a peak oiler who has abjurred "technology" on the ground that "technology" doesn't work. In fact, the oppoiste is true. One sees Peak Oilers represented often on computers, computers that are powered mostly by coal and nuclear power, with a little hydroelectric and oil thrown in on the side.

Actually the peak oil conceit is that oil is irreplacable, except it is replacable. The upshot of this conceit is that oil is fetishized, making the violence associated with oil even more dramatic, and the horrid environmental risks people take to make synthetic oil (I'm talking Fischer-Tropsch here) more likely.

In fact it is desirable to replace oil by completely abandoning petroleum mimetic technology. Anyone, on the other hand who completely despises all technology, is pretty much free to commit suicide.

Unfortunately one would need to understand something about those generic things called "science" and "technology" to know these things, but that would eliminate the great joy of the "peak oil" game.