31 replies to this topic

[MyDigitalpoint]

E3 wise, on 08 April 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

Demographers refer to my generation as the baby boomers.  

This is the problem with demographers; they seems love to "labeling" people but what is this good for?

By my birth date I belong in the "Generation-X"  but in the transitional edge between this and that of the baby boomers. So when it comes to the challenges we have to face, I'm sometimes lost with mixed considerations.

It's too much to do out there an while many of us have the same goal heading to a greener world moving to alternative energy, sometimes is pretty hard keep the right direction.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

To me, it doesn't matter if a person is 3 or 4 and helping mommy plant the garden, or 96 and embracing
a greener lifestyle at long last.
As long as we continue to spread awareness of the damage being done, and the solutions to the biggest
issues facing us on this planet-that's all that matters.

[eds]

One of the major things that is helping "change the world to alternative energy"
. . .  is the Economy.

People and Countries, can no longer afford,
. . . to be wasteful, with money and energy.
The debt that has accumulated because of spending,
. . . on McMansions, Gas-guzzlers, wasteful programs,  
. . . combined with a total lack of any type of savings, and
. . . World-Wide Demand for essential energy, out striping Supply,
. . . have led to a World-Wide de-leveraging process.
It is becoming too costly to be wasteful of our energy sources.

People and Countries, need to go thru a "Period of adjustment"
. . . where renewable energy and expensive wastefulness
. . . make some richer and some poorer,
. . . as some adjust to changes and some will stubbornly fight change.

You have a map of the USA, that shows the changes,
. . . that have occurred, over the last 10 years, in States,
. . . changing their percentage of Energy source's to renewable,
. . . and those who haven't.
Look back over those 10 years in your own life,
. . . how has Energy and Money changed you?

If you wish to change, the easiest thing to do is STOP wasting Energy and Money.
. . . The next step is to "Invest" in things that "SAVE" even more Energy and Money.
. . . (like more energy efficiency in the home, better temperature control thru insulation,
. . . electric power-strips and lighting, more efficiency in transportation,
. . . Re-use, Re-cycle, Re-purpose, etc.)
. . . Finally, invest what you SAVED, in renewable Energy.

Then you have Transformed your world to alternative energy.

[Phil]

I think there are positive and negative ways to sell green, a program on Planet Green touched on this.  When the negative way is used people begin to tune out, they refered to this phenomenon as "green fatigue".  The best way to sell green is to stay positive, instead of focusing on "the sky is falling", focus on "look how much cleaner the air is!", "look how much my panels are saving!", that sort of thing.

I also believe in incentives over mandates, the carrot vs. the stick.  If it weren't for my states incentives and the federal 30% I would never have bought in.  I'm a retired boomer by the way and since, like it or not, we are in the best financial shape, we could do more than most age groups if it's sold right.  One thing is to lead by example, be the first on your block to fill your roof with panels!  That's what I did.  Even though our neighborhood is only a dozen homes, I may be able to convince two or three to join me.  It's the snowball effect that will gather momentum as neighborhood by neighborhood is converted.

Regarding high up front costs, pricing is low enough now that I'd rather the feds drop the 30% incentive and offer 0% interest solar conversion loans instead.  At $1/watt panels are now competitive with other power sources, particularly if self installed.  What is holding us back now is the high initial hurdle.

I would also reiterate that we should NOT kill oil until we have a viable alternative.  It would be economic suicide.  By viable I mean when half the customers walking into a showroom pick a BEV over an ICE WITHOUT federal incentives.  At that point start ramping up gas taxes.  In the mean time keep up the incentives to attract the early BEV adopters and build volume.

[still learning]

Phil, on 14 April 2012 - 10:14 AM, said:

....I would also reiterate that we should NOT kill oil until we have a viable alternative......

Shouldn't kill oil, conventional oil, maybe, but shouldn't give it any "life support" either.

As conventional oil production peaks there'll be increasing clamor to develop unconventional sources, including even oil shale. (    http://en.wikipedia....iki/Oil_shale��)

Using up conventional oil is kind of assumed in some of the economic scenarios leading to a low CO2 emissions economy, but switching to unconventional oil wrecks those scenarios just as much as continued reliance on coal.  

Switching to a low CO2 future won't be cost-free.  Not switching will guarantee even greater costs though.  Later costs, but greater.

[Phil]

I think we are 5-10 years away from a viable battery car as described earlier.  That means from an economic point of view we should ramp up all oil sources now.  Shale is a fact of life as are tar sands.  The best way to avoid using them is to drill for more conventional oil so the lower price makes unconventional sources non viable.

Once BEV's become a reasonable portion of the rolling fleet, oil prices will begin to decline, assuming the EU and China also ramp up electrics.  That will take shale and tar sands off line first.

So we have a choice, open up public lands. more of the gulf, and other off shore sources or we do shale.

One thing to note, I thought solar panels were 5-10 years away as well but China stepped in and made them a commodity.  They could do the same with batteries or even a BEV of their own.  That could be a game changer.

[eds]

When you have been using something for 100 years like coal and Oil,
. . . it's hard to change!
Oil is used in transportation, in heating homes, in making plastics,
. . . like comfort food, it's a devilishly delicious addiction,
. . . fine when used in moderation,
. . . but so easy to become something, we can't live without.

But as more and more people, demand non-renewable resources, like oil,
. . . the inevitable forces of "Supply and Demand," force prices to rise,
. . . the pollution of oils waste products become more visible, and harmful,
. . . smog, non-biodegradable trash, spills, etc.

The first reaction is normally, find more source's of supply,
. . . like tar sands, even if it cost more energy to get . . .  then it give's,
. . . and that's the sure sign of an unhealthy addiction.
The 2nd reaction is normally, to throw money at a problem,
. . . trying to raise supply faster and faster, than demand,
. . . which usually ends up in reckless accidents and spills.

The first reaction that is healthy, is to find ways to reduce our dependency,
. . . Insulating a home will reduce our heating and cooling costs,
. . . Trains can move a ton of freight nearly 500 miles on a single gallon of fuel.
The 2nd reaction that is healthy, is to invest in renewable energy,
. . . we should be celebrating the COST decline of solar by 50% in 2011,
. . . it brings us with in reach of the "Tipping Point" of renewable energy,
. . . and finally freeing us from the "Whipsawing of oil prices" and wars,
. . . we have had to endure since 1973.  

Source: Tread Gently on the earth it's the only one we have.  

Interactive United States Energy Use Comparisons

[E3 wise]

Ed’s as always your comments are both insightful and timely.  The US Energy Comparison is a real eye opener that once again put into vivid detail the issue of CO2 and its relationship to fossil fuels.
One of the big issues I find is the tendency for people to focus on the negative’s of alternative energy instead of the positives.

I think this often comes from the fact that big energy companies spend billions on advertising in Green Washing campaigns designed to tout big oil, coal, and natural gas as the only option.  They scare people by saying millions of jobs will be lost or that people will have to give up the way they live today, many even try to focus on how they are cleaning up their act or how many new discoveries there are, giving the impression that nothing is wrong.

Like the cigarettes campaigns of the 1960’s and 1970’s the aim is to cloud peoples understanding and slow the inevitable as long as possible so they can make as much money as possible.

So instead of focusing on the solutions alternative energy can provide many bring up issues like variability and storage, not understanding that these issues have been and are continuing to be solved everyday with better and better solutions.

This is why people like those on this forum must continue to share information and the message of what is really going on and how important it is to keep working toward sustainable energy independence.  There are many reasons from environmental, health, economic, and humanitarian reasons.  I often wonder when the tipping point of understanding will come and I remember that change takes time.

It also takes people standing firm, and giving information that is accurate and informative, which is why I appreciate your work and all you, and so many others in this forum, do to aid in bringing about and Alt. Energy Shift.

[aphil]

Transforming our world means transforming our thoughts, from viewing our environment as a support mechanism strictly for our benefit and profit, to viewing our environment as our valued partner. I still don't get how so many feel we can destroy the environment that gives us our life. It's like a death wish; not just for the planet, but for ourselves. Making people aware that there is a way to supply our needs while simultaneously supplying the needs of our environment to perpetually sustain us all - may give hope and inspire change at a grass roots level.

[Phil]

No one "wants" to destroy the environment, that's for sure.  The point I want to make is not to artificially kill oil to foster renewables.  It seems there are many that say "economy be damned" but that is just unworkable.  We don't need to get more and more desparate about oil but we don't need to sink the economy either.  It is a healthy economy that allows us to invest in renewables and fund the transition, only prosperous countries can afford to go green.  Worst of all, it's the poor that suffer most from high energy prices.

To reiterate, we are 5-10 years from BEV viabillity, that's just around the corner in the grand scheme of things.  According to L3Wise we are also about that from FCV's as well.  That means within a decade we will begin the transition in earnest which means within a quarter century the nation will be largly converted.  If that's case, oil usage will peak in a decade then ramp down from there.  As it ramps down, costs will also ramp down, making shale oil, tar sands, etc. no longer economical.  We just need another decade of cheap oil.

I guess this discussion is moot anyway.  We ARE using shale oil and tar sands and will continue to do so as long as oil is expensive.  Oil is booming on private lands.  Even if we drag out feet on drilling, others will not.  The poor will suffer with high energy prices both from transportation and higher food prices.  Renewables will march forward and eventually replace iCE transportation.  The marketplace will dictate terms in the end.

[artistry]

Totally interesting post, we need  a massive infusion of "we need renewable energy sources". The planet will not be replenising to help save the planet, at the rate we are using our natural resources. Hopefully people will start to understand at a faster pace.
Jan Brewer is a right wing nut case, as she showed that day when she put her bony finger in the President's face. Crazy is as crazy does.

[Phil]

Well I'm a libertarian so right wing nut case fiscally, left wing nut case socially!  

It seems people see all the problems around and don't realize how much progress we've made and are continuing to make.  Everyone wants renewable resouces, most just don't want to go bankrupt getting them.  As someone who's spent and entire career in technology, usually you can't "have it now".  Technology takes time.  It took solar panels half a century to become viable, (price parity without subdidies).  It took Li-Ion technology to get even remotely viable battery technology.  It's taken decades for fuel cells to be even remotely viable.  Fusion likely will never be viable.

The point I'd like to make is we are less than a decade away from a major shift in energy production and use, we don't have to go broke to get there a few years earlier, (nor will the market let us).

As an aside, Bush was not evil incarnate, Obama does not walk on water, and Jan Brewer has a legitimate view that differs with the president, nothing more, nothing less.  If we want to have people "understand at a faster pace" we have to be incisive, not devisive.

What is to be gained by making enemies of half the population?  Belittling people and insulting them only generates blowback, not converts.  Being libertarian I have a foot in both camps, and when you strip away the posturing, propaganda, and hype, in the end they both want what's right for the country, they just have different views of how to get there.