Posted on 07/12/2017 9:48:21 AM PDT by Lorianne
Our core realization was that scale is the biggest transition hurdle. This has implications that both Jacobson et al., and Clack et al. largely ignore. Jacobson’s plan, for example, envisions building 100,000 times more hydrogen production capacity than exists today. And the plan’s assumed hydro expansion would require 100 times the flow of the Mississippi River. If, instead, the United States were to aim for an energy system, say, a tenth the size of its current one, then the transition would be far easier to fund and design.
When we start our transition planning by assuming that future Americans will use as much energy as we do now (or even more of it in the case of economic growth), then we have set up conditions that are nearly impossible to design for. And crucially, that conclusion still holds if we add nuclear power (which is expensive and risky) or fossil fuels (which are rapidly depleting) to the mix. The only realistic energy future that David Fridley and I were able to envision is one in which people in currently industrialized countries use far less energy per capita, use it much more efficiently, and use it when it’s available rather than demanding 24/7/365 energy services.
That would mean not doing a lot of things we are currently doing (e.g., traveling in commercial aircraft), doing them on a much smaller scale (e.g., getting used to living in smaller spaces and buying fewer consumer products—and ones built to be endlessly repaired), or doing them very differently (e.g., constructing buildings and roads with local natural materials).
If powerdown—that is, focusing at least as much on the demand side of the energy equation as on the supply side—were combined with a deliberate and humanely guided policy of population decline, there would be abundant beneficial side effects. The climate change crisis would be far easier to tackle, as would ongoing loss of biodiversity and the depletion of resources such as fresh water, topsoil, and minerals.
Jacobson has not embraced a powerdown pathway, possibly because he assumes it would not appeal to film stars and politicians. Clack et al. do not discuss it either, mostly because their task at hand is simply to demolish Jacobson. But powerdown, the pathway about which it is seemingly not permissible for serious people to speak, is what we should all be talking about. That’s because it is the most realistic way to get to a sustainable, happy future
[EXERPTED FOR THE MAIN POINT]
So the takeaway here is that there is at least one faction in the renewable energy coterie that recognizes what a 100% renewable future would look like ... and one (larger) faction that is totally out to lunch and are total 'deniers' of reality.
Population reduction? OK, you go first. Set a good example.
This is the worst reasoned article I have read in a long time
“Our core realization was that scale is the biggest transition hurdle. This has implications that both Jacobson et al., and Clack et al. largely ignore. Jacobson’s plan, for example, envisions building 100,000 times more hydrogen production capacity than exists today. And the plan’s assumed hydro expansion would require 100 times the flow of the Mississippi River.”
Your core realization should be that in a sane society, you would be embarassed, humilated, and laughed out of your alleged field of expertise for putting your name(s) on such a piece of research.
It takes MORE energy to produce hydrogen than it yields upon combustion. It will take ASTRONOMICAL energy to produce the NASA-grade infrastructure required to deal with leakazoid hydrogen. But that’s OK, you’re smarter than let’s say 25 Mississippi rivers. Sheesh.
Peak Oil Redux, doubling down.
I think the author is pointing that out ... that there is NO WAY to scale up renewable energy production to meet even existing demand.
I think it is very reasoned.
The author is saying that there is NO WAY to scale up renewable energy production to meet even current demand.
“we have set up conditions that are nearly impossible to design for. And crucially, that conclusion still holds if we add nuclear power (which is expensive and risky) or fossil fuels (which are rapidly depleting) to the mix. The only realistic energy future that David Fridley and I were able to envision is one in which people in currently industrialized countries use far less energy per capita, use it much more efficiently, and use it when it’s available rather than demanding 24/7/365 energy services.”
bold as well as bald faced BS in print for all to see and believe, or not.
I think you are missing what is the main point he is trying to convey ... that there is NO WAY renewable energy production can scale up to meet even current demand.
Most governments morph into competitive organizations that forever want to grow in size, power, and wealth. The only policy they will ever support that eventually leads to population decline is socialism.
There it is foljs....ready to be part of a turd world nation
An energy system one tenth the size of the current one would require a population one tenth the size of the current one which fits in with the plans of the enviros even aside from energy production.
Nuclear power is also easily scaled up
Many electronic and electrically powered devices are becoming far more efficient as well
The authors thesis that depowering and depopulating is not necessary and seemingly undesirable
American and European society has successfully transitioned into stable, near zero population growth societies (80% of US population growth is legal and illegal immigration) and our political leaders are using uncontrolled immigration to boost population
The reason all these clowns come up with this stuff is due to them not being able to wrap their mushy skulls around the concept of hydrocarbons ALWAYS being a fundamental component of civilization. We will utilize energy to make hydrocarbons if and when they become scarce enough to warrant it. Before humans remotely consider building out the infrastructure to power this whole sphere on straight hydrogen we would be shipping hydrocarbons in from Titan.
Hydrocarbons are the f***ing legos of technological civilization. The only thing that will preempt them as motive fuel is going to be either a compact and efficient nuclear based thermal transfer source, direct nuclear or thermonuclear reaction source, antimatter, etc...
If we get plentiful electric generation from large scale fusion or thorium power sources in the future one of the first things it will get used for is generating liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons for motive fuels and feedstocks.
“a deliberate and humanely guided policy of population decline”
so forcible genocide is the heart of “powerdown” ... the final leftist “solution”
bkmk
Frankly I’m not sure there is a main point being conveyed other than the destruction of life as we know it.
The back and forth between Heinberg the Author, and listed contributors Mark Jacobson, The New York Times, Clack, his co-authors, plus David Fridley another apparent co-author, speaking of a mythical realistic energy future, I was left to wonder just how many crazy people were involved in the effort to destroy Western Civilization.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.