[doodlebug2]

Thanks again Dude, very informative.

[Twilight]

The animation showing the effects over time of delays and cutbacks on upcoming projects is great. It chimes with what has been going on in other infrastructure - utilities, transport, you name it. Costs just won't keep still, much pleading for extra money, postponements into next budget. That detail passes the smell test.

[Tanada]

I started posting this over on the Coal thread but then after thinking about it I came to the conclusion that it is worthy of a much fuller discussion. Megaprojects have occurred all through human history, the Great Pyramids, Tower of Babel, Maya Pyramids, Machu Pichu, Nazca Lines, and many other examples. However since cheap fossil fuel energy became available the number of megaprojects our modern culture has built are massively greater. To anyone from 1840 or earlier a building like the Empire State Building or the Eiffel Tower was a Megaproject.

As we wind down the fossil fuel use we have a closing window to build additional megaprojects to sustain our population for a few more generations. The Roman Empire built stone and concrete aqueducts to all their major cities bringing fresh water in from sources of many miles distance to provide plenty of water that was clean and healthy to use. As we wind down the fossil age we should consider how best to prepare with our last burst of fossil energy for the lower energy age dead ahead.

I really wonder about the climate change angle on all this projection. On the one hand if every future winter is like the El Nino winter we are having this year heating demand in the mid latitude north is way down, but on the other side of the coin cooling demand in the low latitude subtropics goes up. Then you also need to factor in desertification of crop lands that in wealthier countries like the USA will lead to large scale irrigation involving a lot of energy to move water from source to farmland. I suppose individual farmers, even the huge agribusinesses of the Great Plains won't be able to do that without significant government assistance.

To sum up I think climate effects are at best a wash in the energy demand and at worst a large increase until we just can't afford to use the energy except for vital services. For example how much would it cost to build a pipeline from the mouth of the Columbia river to Southern California along the coastline? The pipe would take in river water right before it discharges into the Pacific Ocean where the states it flows through have already gotten all the benefits they can from it so as to not cause any economic hardship directly to those states north and east of California. The pipeline can be under water so it is out of sight, out of mind, and a heck of a lot cheaper than the pump Lake Michigan scheme that crops up every five years or so. But we need to build it now while we can still pay for the embedded energy expense. The longer we wait the harder it will be to complete a mega project like this.

[Newfie]

I've been around a few mega progects but really only worked on one, the new tunnels into NYC before Christy shut that down. And a bit on East Side Access.

I don't like them. Waaaay too much structure and bs. Very inefficient in my mind.

I would shut down all mega projects, all new highway construction. We have enough right now, we just need to use it more efficiently, we have to maintain it.

Hell, we can't get safe water to Flint.

In my mind most of California should be depopulated. It, like NOLA, should never have been built. Like Reno and Vegas.

[SeaGypsy]

I think Tan is alluding to a more nuanced view of the term. Obvious mega projects could include such as alternative power- nuke, solar, wave & wind & proving it is possible for a region at least to get off FFs, or as near as theoretically possible. Bike & light vehicle infrastructure- ultralight mega projects. Rail upgrades. Fast seagoing passenger transit not reliant on FFs, which as kerosene becomes rare is going to become essential once more. Irrigation infrastructure & technology upgrades for water management.

If I'm reading your post right Tan- the potential infrastructure upgrades to- get off FFs, stop wasting so much of everything, maintain mobility post oil, possibly even buy enough time for a global consensus on powerdown & pop down- all has to happen at the mega projects scale & beyond. & we are running out of time & stuff to do it with while we keep investing in death & destruction as the current model dictates.

[dissident]

All the main agricultural zones on the planet will be stressed beyond breaking point thanks to climate change. These zones reflect the characteristics of the previous climate, which was stable for 8,000 years. The new climate regime does not work out in humanity's favour. Irrigation is not going to be some panacea that keeps BAU alive. Diverting fresh water flows to serve regional needs will have global consequences on top of them being Quixotian endeavours.

[SeaGypsy]

I agree we are 40 years late really.

[Tanada]

I think Tan is alluding to a more nuanced view of the term. Obvious mega projects could include such as alternative power- nuke, solar, wave & wind & proving it is possible for a region at least to get off FFs, or as near as theoretically possible. Bike & light vehicle infrastructure- ultralight mega projects. Rail upgrades. Fast seagoing passenger transit not reliant on FFs, which as kerosene becomes rare is going to become essential once more. Irrigation infrastructure & technology upgrades for water management.

If I'm reading your post right Tan- the potential infrastructure upgrades to- get off FFs, stop wasting so much of everything, maintain mobility post oil, possibly even buy enough time for a global consensus on powerdown & pop down- all has to happen at the mega projects scale & beyond. & we are running out of time & stuff to do it with while we keep investing in death & destruction as the current model dictates.

More or less yes. Any high embedded energy infrastructure improvements we are going to do for the next century or so need to be done right now while oil, coal and natural gas are still abundant enough that we can afford to make those improvements. Aqueducts and railroads would be very high on my priority lists and airports would not appear anywhere on my list.

People kept using the Roman roads and aqueduct systems for many generations after the fall of the Western Empire because they were built to last. We should be doing the same thing right now so our descendants have the best set of options possible, not the leftover crumbling infrastructure we currently have.

[Newfie]

Lovelock says to use or remaining ff to build nukes.

But I don't get it. To what end? What is the goal?

[SeaGypsy]

To prove to our replacements we at least tried.

[Subjectivist]

Lovelock says to use or remaining ff to build nukes.

But I don't get it. To what end? What is the goal?

I would think that is obvious, nuclear power can provide both heat and electricity without producing large volumes of CO2. Industrial processes need heat and electricity, and so do homes and apartments. Build enough reactors like the new BN-800 Russia started up and we can eliminate the need for fossil fuels for survival. Electrify railroad routes and you can haul products and raw materials coast to coast to distribution hubs where short range delivery trucks distribute it to wholesalers or end users. The short range trucks can burn hydrogen or some other chemical manufactured with electricity. If you go all out you can even pull CO2 out of the air in the form of bio char and burry it in old mine sites for long term sequestration. We do not lack potential solutions, we lack the will to pursue them.

[Newfie]

Yes that works, provided CO2 and cc is our only problem.

What about resource depletion, water contamination/aquifer depletion, and obpver population? How do nukes help that?

Lovelock also said to stop letting folks into the UK and to defend their island nation against the contenital chaos which was forthcoming. So I think he was just trying to sabpve the UK, he didn't seem to think the rest had a chance.

[Newfie]

Tanda wrote:

"As we wind down the fossil fuel use we have a closing window to build additional megaprojects to sustain our population for a few more generations. "

It seems to have started out as a thread witht the assumption that the above statement it true.
1. I agree we have ff to build mega projects.
2. I disagree that they, no matter for what use, will sustain our population for a few more generations.
3. It has been said many times "we need to leave it in the ground." If you buy that then we can not afford the mega projects because they will foster more CO2 and make life less sustainable.
4. If you don't subscribe to the above then you need to explain how you will at the same time stop human population growth and/or reduce human polulation.
5. I would also ask why you think more mega projects is a better solution than learning how to reduce our current usage.


There is more but that's a start.

[ROCKMAN]

"Build enough reactors...and we can eliminate the need for fossil fuels for survival." Or do like Texas and greatly expand our electricity generating capacity with wind power while planning to while expanding our capacity to burn even more of our lignite in the future by currently building the largest CO2 sequestration project on the planet. A project to eliminate the second largest single source of GHG in the US. We had also set in motion plans to expand our S Texas Nuclear facility by 50% when Japan had their "little problem". That has indefinitely shut down that nuke expansion. Given that Texas is already one of the largest alt energy producers IN THE WORLD how do we offset the backtrack on the nukes? Easy answer: Worried that new regulations could imperil coal’s viability, states have begun for the first time to turn down new plants because of their CO2 emissions. In 2007, a Kansas state agency denied air permits for two coal-fired power plants that would have produced 11 million tons of CO2. In Nevada this year, LS Power indefinitely postponed plans for a massive, 1,600-megawatt coal station; instead, the utility will focus on transmission lines to move renewable power from rural areas to cities. “There is one big aberration: Texas, which is marching in a completely different direction from the rest of the country,” says Bruce Nilles, National Coal Campaign director for the Sierra Club. “This is ground zero. This is the last stand of the coal industry in a major way.”

FYI several years ago: "A staggering 18 plants were on the table statewide, 11 proposed by utility giant TXU Corp. Only China was doing more to expand the climate-choking reach of coal." But the reason should be obvious: Texas has a huge 100+ year supply of coal (lignite)...the other sates don't. The same reason states in the NW states have so much hydro-power developed: it wasn't to "protect the environment"...it was because nature provided them with a huge natural source potential: mountains and rivers. Just as nature provided Texas with huge amounts of shallow lignite. If Washington state had been out to "save the planet" they wouldn't be the 5th largest producer of refinery products in the country. And doing so with most of the oil produced in those pristine regions of Alaska. We do know that the Exxon Valdez was hauling that oil to the Washington refineries, don't we? And most of those refinery products made from the Valdez shipment were going to be burned in CA, right?

The best hope for Texas coal consumption is to continue building out sequestration projects. Today the power plants are opting for NG in a big way if they can because of those very low prices. But those low prices will not last decades into the future. But cheap Texas lignite will.

[Newfie]

Ah Texas, the insatiable need for "MORE."