[MonteQuest]

The Search for Prometheus III

Prometheus was one of the most interesting characters in Greek Mythology. He was the Titan who stole fire from Zeus and the gods and gave it to mortals for the benefit of mankind. As the introducer of fire, he is seen as the patron of human civilization.

Among the countless technologies humans have developed, only two have increased our power over the environment in any significant way. Economist Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, 1906-1994, called these Promethean technologies.

Prometheus I was fire; exceptional in its nature to convert chemical to heat energy in a sustained chain reaction so long as sufficient fuel is available.

Prometheus II was the heat engine. Like fire, a heat engine achieves a conversion of heat energy into mechanical work, and sustains it in a more complex chain reaction process by supplying surplus energy.

We burn fossil fuels in these heat engines. But fossil fuels are finite and produce major alterations to the earth’s carbon cycle, i.e., global warming. Thus, humanity faces a fundamental challenge: We need to find Prometheus III and replace fossil fuels with solar technologies that have Promethean gift qualities.

In my opinion, the following qualities are critical:

First, the new energy technologies must be renewable and sustainable.

Second, they must provide for a decentralization of energy production and be scalable.

Third, they must eliminate or substantially reduce carbon emissions.

The diffuse nature of incoming solar radiation requires a significant investment of energy and materials to capture, collect, and concentrate sunlight. This means that many solar technologies deliver a lower energy surplus than fossil fuels. Equally important, the huge infrastructure required to collect solar energy is made from fossil fuels. Solar technologies, therefore, currently are “parasites” on fossil fuel systems because they cannot “reproduce” themselves.

So, to make the transition to renewable energies, we must “powerdown” our civilization and learn to live in a world of modest, bio-regionally organized communities living on received solar energy. For the next half-century there will be just enough energy resources left to enable either a horrific and futile contest for the remaining spoils, or a heroic cooperative effort toward radical conservation and transition to a post-fossil-fuel energy regime. Technological change is shaped in part by the physical attributes of the energies available from the environment, so a world based upon renewable solar technologies is going to be different than the one we now live in.

[turmoil]

First we must define sustainable, in the context of PO and of general resource depletion of the 21 century.

For example, are wind/solar/wave/hydrogren/ powered generators actually sustainable, when you consider EROEI?

Oil is about 1:30 right now. It is clear that civilization will have to do with less than that soon.

IMHO, the key question for this thread should be:
What combination of renewable energy sources requires the least amount of energy investment?

The use of existing fossil-fuel resources is critical.

SM.

[EnergySpin]

Wind is 1:30 now.
Life cycle assessments for the big onshore and offshore wind turbines have been made by one big player (Vestas) in order to comply with EU law.
This lifecycle assessment including energy and material costs to build, commision, maintain and decomission (including recycling of materials used i.e. carbon and or style). The bottom line is that the energy payback time for a 2 to 3 MW turbine is between six to 9 months.

I can pull the relevant posts from the Global Wind Energy Council thread, but if anyone is really interested then he or she can look at the actual reports themselves found here
Note that these numbers might be different now they have revealed the 4.5MW turbine targetted for offshore but no LCA exists yet.
Unfortunately GE does not have that information for their products on the web (or I'm too stupid to find them )

To answer the question, which kind of technology requires the least input of materials is not a straighforward one, because different materials have different energy costs.
My definition of sustainability for energy: materials can be recycled (note you cannot do that for nuclear plants), technology should be low intensity , high science (wind and some of the dye based solar panels fit that definition, hydro or pumped hydro storage also do, uranium nukes definitely do not, but thorium based reactors are much less of a nuisance), technology MAY benefit from advances in material science (solar and wind do become more efficient) and require minimal input of fossil fuels so that they can still be built when fossil fuels are available in a limited scale in the future (i.e. by farming)

[Seeker]

Any focus on renewable energy must first look at deconsumption, IMO. The best form of renewable energy is that which we do not use in the first place. The following points come directly from the idea of deconsumption:

2. Implement passive solar energy -- heating, cooling, cooking, refrigeration, etc. -- in order to relieve the energy burden. (rephrase, anyone?)
3. Unnecessary transportation, construction, manufacturing, and other heavily oil-dependent energy uses must be excised. [Egad, I'm having a Jeavon's Paradox "moment" -- it's really rather difficult to come up with "solutions" to problems that don't create their own problems...]
4. Make agriculture more organic and sustainable -- i.e. reduce oil inputs drastically. The decrease in mechanization could be offset by an influx of workers from excised high-energy professions.
5. Decentralize huge international corporations in order to facilitate the relocalization and thus deconsumption movement.

As this might be an entire phase (not sure), maybe I should stop there. But if it is, perhaps it should come before alternative/renewable energy?? As far as I can tell, the area we have the most room to work with is in the area of consumption. Energy itself isn't as flexible...

[Graeme]

I suggest that geothermal is a definite renewable energy option not only as a source of electricity (conventional geothermal and hot dry rock in suitable locations) but also as a source of domestic heating and cooling (heat pumps).

[Zentric]

In my opinion, the following qualities are critical:

First, the new energy technologies must be renewable and sustainable.

Second, they must provide for a decentralization of energy production and be scalable.

Third, they must eliminate or substantially reduce carbon emissions.

The diffuse nature of incoming solar radiation requires a significant investment of energy and materials to capture, collect, and concentrate sunlight. This means that many solar technologies deliver a lower energy surplus than fossil fuels. Equally important, the huge infrastructure required to collect solar energy is made from fossil fuels. Solar technologies, therefore, currently are “parasites” on fossil fuel systems because they cannot “reproduce” themselves.

So, to make the transition to renewable energies, we must “powerdown” our civilization and learn to live in a world of modest, bio-regionally organized communities living on received solar energy. For the next half-century there will be just enough energy resources left to enable either a horrific and futile contest for the remaining spoils, or a heroic cooperative effort toward radical conservation and transition to a post-fossil-fuel energy regime. Technological change is shaped in part by the physical attributes of the energies available from the environment, so a world based upon renewable solar technologies is going to be different than the one we now live in.

As above, MonteQuest, so many arguments can, at times, be flimsy - although I wouldn't dare question your logic that civilization faces problems that it would be better for if solved.

I will also add, concisely, that the methodology you're using to reach your proposed "Powerdown Solution:Renewable Energy" could possibly be flawed. For example, you have yet to decide who exactly gets to live or die, be enslaved or allowed to remain free, which suburbs will be dismantled and which will be "renewed", which regions of the country will be foresaken, whether the U.S., for example, is to remain a republic, or to be divided instead into independent states or bioregions, how we are to collectively protect ourselves from foreign invaders, creditors or fluctuations in the value of "money" or money supply. Will ICE automobiles be mandated away? Will electrified cars and trains be built to take their place? Will our political system be more like "benign" socialism, or the present corporate cronyism? Should the people expect to have refrigerators/air conditioning in their households? And will patent laws be relaxed to allow the most energy-efficient and least environmentally-destructive products to be built, present royalty-structure notwithstanding.

And not until a consensus is reached - by hopefully knowledgable, reasonable, altruistic people - on the answers to many of these questions, and perhaps also to thousands of other questions like them, only then might we be able to take confident steps towards building out this sustainable, nearly steady-state local or regional energy infrastructure of which you speak. Perhaps a more holistic methodology is what's called for - where you envision not only where we are today, where you would like us to be tomorrow, but, most importantly, just how we are supposed to get there from here. Maybe one of the upcoming phases you have planned will be "Politics." Another, "Schmoozing." Another, "Bribes."

[Ludi]

I will also add, concisely, that the methodology you're using to reach your proposed "Powerdown Solution:Renewable Energy" could possibly be flawed. ...

And not until a consensus is reached - by hopefully knowledgable, reasonable, altruistic people - on the answers to many of these questions, and perhaps also to thousands of other questions like them, only then might we be able to take confident steps towards building out this sustainable, nearly steady-state local or regional energy infrastructure of which you speak.

I disagree with this philosophy. Because here you're saying we all, the entire world perhaps, have to decide what the entire world will do before any community takes steps towards building a sustainable way of life. Even though there are already communities who have been taking steps toward living in this way. If we have to wait to take steps until everyone , or at least, from what you say, all altruistic people, make a consensus decision, then we are truly doomed. Those of us on this board who are working toward building sustainable communities should, by your reasoning, just stop what we're doing. Colombia's Gaviotas village, for instance, should dismantle, because they are already a sustainable community, and by your thinking they can not have, or should not have, taken steps to become one. Maybe I'm simply misunderstanding what you're saying, because I can't see the reasoning in your argument. Can you clarify?

[backstop]

Monte -

the outset of this phase seems the right time to get the title right, so I have to challenge the term "RENEWABLE".

This was invented by politicians' spin doctors to provide a meaningless term that can be applied to whatever is politically expedient at a given date. As you know very well, there is no such thing as 'renewable' energy.

Two technologies demonstrate its unhelpfulness for our present purpose.
First, the Fast Breeder Nuclear Reactor, which is certainly, within the term's common usage, entirely 'renewable'. (The nuclear lobby here were deeply peeved to find their industry excluded by political edict).

Second, Mega-hydro, which is accredited as renewable but which a/. silts up and patently lacks replacement sites, b/. floods massive land areas, & c/. emits methane from the anaerobic decay of organic detrius on the pool-bed to the extent that, at least in tropical regions, the GHG cost of power supplied can be worse than that from coal-fired stations.

What we're talking of here is sustainability, and I think we should use the term if we're to avoid massive filibustering (see "The mother of all biofuel debates).

Selecting sustainable energy technologies under criteria of

a/. Global Relevance

b/. Local legitimacy

c/. Regional Performance Balancing (ratio of intermitent : power-on-demand)

would, IMHO, be relatively straightforward and could perhaps allow us to make a valuable contribution to the wider debate over energy supply.

Therefore I propose that the title of this phase be revised to SUSTAINABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT.

regards,

Backstop

[LadyRuby]

From what I've heard (from Simmons, Smalley, etc.) we need to find a brand new energy, and/or capture it in a way we're not currently capable of. So I'd add to the list:

Increase research/basic science on new renewable energies.
Shift huge portions of government budgets (space program, etc.) to energy research.

[geronimo]

Well you are forgetting solar thermal, which has much better eroei figures than solar cells and could be deployed on a large scale in suitable areas with a concerted effort.

[gg3]

Zentric, that's a meta-discussion and probably belongs in another topic as per the link Monte posted. Ludi, please don't turn it into a digression of this topic. This topic isn't about the whys and wherefores, it's about the hows.

---

= Sustainable energy *utilization* is as much a part of the picture as renewable energy *production*.

= For example, bicycles do not produce energy but do utilize it (human caloric intake) far more efficiently than any other form of land transport. Therefore promote the use of human-powered vehicles through all possible incentives, including appropriate design of cities and towns.

= Forbid all forms of "sprawl" development.

= Re-introduce on a large scale, agricultural equipment that is powered by animals such as horses and oxen. For a truly impressive example of what was at one time commonplace, go here:

http://www.historylink101.com/lessons/f ... ombine.htm

What you see at the top of that page is a combine harvester (the term "combine" means "combined harvester/thresher") that performs all of the functions of the one at the bottom of the page except that it is pulled by a team of approx. 15 to 20 horses. The Amish still make and use machines of this type. The technology can be generalized.

(Also the important operator amenities of shelter from direct sunlight and a cab that has filtered positive air pressure to keep out choking dust, can be provided easily enough; and the clean/fresh air system can be powered by a photovoltaic on the cab roof. Heck, even a radio or CD player!)

= Reintroduce similar animal-powered methods in construction and other fields of work wherever possible.

= Develop distributed intelligent control systems for coordinating the output of wind generators, thereby reducing the potential for destabilization of the grid due to wind intermittency issues.

= Wherever possible, team-up wind and solar with hydroelectric power, also as a means of dealing with wind intermittency.

[Aaron]

For example, you have yet to decide who exactly gets to live or die, be enslaved or allowed to remain free

I have made this same observation.

The demographics of energy production & use greatly influence these considerations.

Recall that a very small percentage of people use the vast majority of energy today.

From what I've heard (from Simmons, Smalley, etc.) we need to find a brand new energy, and/or capture it in a way we're not currently capable of.

Just so... Gigawatt solutions to Terawatt problems solve nothing.

If we have to wait to take steps until everyone , or at least, from what you say, all altruistic people, make a consensus decision, then we are truly doomed.

<Stanley Jevon shakes his head and chuckles under his breath>

Any focus on renewable energy must first look at deconsumption, IMO.

IBID (Just how many new Chinese middle-class consumers are you hoping to add by making energy cheaper?)

Wind is 1:30 now.

No

Vestas calculations are about as reliable as the USGS predicting peak in 2030. In other words a "crafted" result, where the study "results" define the viability of their product.

First, the new energy technologies must be renewable and sustainable.

Second, they must provide for a decentralization of energy production and be scalable.

Third, they must eliminate or substantially reduce carbon emissions.

Fourth, they must be scalable.

Oh yeah... & they must be scalable.

[EnergySpin]

Vestas calculations are about as reliable as the USGS predicting peak in 2030. In other words a "crafted" result, where the study "results" define the viability of their product

So you read the 50 pages LCA Aaron?
Funny because I did ... checked the material consumptions against other industries and they seem to be right.
Where do you base this conclusion?
In fact the energy payback time for wind is down to a few months now.
Horns Rev the only real offshore plan had to go through an extensive assessment of environmental impact, as well as economics and the numbers do hold. The mistake they did is that no storage was planned, which puts them in a situtation where they have to pay the Swedes to get the extra electricity when the wind blows and pay the Swedes again to receive electricity when the wind does not.

[MonteQuest]

Therefore I propose that the title of this phase be revised to SUSTAINABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT.

Well, that's why I added this:

In my opinion, the following qualities are critical:

First, the new energy technologies must be renewable and sustainable.

Renewable energy is what most people understand. If there is a consensus that we should change the name, then we should, but I think this is sufficient.

[MonteQuest]

First, the new energy technologies must be renewable and sustainable.

Second, they must provide for a decentralization of energy production and be scalable.

Third, they must eliminate or substantially reduce carbon emissions.

Fourth, they must be scalable.

Oh yeah... & they must be scalable.

Second, they must provide for a decentralization of energy production and be scalable.

[Aaron]

Vestas calculations are about as reliable as the USGS predicting peak in 2030. In other words a "crafted" result, where the study "results" define the viability of their product

So you read the 50 pages LCA Aaron?
Funny because I did ... checked the material consumptions against other industries and they seem to be right.
Where do you base this conclusion?
In fact the energy payback time for wind is down to a few months now.
Horns Rev the only real offshore plan had to go through an extensive assessment of environmental impact, as well as economics and the numbers do hold. The mistake they did is that no storage was planned, which puts them in a situtation where they have to pay the Swedes to get the extra electricity when the wind blows and pay the Swedes again to receive electricity when the wind does not.

Yeah I did... I was unimpressed with the inclusion factors for considered energy input mostly.

And I question the weighting factors typically used in these calculations, (which were not defined properly in the doc).

Most importantly though, this "study" defines the economic viability of the company doing the study. Which we call "the fox guarding the hen-house down here in Texas.

[backstop]

Monte wrote:

First, the new energy technologies must be renewable and sustainable.

Second, they must provide for a decentralization of energy production and be scalable.

Third, they must eliminate or substantially reduce carbon emissions.

Aaron replied:

Fourth, they must be scalable.

__________________________

1/. The new energy technologies must be Sustainable.

(If they aren't then they clearly aren't 'renewable' whatever that cliche may be taken to mean today).

2/. They must be Locally Legitamate.

(This starts from the point of the decentralization of power production and encompasses their contribution to local prosperity, land-use and ecology).

3/. Some of them must be Globally Relevant.

(This addresse the scaleability issue with more precision. For instance, some, such as organically produced biofuels, will need to be traded globally and so produced to globally standard qualities. Others, soch as Offshore Wave Energy, offer city-scale potential to many coastal societies and can be built in many of the world's redundant docks. By contrast, others, such as Geothermal CHP, lack much global replicability but are uniquely valuable where the resource is available).

4/. A balance of Power-on-Demand, Intermittent Power & Energy Storage resources is needed for balancing energy grids of whatever scale.

The starting point is Sustainability, which is why the title of this phase should be Sustainable Energy Development.

From this perspective, if a technology fails to approach zero net carbon emissions (ZNCE) it ain't sustanable and has no place here.
____________________________________________

No doubt there is potential for a whole new thread on just which are the best "Transitional Energy Technologies", such as converting very remote small fossil gas reserves to methanol (for transport to a railhead) and "Battery-Chicken-Dung Power, but I trust this phase is about more than the band-aid outlook they entail.

regards,

Backstop

[deconstructionist]

1. Develop Wind Power for local communities.
2. Implement passive solar energy -- heating, cooling, cooking, refrigeration, etc. -- in order to relieve the energy burden. (rephrase, anyone?)
3. Unnecessary transportation, construction, manufacturing, and other heavily oil-dependent energy uses must be excised. [Egad, I'm having a Jeavon's Paradox "moment" -- it's really rather difficult to come up with "solutions" to problems that don't create their own problems...]
4. Make agriculture more organic and sustainable -- i.e. reduce oil inputs drastically. The decrease in mechanization could be offset by an influx of workers from excised high-energy professions.
5. Decentralize huge international corporations in order to facilitate the relocalization and thus deconsumption movement.

#3 belongs in the comsumption reduction phase.

#4 is basically adovacting organic farming methods? should "Food Policy" have it's own Phase or be folded into ecology? This is certainly is not a form of sustainable energy...

#5 is not about developing sustainable energy and should be included elsewhere (economic reform, consumption reduction)

i am 9342843% in favor of the above statements, but i don't think they are in the right place.

In reference to numbers 3 and 4:
Greatly increase the production of algae-based biodiesel (much higher EROEI than soy). Implement the production of biodiesel/electric hybrid vehicles for public transportation and agriculture. Existing automobiles can be used for parts or raw materials.

i don't have figures on net carbon emissions of biodiesel. i know it's much closer to neutral than gasoline diesel.

[MonteQuest]

From this perspective, if a technology fails to approach zero net carbon emissions (ZNCE) it ain't sustanable and has no place here.

Which brings up a point of clarity. Biofuels produce CO2 yet are sustainable. Has the carbon cycle been so changed that we can't use them anymore since fossil fuels raised the CO2 concentration so high?

You want to speak to this backstop?

[Tyler_JC]

Let's look at we have in the non-fossil fuel energy group:

1. Nuclear-expand it as a stopgap measure to eventually be replaced by a combination of the following:

2.Wind-large scale wind project in the American midwest, and small scale projects everywhere possible

3.Geothermal as electricty and home heating/cooling (heat pumps)

4.Solar thermal (PV panels suck and aren't worth the investment)

5.Hydroelectric-Africa is virtually untapped for hydroelectric dams and wasn't hydro the first source of cheap energy?

6.Biomass- Palm oil and other semi-useful plant products. Don't the Japanese use diesel from some sort of plant?

7. 1 million hampsters on 1 million little wheels hooked up to a generator, what's the EROEI on hampsters?