[Graeme]

I just saw an interview on BBC Hardtalk with Amory Lovins, who explained in a half hour slot that USA (and other countries) do not need nuclear power to solve their energy problems. He knows from his analysis that renewables plus micro-generation and increased efficiency can do the job, ie make America oil free by 2050 by simply using market forces (the cheaper energy option, nuclear is too expensive). He advocates carbon fibre or composite materials to make cars, trucks and planes lighter and stronger and hence more efficient (use less fuel). He also talked about alternative fuels: ethanol made from switch grass, and liquid hydrogen to fuel aircraft.

If anyone else saw this interview, or if anyone wants to make a comment, please respond.

[Doly]

He knows from his analysis that renewables plus micro-generation and increased efficiency can do the job, ie make America oil free by 2050 by simply using market forces (the cheaper energy option, nuclear is too expensive).

Market forces aren't a solution. They're just a method of finding an optimal solution (and doesn't always converge to the optimal solution).

If you assume that good solutions exist, market forces are likely to find the best ones. But if good solutions don't exist, market forces may make things worse.

I still need to be convinced that a good solution for our energy problem exists.

[peaker_2005]

The market will make us relatively oil-free by 2050 - because between then and now the floor will fall from beneath the industrial economy.

Unfortunately, it won't be fun on the ride down...

[Ludi]

"The market" is somewhat irrelevant when it comes to nuclear, which is heavily subsidized and now is being given extra government help/insurance to cover cost overruns and expenses incurred by delays in starting operation (presumeably such things as lawsuits from nearby citizens, etc). How can "the market" combat an industry which has the support of the government, essentially using the tax money of citizens to pay for nuke plants they may not want? (and yes, I know our tax money is always used for things some of us don't want, so don't bother to point that out to me )

I should add that Amory Lovins bugs the hell out of me.

[Revi]

The market would be a perfect "invisible hand" to get us to where we need to be if it weren't for the government propping up petroleum. Would gas cost $3 if we weren't subsidizing it through war and paying people to produce it? If gas cost $10 a gallon instead of $3 we would all be figuring out a way to get around with much lighter, alternatively fueled vehicles now. We'd move closer to our jobs and rearrange our lives to use a lot less fuel. Lovins is right about everything. Unfortunately there is a vast and entrenched fossil fuel economy that won't go away without taking us all down with it. (Well maybe not all of us.) Those "hypercars" may be gemcars. The average person may not show as much brand loyalty when the Tahoe turns into a millstone.

[rwwff]

The average person may not show as much brand loyalty when the Tahoe turns into a millstone.

Its not the Tahoe that the problem, its the people using the Tahoe for a job that the Yaris is better suited for. Think of it as a comparison between a 6 mule team pulling a flatbed wagon vs an arabian with just a pair of small saddlebags. The arabian can't be expected to pull 3 tons of bricks; and its stupid to drive 6 mules and a wagon downtown to get a 5lb bag of flour. Yet because fuel is so incredibly cheap, thats exactly what people do.

Should you get rid of the mule team and buy the arabian? No way. Add the arabian.

[MonteQuest]

He knows from his analysis that renewables plus micro-generation and increased efficiency can do the job, ie make America oil free by 2050 by simply using market forces (the cheaper energy option, nuclear is too expensive). He advocates carbon fibre or composite materials to make cars, trucks and planes lighter and stronger and hence more efficient (use less fuel). He also talked about alternative fuels: ethanol made from switch grass, and liquid hydrogen to fuel aircraft.

I'm going to have to read this one.

World oil demand by 2019 is supposed to be 40% higher. What will US demand be by 2050?

At 1.5% growth/yr it will double in 47 years, so in 2053 we will demand 44 mbpd.

That's half of current world use today.

Even in our heyday, we only produced 9.6 mbpd of oil.

[AlCzervik]

I always read this garbage that Lovins pays no more than like five bucks a month for energy or something, but what I want to know is, how much it cost to pimp out his house to get these savings. Unless it's something the average American can afford, forget it. And that isn't even taking into account the fossil fuel platform needed to produced all the solar, etc., etc.

Anyway, I love it when Kunstler rips Lovins for thinking we are all going to be rolling around in 200 mile/gallon supercars from here to eternity...

[lorenzo]

The interview will be posted on the BBC Hardtalk webpage soon:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/programmes/hardtalk/

The man is of course entirely correct, and, unlike the vast bulk of PeakOilistas, he knows what he's talking about.

Just look at the simple facts:

1. car fuel efficiency can increase spectacularly and easily. The most basic projections about efficiency increases in future cars (carried out by the MIT) show 200 to 300% increases in under 10 years time. A marketeable 80mpg car is feasible today, a 120mpg car is feasible within 10 years.
http://lfee.mit.edu/publications/PDF/LF ... 001_RP.pdf

:: fact one: we can cut our current fuel consumption for cars in two, or we can even cut two-thirds or even three-quarters of it, in a pretty short time.

:: fact two: this car will be a bioflex plug-in hybrid, which means it gets 50% or more of its power from the grid. Can be an entirely green grid (wind, solar, geothermal, bioenergy).

2. provided the car in question will be a bioflex plug-in hybrid, we'll still need some liquids, but only a quarter of what we consume today, so that's less than 2.5 mio barrels per day. Now all major studies show that the US can produce 50% of this, easily (with capacity to spare for other sectors, such as electricity from biomass).

Read the ORNL's by now famous report:
"Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply"


http://www.ornl.gov/~webworks/cppr/y2001/rpt/123021.pdf
http://feedstockreview.ornl.gov/pdf/bil ... vision.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs ... eport2.pdf


3. Globally, the projected potential of bioenergy in 2050 is 3 to 4 times the total amount of primary energy the world consumes today! Just imagine it: the world today consumes 420EJ of energy, from coal, natural gas, petroleum, nuclear, etc.... Bioenergy *alone* can provide 3 to 4 times that amount (of course consumption grows, but it will never quadruple before 2050. It will have doubled by 2030, at most, after which it declines, since populations start to decline in 2030).

The IEA's Bioenergy Taskforce 40 (studying global bioenergy potential) made interesting projections, here:
www.iea.org/textbase/work/2005/Biofuels ... tation.pdf
PPT presentation, here:
www.termo.hut.fi/Ene-39/006/part%20I.ppt [7.5mb]

In short, most experts agree that bioenergy and increases in efficiency will make the world independent from petroleum within a few decades.


4. Since we are becoming ever more energy efficient, and since the developing countries have the capacity to make quantum leaps (since they're not burdened by an old infrastructure), the world can become oil independent within a few decades.

It's pretty feasible.

Also check Nobel laureate Steven Chu's remarks on cellulosic ethanol: 'Termite Guts Can Save The Planet,' Says Nobel Laureate
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 111110.htm

So let's not panic, we now know and we have established that the future is a bright green bioenergy future.

Let's do it! The Beginning is Near!

[seldom_seen]

All we need is super light cars and airplanes made out of balsa wood and we're there!

Amory! Amory! Amory! Amory in 08!

[lorenzo]

airplanes made out of balsa wood and we're there!

No I don't agree. Scramjets must be lightweight, but balsa wood is not a good material, because it would burn up due to the high temperatures involved when cruising at hypersonic speeds. We must use other materials for scramjets. I'm sure we will find them (in fact, we already have.) Balsa wood is not good.

[seldom_seen]

We must use other materials for scramjets. I'm sure we will find them (in fact, we already have.) Balsa wood is not good.

Fine, I'll concede this one then.

Doomers = -1

Lorenzo the Indomitable Evangelist of Our Bioenergy Future = +1

[Ludi]

I always read this garbage that Lovins pays no more than like five bucks a month for energy or something, but what I want to know is, how much it cost to pimp out his house to get these savings. Unless it's something the average American can afford, forget it.

I'm betting (but haven't researched it) that he didn't spend a red cent. The Rocky Mountain Insititute is a nonprofit, and I reckon Lovins got grants to build the facility, which if I recall correctly, is also his home.

What a sweet deal, I think I should do this with my place.

[MonteQuest]

Just look at the simple facts:

In short, most experts agree that bioenergy and increases in efficiency will make the world independent from petroleum within a few decades.

Just look at the simple facts:

In short, most experts agree that the population of the earth will reach 9 billion by 2050, eclipsing and negating any and all energy gains through conservation or increases in efficiency.

[Tyler_JC]

I agree with Lorenzo on one thing.

The average fuel efficiency of a car in the United States will increase dramatically over the next few decades.

Unfortunately, this will occur only because millions of SUV-drivers will be priced out of the market.

The economy will take a nose dive when the big spending Tahoe drivers are forced to cut back.

All efficiencies in a market economy come at the cost of JOBS.

As Monte loves to point out in TeamSpeak, think about the tire industry. Hundreds of thousands of people producing a product that we will need less and less of in the future. How are those layed off workers going to buy these 200mpg magic cars?

And if we stop driving out to Wal*Mart and Costco, how will those workers buy new hybrid cars?

All changes towards a low consumption world also mean, almost by definition, a lower GDP.

[lorenzo]

All efficiencies in a market economy come at the cost of JOBS.

That's bogus. The "efficiency" sector is a booming sector, one of the fastest growing economic sectors out there, creating more jobs than any other sector (relative to size).

Stop repeating incorrect commonplaces.

The Green Growth Engine | Jamais Cascio
A Newly Electric Green – Sustainable Energy, Resources and Design see all posts in this category

The argument we hear time and again against efforts to aggressively reduce greenhouse gas emissions is simple: doing so is costly, will slow the economy, and will throw people out of work. Supporters of such efforts counter that the process would actually be beneficial to the economy, because of investments in new technologies and reductions of waste. Now a major study from the University of California, Berkeley, has come out in strong support of this latter argument, detailing precisely how the relatively aggressive California plan to cut greenhouse gases will boost the state's economy in surprisingly short order.

The California Climate Change Center at UC Berkeley is a cross-disciplinary institute including researchers in areas as diverse as public policy, resource economics, city and regional planning, environmental engineering, and the environmental energy technologies division at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. In short, this is a group of researchers and analysts well-versed in both the policy and scientific issues around climate change. Their most recent report, Managing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California, lays out the technological, economic and policy options involved in meeting the goals of returning California to 2000-level emissions by 2010, 1990-level emissions by 2020, and 80% below 1990 by 2050. The researchers determined that pursuing a subset of these policies could achieve at least half of the California plan's goals while increasing the gross state product by $5 billion and creating 8,300 new jobs by 2010, and upwards of $60 billion and 20,000 new jobs by 2020:

"Our study demonstrates that taking action to reduce global warming emissions in California is good for the California economy," said Michael Hanemann, UC Berkeley professor of agricultural and resource economics and co-author of the report. "Our research indicates that not only does climate action pay, but early climate action pays more." [...]

The report also analyzed the economic impacts of taking the lead in adopting policies to reduce GHG emissions. It concludes that "just as Silicon Valley gained economically from being the leader in the Internet revolution, so, too, will California gain an economic advantage from being the leader in the new technologies and the new industries that will come into existence worldwide around the common goal of reducing GHG emissions."

"Our analysis reveals the power and promise of taking early initiative," concluded Alex Farrell, assistant professor at UC Berkeley's Energy and Resources Group and co-author of the report. "By acting sooner, California benefits more quickly from faster economic growth and improves its competitive position in a global market increasingly focused on climate action."

Read more and get rid of your preconceived ideas:
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/004056.html


The shift towards a more efficient, greener, nicer future will bring in huge amounts of jobs and will boost the economy.

Bioenergy in Europe for example is one of the big job creators, especially in Scandinavia. Combined Heat and Power systems in towns and cities, agro-gasifier systems in agro-industry, biomass conversions of coal plants, etc... it's a huge, booming, job and wealth-creating market.

[smiley]

Its not the Tahoe that the problem, its the people using the Tahoe for a job that the Yaris is better suited for. Think of it as a comparison between a 6 mule team pulling a flatbed wagon vs an arabian with just a pair of small saddlebags. The arabian can't be expected to pull 3 tons of bricks; and its stupid to drive 6 mules and a wagon downtown to get a 5lb bag of flour. Yet because fuel is so incredibly cheap, thats exactly what people do.

I largely agree. 2500 pounds of vehicle to transport a 160 pound human being is simply ridiculous. You can make a pretty decent four seater below 1000 pounds. You can make it drive 50 miles a gallon no problem. In fact such cars exist today.

The problem is that people don't want them. You shouldn't underestimate the psychological aspects involved in buying a car. If you ask people about the two most important things in their lives it will probably their house and their car. They view their car as a status symbol and as an extension of their personality. And they are willing to dig deep in their pockets for that. So people will always buy the biggest, fasted, shiniest car they can afford.


Just to show how serious it is: Recent studies have shown that 80% of the people are more inclined to cut on their food budget than on their driving habits.

While higher prices will lower the level of affordability of high consumption cars they won't change that mentality. We are a car culture and if you want to make a serous effort in conserving energy you should change that culture. I am afraid that neither market forces, nor politics have that ability.

[MonteQuest]

All efficiencies in a market economy come at the cost of JOBS.

That's bogus. The "efficiency" sector is a booming sector, one of the fastest growing economic sectors out there, creating more jobs than any other sector (relative to size).

The last thing we need is something to stimulate more growth. And your article was not what Tyler was referring to and you know it.

Conservation = reduced economic activity. It matters not if the energy conmsumption is moved to another growth sector.

Energy doesn't care what it gets used for. It is still being used.

Through conservation and effciency we are looking to reduce overall consumption, not do more with less.

[lorenzo]

All efficiencies in a market economy come at the cost of JOBS.

booming sector

The last thing we need is something to stimulate more growth.

Conservation = reduced economic activity. It matters not if the energy conmsumption is moved to another growth sector.

Energy doesn't care what it gets used for. It is still being used.

Through conservation and effciency we are looking to reduce overall consumption, not do more with less.

Hold on there, MQ, isn't the efficiency sector doing exactly that? It radically reduces the 'energy intensity' of economies (energy used per production of a unit of GDP), while at the same time getting rid of fossil fuels and shifting to alternatives.

The efficiency sector takes the entire world of (post-)industrial production and services into perspective, and transforms it - each resource extraction chain, each production chain, each distribution chain. So much so that "Jevons' paradox" gets reversed: you can only invest the wealth you created (or saved by becoming more efficient), into even more efficient products and services because virtually all companies now have a hardcore policy of becoming more efficient and because they are moving away from oil, when another energy source or carrier is cheaper.

This creates a true efficiency and substitution "spiral", which makes it possible to wean ourselves off of oil alltogether in fairly short notice.

Jevons never accounted for radical substitutions of one energy carrier by another, did he? He wrote of a world where coal was the only energy source, and so he kept making loops, always coming back to coal, coal, coal.

The loops we're making are continuously awayfrom oil, oil, oil. Each loop, is one away from it, onto another energy source or technology (wind, nuclear, solar, bioenergy, geothermal...).

Substitution and diversification are absolutely crucial!

[rwwff]

The problem is that people don't want them. You shouldn't underestimate the psychological aspects involved in buying a car. If you ask people about the two most important things in their lives it will probably their house and their car. They view their car as a status symbol and as an extension of their personality. And they are willing to dig deep in their pockets for that. So people will always buy the biggest, fasted, shiniest car they can afford.

I know, its sad. I've never even really much understood it. To me, a car's a tool; my truck does its job; the minivan does its job. I'm even poking at this Yaris critter... A lot of my work related 70 & 100 mile drives really only amount to me dragging my creaky body on a moments notice to some office, somewhere. The truck and minivan are both 20mpg class vehicles, so I usually just take the little truck. Since I drive cars till they die, and don't trade in, my only extra cost would be the modest insurance hit and the state stickers. Would probably save money on mileage since everything else is likely to be much cheaper with the Yaris, mileage wise. So, I'll end up having three. Hmmm. Looks bad in a way, but improves my right tool for the job capacity. Still not decided though...