Page 8 of 8

Re: We’re half-assing the clean-energy transition

Unread postPosted: Sun 29 Apr 2012, 22:40:22
by Plantagenet
Graeme wrote:Yes but both reports state that moving to gas is not enough.

Its a heck of a lot better then moving to coal.

Graeme wrote:Investment in other low-carbon energy initiatives will have to be adopted if we want our civilization to endure.

Not necessarily. CO2 sequestration or geoengineering to cool the planet are also possible remedies to the warming problem.

Re: We’re half-assing the clean-energy transition

Unread postPosted: Sun 29 Apr 2012, 23:43:19
by Graeme
The IEA mentions CCS but only 4 out of 82 required are in place. Geoengineering for now is merely a research project. Nothing is actually being done. We also need improvements in industry, buildings, fuel economy, electric vehicles and biofuels as shown on Table 1.1 and Figure 1.1. Otherwise we're toast.

PS I'll be travelling tomorrow and may not be able to post for a while.

Re: We’re half-assing the clean-energy transition

Unread postPosted: Tue 01 May 2012, 20:25:38
by Expatriot
Checking in on this site every 1/2 year is like visiting the town in which I went to high school, left soon thereafter, and never looked back.

Web site loads slowly and locks up. Check.
Recent threads on right side of splash page loaded with "clean energy" and/or "climate change" silliness. Check.
At least one inane cornucopian thread started by Graeme, with heavy citation and a suggestion that better days lie ahead. Check.
The usual posters responding to the thread (plant and elf dude). Check.
Peak Oil not any more clearly in public eye. Check.

Oh well. Nice visit. Tell that chick I shagged in home room I said hello.

Re: We’re half-assing the clean-energy transition

Unread postPosted: Wed 02 May 2012, 02:53:28
by radon
Expatriot wrote:Tell that chick I shagged in home room I said hello.

Was she impressed? Interesting technique..

The cost of transition

Unread postPosted: Sun 10 Jun 2012, 18:36:43
by sparky
With Europe in some budgetary straight , the cost of grid energy become acute
Germany has some issue with it's power grid
" Germany's Nuclear Phase-Out Brings Unexpected Costs " ... 37007.html

""Approximately every tenth household currently has problems paying for rising energy costs," says Holger Krawinkel at the Federation of German Consumer Organizations. "

"Ulrike Mascher, president of VdK, an interest group focusing on social justice, uses terms such as "fuel poverty"

"In particular, they say, the unchecked expansion of highly-subsidized photovoltaic installations is driving prices up, without the benefit of creating a commensurate increase in supply."

"I am very concerned about the way energy prices are growing," says Economy Minister Philipp Rösler of the FDP, discussing what he describes as a "battle to keep energy affordable."

"Federal Economy Minister Rösler is at work on a new model for financing renewable energy. He would like to repeal Germany's renewable energy law, known as the EEG, which forces energy consumers to bear a portion of the costs for rooftop solar panels, wind turbines and biogas facilities. "The planned cutback in photovoltaic subsidies is only the first step," Rösler says. "

Re: The cost of transition

Unread postPosted: Sun 10 Jun 2012, 21:54:30
by Rod_Cloutier
The biggest 'cost' I'm worried about is the transition cost of adjusting expectations.

The mega-corporation I work for has made it clear, 'We expect 15% growth annually every year' ! They remind their entire staff of this goal at the end each quarterly period. They're not afraid to fire and replace people who aren't achieving this goal. (The goal is absolutely based in fantasy and will eventually prove unachievable)

The company, like most companies, is almost exclusively run by people who come from sales and marketing backgrounds, people who are in complete denial about our current situation. In the short time I've been with this company I've seen major turnover, (firings), in managers who don't meet the company's goals. I expect this to continue and to get worse.

It’s clear to me that there will be no transition without a collapse event, and even when a collapse event does occur, the powers that be will be awaiting the recovery to business as usual, even if it is never forthcoming. This dynamic, transposed across the whole economy, all the corporations, ect, it makes me quite pessimistic that any real change can be accomplished.

Personal and local preparations are probably the best we can hope for.

Re: The cost of transition

Unread postPosted: Mon 11 Jun 2012, 09:06:08
by Revi
"Personal and local preparations are probably the best we can hope for."

Exactly what the transition movement is about. We can't hope that larger institutions will help us through this. We need to start to make our communities resilient. With a little work we may be able to make it through some of this. It's worth a try.

Re: The cost of transition

Unread postPosted: Mon 11 Jun 2012, 09:06:56
by Revi
"Personal and local preparations are probably the best we can hope for."

Exactly what the transition movement is about. We can't hope that larger institutions will help us through this. We need to start to make our communities resilient. With a little work we may be able to make it through some of this. It's worth a try.

Re: The cost of transition

Unread postPosted: Tue 12 Jun 2012, 08:57:54
by sparky
Greece's debt woes mutate into energy crisis ... ML20120601
"In recent months RAE has repeatedly urged the government to shore up the accounts of LAGHE,
( the state electricity company ) which is sitting on a deficit of more than 300 million euros."

"The account went into deficit because its receipts have not matched the generous subsidies it pays out to renewable energy producers, particularly for solar panels."

So , it would seems the grid based society we have is to be replaced with small local nets
this would imply the end of large manufacturing and the return to some sort of local autarcy
who would produce the fertilizer ? at what cost ?

the cost and consequences of transition

Unread postPosted: Sat 15 Sep 2012, 16:44:08
by sparky
From Reuters: ... EB20120914

that's a fairly balanced piece on Japan and France desire to get out of Nuclear generation. The gist of the report is that beside more oil and gas consumption , wind will have to step up

a real concern is that France is by far the biggest electricity exporter in Europe
this electricity is cheap , reliable , and nuclear should generation switch to the coal , oil , gas , wind set up there will be no exports beside marginal balancing

Re: the cost and consequences of transition

Unread postPosted: Mon 17 Sep 2012, 04:06:36
by Corella
While Japan and France made themselves dependent to nuclear power, Germany slithers into dependency on Technologies still to be realized (storage & substitution). Maybe a desperate thing but someone has to try (have e.g. a glimpse what happens at the Arctic)!
Nuclear power is not a big provider except for the named two countries, else there are much larger fish to catch.

Transition US: A Year in Review

Unread postPosted: Fri 09 Feb 2018, 23:48:03
by AdamB

Transition US has published its annual review, highlighting our accomplishments and detailing our metrics from the 2017 calendar year. Enjoy! Letter from the Transition US Team We’ve just completed our ninth year at Transition US, and during this time we’ve seen historic swings across the political spectrum, economic peaks and crashes, and the most severe weather events ever to hit our nation. Amid these extremes, we have also witnessed community leaders stepping out in truly exemplary ways. With countless projects and working groups on topics from local food security and renewable energy to “inner transition” and building the new economy, the 163 local initiatives that have formed across the United States to date have built a remarkable track record of solid and replicable projects for building truly resilient communities. With a modest budget and a committed core team of four part-time staff

Transition US: A Year in Review

Re: THE Transition Phase Thread Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Sat 10 Feb 2018, 10:30:57
by GHung
Tanada wrote:Most Peak advocates have lost the Transition plan because the world did not crash and burn on the predicted timetable.

I know of several transition communities that have NOT lost the transition, as you posit. They are doing fine and living that transition, setting an example, and fully aware that decline continues, regardless of fiat attempts to prolong the status quo. Peak oil was always little more than a banner for more deeply entrenched can-kicking behavior. The inertia of BAU and short term responses are not the same as sustainability. Not at all. It's more of the same, borrowing from the future to produce and sustain short term illusions. The PTB must sustain that narrative at all costs because they have thrived under that narrative.

For the most part, the transition people I know were never fast-crash alarmists. Like me, they know we're in for a long hard slog, and that transition is relentless. Lately, it has been the cornies who have promoted the fallacy that all transition types are certain society will go off a cliff; building strawmen and trying to burn them down. We have several of them here. I'm betting a review of their posts will reveal that they take this binary position (feast or famine with nothing in between) more than those of us that see a stair-step decline; those of us that understand that we are running out of planet to exploit. Transition is about adapting to that, mainly on a local level and most don't spend a lot of time drawing attention to themselves.

Meanwhile, we keep robbing Peter's grandkids to pay Paul's fuel bill.

Re: THE Transition Phase Thread Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Sat 10 Feb 2018, 10:40:37
by asg70
Transition has shrunk to such a tiny boutique movement that it is far too drunk on its own feel-good attitude to be able to objectively measure its progress.

It was supposed to find ways to motivate positive local change without scaring the herd with Malthusian die-off talk. The reality is that the kind of change required can't really happen this way. It requires a palpable sense of fear/dread, something that is a hard sell as BAU continues apace.


Re: THE Transition Phase Thread Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Sat 10 Feb 2018, 11:04:57
by GHung
It was supposed to find ways to motivate positive local change without scaring the herd with Malthusian die-off talk.

Says who? See my comment above about some of you building strawmen. You, more than most, have locked onto your own perceptions, largely binary, that have no basis in reality. There is a wide range of attitudes about how to respond to our collective predicaments. That said, a lot of local change has occurred without 'scaring the herd with Malthusian die-off talk'. So, to some degree, what you say was supposed to happen is occurring.

Fact is, none of us know how this will play out, and it's no skin off your back if some think we're screwed and respond accordingly. Me? I see humanity digging its overshoot hole deeper, day-by-day, and have little interest in mindlessly pursuing a lifestyle that ignores that. And it's really none of your business, as hard as you work to just make folks like me go away.

Re: THE Transition Phase Thread Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Sat 10 Feb 2018, 13:38:08
by aspera
Most Peak advocates have lost the Transition plan

But only for those who are incapable of thinking any other way except in terms of peaks, collapse, etc. I guess if it doesn't happen immediately, then they can't see it at all? (Some sort of reverse delay-of-gratification?) They probbaly also confuse the term descent with collapse.

Peak oil thinking wasn't the only idea getting folks preparing, and it wasn't the first either. Maybe for some folks it was a darn good catalyst, at the time, but for the current/short-term it's spent.

The earliest project in the Transition Town suite was 2004 when Hopkins got students to apply permaculture design principles to what became the Kinsale Energy Descent Action Plan. The Transition Network itself was founded in 2006. So, what's that, 12 to 14 years old. A bit young to be declaring that it's dead. Unless you have some other agenda for doing that?

Then add books with titles like The LONG Emergency, and The LONG Descent and you begin to see the issue. We're dealing with a many decade- or century-long predicament. Bit of a different timetable, that. What with most folks being unable to think long other than to call up some thought-stopper comment like, "we're all dead in the end."

Planning for the long term needs a different sort of motivation than "a palpable sense of fear/dread". I seriously doubt those emotions have much if any role here; they simply do not play out on long timespans.

Negative emotions are associated with specific-action tendencies. They prepare body (mentally and physically) to respond in a very specific and narrowly focused way (e.g., Anger promotes urge to attack, Fear results in urge to escape, Guilt leads to urge to make amends). They also narrow the scope of attention (less info is taken in) and have us fall back on habitual behavior. Sounds completely useless for preparing for a long-term predicament.

And, back to Hopkins who said that Transition is more like a party than a protest march.

There's a theme here, but I doubt many can even see it.

Re: THE Transition Phase Thread Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Sat 10 Feb 2018, 13:43:31
by asg70
aspera wrote:There's a theme here, but I doubt many can even see it.

Dividing people into "woke" and "un-woke" groups is the antithesis of Transition.

If lots of people aren't joining in, then it's ultimately a failure of the movement. It's either scaring people off or not scaring people enough to change, but the change ain't happenin'.

I mean, we've got president Trump who is dismantling environmental protections. That is not indicative of any sort of ecological shift in the voting public. If anything, it's moving backwards. Ask Bill McKibben how swift activism needs to be before malthusian collapse is baked into the cake (if it isn't already).

But hey, if everyone insists on holding onto nothing but a feel-good attitude, be my guest. Watch the ice-sheets collapse while you "feel good" and not shame your truck-and-SUV-loving and coal-rolling neighbors.




Re: THE Transition Phase Thread Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Sat 10 Feb 2018, 14:16:26
by aspera
...ultimately a failure of the movement.

So many places you're going wrong with this. First, the Transition Town initiative is trying NOT to be a movement, political, social, or otherwise. It's success is NOT based on membership. You have to get involved locally, or not at all.

Success plays out in many ways. Such as: Does it help the local group respond well, or not. And it's a success only if it helps in the long run. Sort of like life/career choices, you make the best choice you can, with the knowledge you have, where you are. And then, get to work. We used to say, "we'll see peak oil in the rear view mirror." Same notion applies here.

Not sure where the Watch the ice-sheets collapse while you "feel good"... is coming from. Sounds like an attempt at a thought-stopper comment. But let's deconstruct it a bit: There are many kinds of well-being: hedonic, eudaimonic, etc. Not all are about "feeling good" in the moment. They can play a role in motivating action. But note the causal direction here. The dependent variable is NOT "positive well-being." That's ONE of the INDEPENDENT variables. The dependent variable is something like competence, successful coping, learning, reskilling, etc.
So, to build off the "feeling good" idea for just a minute. Even if you focus only on hedonic well-being there are multiple benefits.

Check out Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2: 300-319.

Experiencing positive emotions results in…
1. Broadening effects– widens scope of thoughts, information, options and actions that come to mind.
2. Building effects– increases resources available in terms of plans, skills, strategies and social relationships

The positive emotional state may be momentary, but the resources built endure.

So the implications here are empirically established: The emotional state (positive or negative) caused and/or supported by an intervention can:

1. Broaden or Narrow thoughts, information, options considered.
2. Build or Not build useful plans, skills, strategies or social bonds
3. Determine whether we grow through our experiences or merely respond habitually.
4. Determine whether we become resilient in the face of climate disruption, energy descent and/or environmental dilemmas

Of course, you could just go for the perverse hedonic pleasure you get from shaming your neighbor's consumption choices. It's so much easier and "more fun" too despite being completely ineffective at DURABLY changing their behavior. (ever hear of psychological reactance?)

Re: THE Transition Phase Thread Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Sat 10 Feb 2018, 16:18:44
by KaiserJeep
Speaking personally as a believer in a decades-long Doom process, I am making plans that will effect my Grandkids. Doom is coming, has been coming in one sense since your Grandfather's time, and will continue.

Yes, it pretty much was fossil fuels that ended/is ending/will end what we laughably think of as civilization, over the last century and the next century.

As the price of FF's escalates on the downslope after peak, the first casualties will be those places where those fuels make the difference between misery and starvation. Those same 3rd World places where the misguided charity of the wealthier nations enabled a population boom.

I admit, I used to perform charitable works. Not only did I give money, but for a couple of decades, I stood in a soup kitchen and dished out food at Thanksgiving. Every Tuesday for years, we prepared food and donated it to a local shelter for battered women and kids. There are now more homeless around me by at least an order of magnitude than there were then. Silicon Valley is in the throes of a crime wave, entirely because we enabled the homeless and refuse to enforce the laws against vagrancy, trespassing, mail theft, and endless other things. The basic problem: we accept the homeless, while other states and cities give them one-way bus tickets, to this place and others.

In a similar fashion, the charity of the Western World has enabled the 3rd World. We exported mobile devices, we gave them Mercy Ships, we exported ships full of dried grain, we designed cheap solar stills and solar cookers and LED lighting systems and composting toilets for them, complete with methane digestors for cooking fuel. Now there are 7.7 billion humans, they are growing more and more as we find new ways of "helping them" or "ending suffering".

The planet's ecosystem dies. We are killing the oceans, replacing diversity with a narrow spectrum of plant and animal food species, spewing more pollution, and widening the gap between the 1% and the vast majority. This is the way and more or less the order in which the world will die:

1) The most vulnerable are those 3rd World nations where FF energy has enabled a huge population increase, making the difference between being malnourished and having enough food to think about recreational sex more often, without the education or the means or even the desire to control reproduction. As somebody pointed out, all population control efforts are way underfunded.

2) The next to go are those places where the quality of life depends heavily upon exporting labor and manufactured goods. Mainly this means China, but also India and in fact every place where the 1st World has been "investing" in factories or "exploiting the workers" if you will. The economic downturn will end most import/export activity.

3) In the 1st World nations, the homeless, the pensioners, and increasingly, the so-called "working poor". Mostly because of worsening inflation and all the myriad forms of income redistribution that will not keep pace with the currency dilution.

4) The Middle Class of the 1st World.

5) The 1%.

Somewhere between #4 and #5, the equilibrium between the new feeble non-FF energy sources and the population will stabilize. I believe this will be a new World population somewhere between 77 million (literally the 1%) and 1 billion (roughly the number of people that this planet can support long term). The timeframe will be 1-3 centuries, and really there are too many variables to call it any closer than that.

It will not be a new Dark Age. Information stored in digital form will never be lost. We will have the chilling record of the loss of so many humans in bit-perfect clarity. The human species will evolve, both culturally (because of TEOTWAWKI trauma) and physically (because of genetic engineering).

You can make plans to preserve your own bloodline. One way is joining the 1%, because they will be the only ones consuming FF's on the latter part of the bell curve. In fact, that's probably your best bet. Alternatively, you can build a Doomstead, and if you are good enough and put enough effort into it, it will allow you to live a few years, even perhaps a few decades, of increasing misery. I'm personally planning for long term creature comforts in an era when they will be hard to afford. Things like clean water, HVAC, Internet and HDTV, and plumbing. I'll leave my Grandkids as nice a place or places as I can make them. I'll encourage them to do what I did: work smart, work long, and make plans for the future.

It's not Ragnarök, it's TGOC - The Great Overshoot Correction. It's happening, has been happening for a while, and will continue, whether you believe or not. The human population hasn't peaked yet, but growth is slowing. There probably is some "Seneca Cliff" in the population curve, as the humans war over resources. Make a plan, live through Transition, preserve your bloodline, and as they say: