Applying Physics (And Some Math) To The Green New Deal - Why It Can't Work As Set Out

To read the financial press (WSJ, Financial Times) the last few weeks it is evident a form of hysteria has seized the assorted columnists, e.g. Holman Jenkins Jr.

Big Names Bake a Climate Pie in the Sky - WSJ

and editors (e.g. "$1, 973 LEDs and the Green New Deal', WSJ p. A14 Feb.16-17)

Some in the more reactionary enclaves of the media have even warned that if such a Green New Deal comes to pass, Americans will be left with no burgers or pork chops to eat, and will have to bike to work given all cars will ne prohibited.  Amidst this hysteria is there a way to import some sense and a scientific perspective?  I believe so, and that's the purpose of this post.

First, let's turn once more to one of the more sensible and intelligent WSJ columnists, Greg Ip ('Upside Down Economics of Green New Deal', February 14, p. A2).  Among the points noted by Mr. Ip:

- "The premise of the Green New Deal is correct. While the world may not spomntaneously combust in 10 years, global C)2 emissions need to start dropping soon, by a lot - to keep temperatures from rising more than 1.5 Celsius.

-- Because the private market has no incentive to reduce carbon emissions government intervention is necessary."

Given these two propositions are accepted by most insightful - intelligent citizens, what's the problem?  Ip again:

"Kevin Book, head of research at Clearview Energy Partners, estimates replacing 83% of the current U.S. energy generation that is not renewable with solar, wind and biomass, would cost $2.9 trillion - nearly a full year's tax revenue."

In other words, taxes would have to be raised and not just on the wealthy. Now, counterpoise these numbers with a recent U.N. report affirming that hitting the 1.5 C target would cost an average of $3.5 trillion per year through 2050.  This is nearly $1 trillion per year more than the current pledges from government.  But with such enormous demand, the bulk of the money will have to come from the private sector.  Mind you, there are already nibbles of energy efficient improvement (i.e. Walmart has installed more than 1.5 million LED light fixtures across more than 6,000 stores) but much more is needed.

Indeed, lost in the mix is just how much high quality, intense energy is actually needed to run the U.S. economy and industrial civilization overall.   Where will the energy come from to support an industrial-energy intense and consumptive civilization? You can’t just say “new non-fossil sources” and leave it at that. What new sources? Where? As Jay Hanson (www.dieoff.org) pointedly notes:

“The fact that our society can‘t survive on alternative energy should come as no surprise, because only an idiot would believe that windmills and solar panels can run bulldozers, elevators, steel mills, glass factories, electric heat, air conditioning, aircraft, automobiles, etc., AND still have enough energy left over to support a corrupt political system, armies, etc. Envision a world where freezing, starving people burn everything combustible -- everything from forests (releasing CO2; destroying topsoil and species); to garbage dumps (releasing dioxins, PCBs, and heavy metals); to people (by waging nuclear, biological, chemical, and conventional war); and you have seen the future. “

But how correct is he?

One needs to process that different kinds of energy resources have fundamentally different "qualities". For example, a BTU of oil (oil before it is burnt) is fundamentally different than a BTU of coal. Oil has a higher energy content per unit weight and burns at a higher temperature than coal. It is also easier to transport, and can be used in internal combustion engines. A diesel locomotive wastes only one-fifth the energy of a coal-powered steam engine to pull the same train. Oil's many advantages provide 1.3 to 2.45 times more economic value per kilocalorie than coal.

This means you need to factor that increase in for coal  (OR - for any combination of non-fossil fuel sources) to get the same amount of work done.

Ditto with solar. Unlike energy derived from fossil fuels, energy derived from solar power is diffuse and also extremely intermittent: it varies constantly with weather or day/night. If a large city wants to derive a significant portion of its electricity from solar power, it must build fossil-fuel-fired or nuclear-powered electricity plants to provide backup for the times when solar energy is not available. Solar power has a capacity of about 20 percent. This means that if a utility wants to install 100 megawatts of solar power, they need to install 500 megawatts of solar panels. This makes solar power a prohibitively expensive and pragmatically poor replacement for the cheap and abundant fossil fuel energy our economy depends on, especially if one intends to use it operate missile factories.

H.T. Odum's solar "eMergy" (eMbodied energy) measures all of the energy (adjusted for quality) that goes into the production of a product. Odum's calculations show that the only forms of alternative energy that can survive the exhaustion (or replacement)  of fossil fuels are:  muscle, burning biomass (wood, animal dung, or peat), hydroelectric, geothermal in volcanic areas, and some wind electrical generation. Nuclear power could be viable if one could overcome the shortage of fuel. No other alternatives (e.g., solar voltaic) produce a large enough net sej to be sustainable. In short, there is no way out.

Further, Matt Savinar (Life After the Oil Crash) has shown that NONE of the alter-sources usually cited: from methane hydrates, from coal, from geothermal hot dry rock technology, from natural gas, from oil shales and tar sands, from secondary recovery of existing oil fields, and so on- will do squat to totally replace the energy now being consumed for our entire infrastructure, from powering a military-industrial complex with umpteen bombers, and now missile defense, plus more tanks for occupations and wars, not to mention sustaining growth in industries, new computers, maintaining the electrical power grid and building new nuclear reactors.

To further fix ideas and get into the more practical realm it is useful to cite  The Physicist's Desk Reference (Table C, p. 187, Energy Generation by Type) showing the most energy-intense uses (aggressive consumption category, I) for all forms of solar, geothermal and wind are projected to total only about 9 exajoules by next year.Thus, ALL the usual "green" alternatives are projected to barely add up to a blip on the energy "radar" .(Note:  1 EJ   = (10¹⁸) joules   J)

For reference, current yearly U.S. energy consumption is 94 EJ.. To put the numbers in a harsher perspective, any serious major effort to "decarbonize" the planet will require an amount of clean energy on the order of 100 trillion kilowatt-hours per year  or 360 EJ. To reach this target even within 3 decades the world's nations would need to add 3.3 trillion more kwh of clean energy every year. Solar and wind simply cannot scale up to that level in that time, so the only remaining form of energy - apart from fossil fuels - is nuclear and at least one climate scientist (James Hansen)  has recommended such incorporation . See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/05/top-climate-scientist-advocates-nuclear.html

All told, 220 reactors are currently being built or planned worldwide, with another 324 on the drawing board.  If replacing fossil fuels is a genuine goal, these reactors can't come onstream fast enough.

Leave out nuclear and how long it will take to get to a preponderance of renewables, even using Germany's high standard of adding 0.7 trillion kwh of clean energy per year. Well, even I the most optimistic scenario it would take close to 150 years - by which time this planet would be on the verge of being another Venus.

Given this, one thing the Green New Dealers don't need is flippant or stupid comments, remarks. As Michelle Goldberg noted in a recent NY Times op-ed Ocasio-Cortez’s staff certainly "made a huge mistake by releasing a flip document about the Green New Deal  resolution saying that it will be impossible to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes in 10 years" .  This was like a gift, providing Republicans an opening to claim that Democrats want to "ban hamburgers and air travel."

Conservo hack Michael Barone (writing in a rag called 'The Washington Examiner') actually claimed the Left - using the Green New Deal - wanted "to abandon even 20th century technology and go back to the 19th century" - including wagon trains and old style steam locomotives.

Of course,  that's nonsense but Dems must be savvy enough to grasp the Reeps and conservo nabobs will search for anything to paint the D progressive wing as commies, out of touch or nuts.  See, for example, my post from yesterday referencing a recent  WSJ  op-ed by Lance Morrow.  This preposterous  piece of twaddle inflated a number of minor progressive proposals (e.g. from the left's LGBTQ  and MeToo wings) to make it seem like progressives as a whole were planning the overthrow of Western civilization. Seriously!   

Meanwhile, Ms. Goldberg also cited. Bloomberg columnist Noah Smith who made a convincing case for a version of a Green New Deal that emphasized funding the development and export of green technologies and also included a carbon tax and carbon tariffs. The United States, after all, is responsible for only about 14 percent of current global greenhouse gas emissions.   But in a hypothetical future where America became a leader on climate, it would probably have to use economic incentives to get other CO2 spewing nations to cooperate. 

But all of this may merely be dodging the core issue: Can alternative sources of energy support this nation's energy demands in 10 or even 20 years?    The $64 question is: Can adequate alternative energy sources fill in most of the gaps, say when the last break -even oil is exhausted and only the very expensive to drill form remains? It’s all very well to speculate and ruminate that future energy needs will be met, but the question remains: HOW? When one does the math, and in particular pays attention to the 2nd law of thermodynamics (the entropy law)  and the ‘net energy equation’. At the heart of all salient considerations to replace fossil fuels - especially oil -  is the latter (cf. Physics Today, July 2004, p. 51)

Q (net) = Q (PR) – [Q (op) + E/T]

To fix ideas:  The planet was endowed with roughly  3,000 billion barrels of oil – of which we’ve consumed 1,700 billion barrels but only  300 billion barrels of relatively cheap oil remains (assuming increased deep sea floor drilling), after which 500 billion barrels of “break-even” oil remains.  Arrival at the latter phase means the EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) is close to zero. In effect, for break-even oil one would find Q(net) = 0

Thus, there is no net gain in energy given the quantity accessed is basically the same as that which must be used to obtain it.  This is what we are approaching now with shale and tar sands oil.  Here's another alarming aspect:  As that usable, higher EROEI oil is depleted how much renewable energy in the form of solar, geothermal, wind, etc. is needed to replace it to sustain our industrial society which also depends on an extensive military component?  It turns out a lot and vastly more than is currently  coming onstream - if nuclear energy is omitted.

Here's an even more sobering wake up call:   The stage is set to add 25 % MORE humans by 2050, topping off at nearly  9.5  billion.  This will necessitate - if we still plan to retain solar in the mix - converting an area the size of Europe to solar panel arrays. In addition, to feed all those hungry mouths, we will need to add an agricultural area the size of the whole continent of South America - especially given how the eating habits of Chinese and Indians have now altered to become more "American" (e.g. much more meat, like steaks, etc. - which re-acquire vastly more water and resources to produce)

The bottom line here isn't very pretty. It reads like this: Alternative energy sources - no matter how many are incorporated - will provide only a very marginal, fractional benefit unless:

a) humans majorly reduce their birth rates around the world, and

b) Our concentrated energy use society is rendered much more delocalized and diffused so that it can better adapt to the diffuse,  lower quality capacity of alternative energy sources.

I suspect neither of these will occur, meaning that as we approach the climate change critical stage, there will be literal hell to pay and no real "Green" salvation to spare us.   The most alarming recent revelation concerns the much more rapid warming of the oceans.   Laure Resplandy, a geoscientist at Princeton University who led the startling study published  in the journal Nature  noted:

"If you look at the IPCC 1.5C, there are big challenges ahead to keep those targets, and our study suggests it's even harder because we close the window for those lower pathways. A warmer ocean will hold less oxygen, and that has implications for marine ecosystems.  There is also sea level, if you warm the ocean more you will have more thermal expansion and therefore more sea level rise."

The critical element is the fact that as waters get warmer they release more carbon dioxide and oxygen into the air.  As Dr. Resplandy made clear:

"When the ocean warms, the amount of these gases that the ocean is able to hold goes down,"  

Adding:

"So what we measured was the amount lost by the oceans, and then we can calculate how much warming we need to explain that change in gases."

Lastly:

"We thought that we got away with not a lot of warming in both the ocean and the atmosphere for the amount of CO2 that we emitted.  But we were wrong. The planet warmed more than we thought. It was hidden from us just because we didn’t sample it right. But it was there. It was in the ocean already".

Given ocean temperatures are rising more rapidly than previously calculated, that  leaves nations even less time to dramatically cut the world’s emissions of carbon dioxide. That is, assuming there is any hope in limiting global warming to the ambitious goal of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by the end of this century.  Many newer results show this is overly optimistic and neglecting other factors in play, e.g.

Climate report understates threat

The takeaway here?  While the Green New Deal definitely sounds promising on its face,  doing the math shows that it simply can't achieve what it claims to in the time - say 12 years.  Certainly not without massive infusions of nuclear power.  This doesn't mean doing nothing, but the humans on this planet have to understand that they are the source of most of the greenhouse gases. 

Cutting human numbers, despite what the loopy economists say (i.e. regarding the need for "more economic growth") is a major first step.  That will mean less CO2 churned out, by fewer autos and coal -fired plants, and less need to chop down more forests. It also means not allowing human numbers to reach anywhere near 9 billion in 30 years. We need, in other words, massive  birth control expansion as well as massive nuclear energy expansion. And that will be just to contain the most dire effects of a rapidly warming planet.

There are bound to be affirmative voices that the Green New Deal can work (see links below), but I'd challenge any of them to do the same physics and math and still claim the plan's objectives can be attained in the given time frame. Especially if nuclear energy is not part of the solution!

See also:

Energy Policy | Environmental Policy

Climate Change Is Scary—Not the Green New Deal

And:

Economic Policy | Energy Policy | Environmental Policy

Answering the Attacks on the Green New Deal

by John Feffer | February 21, 2019 - 6:58am | permalink

— from Foreign Policy In Focus

Failure Of Colorado Anti-Fracking Initiatives Puts State's Water At Greater Peril

By now, most Coloradans would have become aware that two anti-fracking initiatives, designated Initiative 75 and Initiative 78,, failed to secure the requisite number of petition signatures to appear on state ballots November 8th. To refresh memories, 75 sought to give local governments the authority to limit or ban oil and gas development. 78 sought mandatory 2,500-foot setbacks between new oil and gas development and schools, playgrounds and hospitals, In each case, 98, 492 valid signatures were required. A total of 107, 232 were turned in for 75, but only 79, 634 were estimated verified. A total of 107, 232 were turned in for 78, but only 77, 109 were estimated verified.

The failure of both measures to make the ballot came after months of a costly and contentious grassroots campaign. Arrayed against the anti-frackers were well-funded, Koch brothers backed  industry groups which poured money into an opposing “decline to sign” effort. Also, anti-fracking activists say they faced harassment from opponents while trying to gather their petition signatures.

The  corporate-controlled Colorado Oil and Gas Commission said in a statement that “Coloradans have sent a clear message that they don’t want to resolve these complex issues at the ballot box." The truer take is that Coloradan voices were snuffed out, and the petition process scuttled by a determined propaganda and intimidation campaign sponsored by the Kochs and their state lackeys, allies. This is especially tragic given that the outcome means an ever greater assault on state water resources.

As noted in previous posts it's been confirmed for two years now that the gas and oil frackers are not only ruining our precious water supply here in the mountain West but depleting it as well.  According to a report published in the UK Guardian, "America's oil and gas rush is depleting water supplies in the driest and most drought-prone areas of the country, from Texas to California,".

This is extremely bad news given how our water resources are already depleted from drought as well as ever increasing demand from the half-dozen states that draw water from the Colorado River.  Of the nearly 50,000 oil and gas wells drilled since 2011 nearly two thirds have been in areas where water is scarce and 55% in drought-ravaged areas. But in addition to fracking depleting the water supply (one well requires from 3-5 million gallons of water) the process also entails injection of fracking chemicals,  two thirds of which are carcinogenic.

 Although some well paid PR hacks claim fracking effluent found in water is “safe” – most of us don’t buy it. According to Matt Lepore, head of the “Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission” (basically a PR cover for the oil industry):

"The whole point is that it is safe, that the harm to the environment has been minimized.”

 He was referring to the industry’s latest cleanup method of using mixing machinery and microbes on the affected soil.  But as a May, 2014, Denver Post study observes: “It is not proven”.

 In other words we have only the industry-front organization’s  words to go by. But given they are mainly devoted to the articulation and dissemination of PR,  can we trust them?  I think not.

 The Post expose found that 716,982 gallons of the petroleum chemicals spilled during the past decade have stayed in the ground after the initial cleanup. This has contaminated soil, sometimes spreading into groundwater- based on a Denver Post analysis of COGOC data. Incredibly, their maestro had the never to say the cleanup method was “safe” despite the Post finding the stuff is invading the soil, groundwater.  According to the Post (ibid.):

“There’s about one gallon of toxic liquid penetrating soil every eight minutes.”

In addition, the Post notes: “drillers churn up 135 to 500 tons of dirt with every new well, some of it soaked with hydrocarbons and laced with potentially toxic minerals and salts.”

 Lost on the fossil fuel energy obsessives is a very simple truth: While there are energy alternatives to oil and gas, there is no alternative to water. Water, for every human, fulfills a basic survival need and there's nothing that exists in its place to serve the same purposes including hydration to prevent kidney failure, and also taking in enough to ensure proper bodily function - without also becoming ill by consuming it.

Having said that, it must also be acknowledged that if we demand adequate, unsullied water we may well have to notch down our energy consumption dramatically. You can think of it as a zero sum resource game.  As a first guide one can cite The Physicist's Desk Reference (Table C, p. 187, Energy Generation by Type) for which the most energy-intensive uses (aggressive consumption or category I) for all forms of solar, geothermal and wind are projected to total only 7 exajoules by next year. This compares to 23 EJ for oil, 16 for coal, 9 for natural gas and 5 for nuclear. Thus, ALL the usual "green" alternatives" are projected to barely add up to what nuclear will deliver on its own.

Also factored in we have H.T. Odum's solar "eMergy" (eMbodied energy) which measures all of the energy (adjusted for quality) that goes into the production of a product. Odum's calculations show that the only forms of alternative energy that can survive the exhaustion (or total replacement)  of fossil fuels are : human muscle application, burning biomass (wood, animal dung, or peat), hydroelectric, geothermal in volcanic areas, and some wind electrical generation. Nuclear power could be viable if one could overcome the shortage of fuel. No other alternatives (e.g., solar voltaic) produce a large enough net sej to be sustainable.

This means that at least in one respect the frackers may be correct.  That is, citizens may well find it preferable to sacrifice their soil, air and water quality in order to ensure they get the energy to run their cars, a-c units, Ipads, HDTVs, lawn mowers, smart phones and refrigerators.  Some may believe in their heart of hearts they can have both clean water and sufficient energy for their toys, but they are deluded - detached from energy reality.

The failure of the Colorado ballot initiatives to limit fracking may well speed the day of reckoning, when - as I warned two years ago- (Nov. 29 , 2014 post)  we will have to use recycled toilet or waste water. Already some locales (e.g. Aurora) are using  partially -treated waste water through river banks.  If fracking contaminates or diminishes most of our main water sources in the next decade or so this could become the norm, and "toilet to tap" will become part of our parlance.

See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-c-koehler/68971/the-future-cries-out-water-is-life

Is Gen Y Too Obsessed With Apocalyptic Futures? 'Yes!' According to One Prof (But They Have a Right To Be!)

"If you were born after 1960, you are more likely to die from starvation, disease or violence." - Jay Hanson, in essay at 'Dieoff.org
















Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado, Ira Chernus, has proposed the Gen Y demographic is too obsessed with apocalyptic visions and ideation - and gravitate excessively to dystopic fare like 'The Hunger Games',  'The Walking Dead' and likely the new flick, 'Divergent' too.  In the case of 'The Walking Dead' (which btw, I also watch, though it's not necessarily my "favorite") Chernus observes (Colorado Springs Independent, March 5-11, p. 21):

"It's no surprise that 'The Walking Dead', a zombie apocalypse series, is their favorite TV show since it reveals (and revels in) what one TV critic called the 'secret life of the American teenager'"

Leaving open the question of why those of us who are in the elder demographic also find the series riveting.  Hint: It has nada to do with any "secret life" of horrific ideation, but because it's very well done!  Also, maybe we grew up loving horror flicks, and still do. In our reckoning, there's no "statute of limitations" in terms of age, on loving horror flicks.

Having basically denigrated a particular demographics' love of a great zombie series, Chernus does admit we do inhabit an era wherein potential apocalypses are everywhere. One can think of global warming leading to the runaway greenhouse effect, for example, which would effectively wipe humans off the face of the Earth within perhaps 200 years - and all other species too.

Then there is the prospect of real thermo-nuclear war. Most of today's youngsters, though they may have seen a few atomic disaster flicks, have no conception of how horrific a nuclear war would be. Fortunately, one daring British film entitled 'Threads' showed it - from the original exchanges of thousands of megatons - to the nuclear winter that follows over decades.

Threads is not for the squeamish or faint-hearted but I do think all those yammering for war or confrontation with Putin and the Russians need to see it and let its message soak in. In fact, I think every critically-thinking red blooded citizen ought to see it, if for no other reason to be motivated to let their belligerent  reps know this thing isn't on - not now or ever.  In this sense, our political leaders could also use the therapy of seeing 'Threads' next time they're inclined to use antagonistic rhetoric.

Though based on a hypothetical Soviet invasion of Iran, (which possibility now reverts to a U.S. -Israeli bombing of Iran),  the projected invasion of a U.S. and NATO strike force remains accurate to any unfolding future scenario,  since the present day Russians have plowed enormous investment  into Iran and its reactors.. Anyway, from the initial strikes on a nuke reactor at Isfahan, to the accidental sinking of the Russian ship Kirov in the Straits of Hormuz, to the accidental exchange of 2 tactical nuclear weapons (with radiation blowing over Pakistan) and the escalation to a full scale nuclear war - with 3,000 megatons exchange (210 megatons on the UK alone) this movie will keep you on the edge of your seat.

It should also give sober citizens (of whatever age) nightmares and motivate them to scream down all the warmongers in this country with a boner to pick a fight....with whomever. In this sense, Chernus is right that "apocalypses are everywhere" in the political process for change. For example, the most powerful political process today, mostly for negative change (which is to say, the benefits of it redound only to the few, the wealthy, the multinational corporations) is Neoliberalism.  The Neoliberal dynamic and imperative is to "flatten the Earth" in terms of holding all global citizens to the dictates of the global market. These dictates demand all nations 'play by the rules' which means they do nothing to resist Neoliberal expansion irrespective of what form it takes. This is exactly why Obama and the U.S. are so pissed at the Russians for reverting to their original geographical interests and re-claiming Crimea. In addition, the Russians by their actions are messing up assorted trade deals that would have mightily benefited capitalists in the U.S.

As one astute commenter in the UK Guardian forums put it:

"The EU "trade deal" with America would allow American Corporations to take over "outsourced" public sector contracts in Ukraine"

So the negative impetus to confront the Russians is directly tied to this deflection of the Neoliberal imperative to enslave the Ukrainians in another "austerity" governed hellhole, like Greece. But is it worth having a nuclear war over? We have to wait and see. In the meantime one hopes more sober heads come to the fore in the Obama administration.

Chernus goes on to write- and this could certainly apply to the siren song of Neoliberalism:

"A better future is often implied between the lines but it seldom gets much attention because it's even harder to imagine such a future much less believe it."

For many of us, in the case of climate change this is certainly true, since there's almost NO upside, zero - if we should hit the critical thresholds identified by Bill McKibben. Thus, exceeding a carbon load (for the atmosphere) of 550 gT is the start of the road to climate hell, while exceeding the 2770 gT limit is the road to certain hell and the end of the game for humanity.

Thus it is understandable that upsides and positive images get less attention. We're already seeing the negative effects play out in massive droughts, wild fires, severe heat waves and storms, so why should we expect the future to be better - especially if humans aren't doing a damned thing to effect significant change? We keep growing our numbers, spewing more chemicals (including massive water pollutants) and CO2 out, even as the fossil fuel wizards now want to frack the whole planet into the ground.

In terms of the Neoliberal imperative, we already see the 'race to the bottom' played out in numerous nations for which the Neoliberal virus has become embedded. We behold millions and millions of unemployed and under-employed as well as people barely able to eke out a living on minimum wage. We also see the yen to cut social insurance, whether in the U.S. or Barbados - because for the Neoliberal,  security is not to be allowed. It is anathema because people are expected to either work for their money, or get if from investment in the (Neoliberal) gamed markets. Those who refuse are punished by extremely low yields and the creeping cancer of inflation eating up their savings (especially as the Neolibs continue to game the system and measure only certain types of inflation in their cost of living assessments)

Since we can see the dire effects of Neoliberalism (those of us with eyes to see) then looking for upsides to it, irrespective of what the Neolib pols spout, is a fool's errand.

As for Prof. Chernus, his heart is in the right place - in terms of trying to spread a more positive overtone to our rapidly approaching dystopic world - but his knowledge is inadequate. In terms of allaying climate change he writes, for example:

"Scientists have shown that renewable sources like the Sun and wind could provide all the energy humanity needs. Alternative technologies are putting those theories into practice around the globe just not on the scale needed to transform human life."

Which is true, but he doesn't explain why. The reason is that fossil fuels remain the energy sources with the biggest bangs for the buck, and sources like solar and wind are too dilute - not concentrated enough - to be useful. The Physicist's Desk Reference notes, for example, all the alternative energy sources taken together barely account for 1 EJ (exajoule) while oil-coal account for 15-17 EJ.

Unlike energy derived from fossil fuels, energy derived from solar power is diffuse and also extremely intermittent: it varies constantly with weather or day/night. If a large city wants to derive a significant portion of its electricity from solar power, it must build fossil-fuel-fired or nuclear-powered electricity plants to provide backup for the times when solar energy is not available. Solar power has a capacity of about 20 percent. This means that if a utility wants to install 100 megawatts of solar power, they need to install 500 megawatts of solar panels. This makes solar power a prohibitively expensive and pragmatically poor replacement for the cheap and abundant fossil fuel energy our economy depends on, especially if one intends to use it operate missile factories.

Worse, calculations show that solar cells currently consume twice as much sej as they produce, so they're no bargain. Worse, an entirely solar civilization would most likely have to exist at the power output and potential (relative to electric grid capacity) of about one half where we are now. IN order to accomplish that we'd have to winnow the human population down to barely 2 billion - which is exactly the number that Alan Weisman pinpointed as the Earth's "Carrying capacity" or the maximum number of people the Earth can support given its resource base.  You simply can't have 7.5 billion people able to exist on solar power.  Their transport needs alone - never mind food - would make it impossible.

H.T. Odum's solar "eMergy" (eMbodied energy) measures all of the energy (adjusted for quality) that goes into the production of a product. Odum's calculations show that the only forms of alternative energy that can survive the exhaustion of fossil fuels are muscle, burning biomass (wood, animal dung, or peat), hydroelectric, geothermal in volcanic areas, and some wind electrical generation. Nuclear power could be viable if one could overcome the shortage of fuel. No other alternatives (e.g., solar voltaic) produce a large enough net sej to be sustainable. In short, there is no way out of the dire fossil fuel predicament any time soon, and we will likely exceed the 2, 770 gT calamity limit before we can implement massive alternate energy inputs.

Chernus ends by saying:

"In an age in which gloom, doom and annihilation are everywhere, it's vital to bring genuine hope - the reality, not just the word - back into political life."

This is true,  but the problem is that our politicos have shamelessly abused the word 'hope' too often, using it in the wrong context of election cycles and seeking to exploit in when the wherewithal (or will) wasn't there to effect it. Hence, by doing so, they've only made the population more cynical - not less. This doesn't necessarily mean they are 'hopeless' or totally without positivity - but that they seek people in political life who are able to balance hope and realism. The problem again is that these really courageous potential politicians will not likely get the adequate funding to compete in our money-soaked system, which also favors the Neoliberal puppet over any other types.

The true fact here is the Gen Ys are quite right to view the current U.S. scene through mostly negative and cynical eyes. They've been betrayed as have we all. The problem has been to be able to pinpoint who or what is to blame, but most of us finally know it is un-tempered Neoliberalism, with its adoration of the markets as some deus ex machina, and the exclusion of human capital and human priorities.

Until that changes, no one has any right to exude false hope - which is the only form in abundance right now.

As for the zombies on 'The Walking Dead' - they are all around us, but mostly inhabiting the Beltway, as they sully forth to do the Neoliberals'  bidding on autopilot - and ignore the rest of us. Look just at the recent approval of $1b for the Ukraine, while our own kids - 15.6 million of them- go to bed hungry each night because of recent food stamp cuts.

See also:  www.dieoff.org

And:  http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/dave-johnson/55026/nafta-at-20-a-vehicle-to-increase-profits-at-the-expense-of-democracy

Has Peak Oil Arrived? (III)

According to Robert Heinberg (‘The Party’s Over’) the first economic sign of Peak Oil will likely be gas at the price of $7 a gallon. This would mean oil is nearly $200 a barrel. However, that assumes no other supply factors are operating that maintains a price divorced from real supply and demand.

But let’s say this does transpire in the next year or so. What then? How do we cope, what can we expect?

IF Peak Oil really does arrive all aspects of life will become much more costly and difficult than they are now. Indeed, as per a Wall Street Journal article (‘If $$ Gas is Bad, Just Wait, May 23, p. C8) the Executive Vice-President of the Fuel Merchants Association of New Jersey quipped: “Maybe at $6 or $7 a gallon it become less attractive to go to work”

Well, perhaps, but at $10 a gallon it surely would! At that point, I can visualize the entire economy going into the tank unless employers permit massive telecommuting – much more so than now. In addition, governments will need to provide massive tax breaks or concessions to encourage more people to car pool.

The individual driver embedded in his own two tons of steel, will go the way of the dinosaur.

In terms of food, transport and fertilizer costs will go through the roof. One can imagine all these costs added to foods, making food conservation an imperative. No longer will Americans be able to afford food wastage of $7 billion a year.

It is quite possible the average middle income, middle class family will be reduced to eating sardines or tune with some rice five times a week, and maybe chicken or fish the other two days. Beef will become prohibitively expensive, as will pork. Actually, beef and pork will see prices much more common to lamb now.

Utility costs will escalate, perhaps to two to three times more than people are paying now.

Can alternative fuels solve the Peak Oil problem?

The cold, unvarnished and hard fact is that none of the usually touted "alternatives" has the energy density of oil and can replace oil to fuel and power any kind of industrial civilization. "Methane hydrates" ? Matt Savinar torpedoes that proposal easily in his 'Life After the Oil Crash'. Shale oil reserves? Jay Hanson et al. blast that poppycock to kingdom come on their excellent site:

www.dieoff.org.


In many cases, what Peak Oil deniers are doing is mistaking a technological advance for a genuine energy source alternative. In the end , it’s all very well to speculate and ruminate that future energy needs will be met, but the question remains: HOW? When one does the math, and in particular pays attention to the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the ‘net energy equation’, this just isn’t on.

Where will energy come from to support an industrial-energy intense and consumptive civilization? Alternative energy buffs can’t just say “new sources” and leave it at that. What new sources? Where? To what degree does the distribution, implementation, and use of these alternative sources demand massive retro-fitting of our industrial infrastructure? How much money, energy, and time will this retrofitting require? To what degree does the distribution, implementation, and use of this alternative require other resources that are in short supply? Do these other resources exist in quantities sufficient enough that the alternative is capable of being scaled up on a massive level?

Unless these questions are addressed as an integral part of any alternative view or proposal, the latter remains mere idle speculation or conjecture.

What about solar? Can that work:? Weisz (Physics Today, op. cit. (I)) notes that the solar total access for the U.S. currently amounts to 22Q per year per 4000 square kilometers. A maximal output of 20Q (about one fifth the current U.S. demand) could be achieved in terms of electricity generation provided a collector area is available from two to four times the area of the state of Massachusetts.

Calculations show that solar cells currently consume twice as much sej as they produce, so they are no bargain. Worse an entirely solar civilization would most likely have to exist at the power output and potential (relative to electric grid capacity) of about one half where we are now. Plus, the collector area would have to expand to around that of the states of Colorado and Nevada combined.

Will you still be able to run your personal computer (even a creaking old Windows 98 like I have) in that low energy environment? Very doubtful unless you have your own nuclear powered or other generator!

Some have asked me if it isn’t at all feasible that solar can be the SOLE potential answer to energy problems – given the Sun is so powerful, etc.

Well, maybe- provided several things occur:

1) We cut population drastically from right now, since each increase in numbers add to the energy burden required to sustain it. There is no "free energy" and each human body is a net energy user. A “solar” world cannot exist, in my opinion, with numbers beyond 3 billion – 2 billion is probably more realistic

2) We allocate an area equal to roughly 500,000 sq. miles for solar collection and conversion, using the most efficient cells, devices available (efficiencies running at 45% minimum.

3) People are encouraged to make their own solar energy collection devices or get their homes re-strrructured to it - soonest.

4) People retreat from their high consumption ethic and develop a de-localized mentality - with no more aspirations for concentrated energy generators, or distant travel. Solar energy- especially in cars, vehicles, simple cannot support it. Nor can it support even remotely the energy-intense military-industrial complex now being run off cheap oil.

Thus, making the switch to solar or a solar built society - the most likely to replace oil to the greatest extent- requires the de-localization of energy resources. Preferably, tiny communities each living off their own solar collectors, growing their own hydroponic or other crops. and foregoing all visions of distant travel - since there will never ever be solar-powered jetliners or cargo ships. Ain't gonna happen.In effect, "globalization" and world trade will have to come to a dead stop. It can't be sustained once the cheap oil is gone, and the net energy of recovery of new sources dips below zero. And the new sources in toto force a massive overhauling of the underpinning infrastructure. (Let’s also bear in mind the bulk of petroleum reserves will have to go into food production, transport, fertilizers etc.)

H.T. Odum's solar "eMergy" (eMbodied energy) measures all of the energy (adjusted for quality) that goes into the production of a product. Odum's calculations show that the only forms of alternative energy that can survive the exhaustion of fossil fuel are: muscle, burning biomass (wood, animal dung, or peat), hydroelectric, geothermal in volcanic areas, and some wind electrical generation. Nuclear power could be viable if one could overcome the shortage of fuel. No other alternatives (e.g., solar voltaic) produce a large enough net sej to be sustainable. In short, there is no way out.
As Jay Hanson pointedly notes:

“The fact that our society can‘t survive on alternative energy should come as no surprise, because only an idiot would believe that windmills and solar panels can run bulldozers, elevators, steel mills, glass factories, electric heat, air conditioning, aircraft, automobiles, etc., AND still have enough energy left over to support a corrupt political system, armies, etc.

Envision a world where freezing, starving people burn everything combustible -- everything from forests (releasing CO2; destroying topsoil and species); to garbage dumps (releasing dioxins, PCBs, and heavy metals); to people (by waging nuclear, biological, chemical, and conventional war); and you have seen the future”

My take? I personally don't believe Americans have the will or moxie to do what is required to live in a radically downsized (diffuse as opposed to concentrated) energy environment. I may be wrong, but I just can't see it. It would require too many sacrifices on their part. And while the current high oil –gas prices have forced some alterations of life style from the sheer economic pain- I cannot imagine it might be permanent. Look how we all lapsed after the OPEC – gas rationing of the 1970s ended!

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the corporate owned gov't to do squat either. They haven't up to now - look at the execrable earlier (1990s) provision in the income tax to confer tax breaks on SUV owners! Look at the other energy -squandering legislation, the unwillingness to even remotely consider conservation.


As A. Bartlett emphasizes (Physics Today, July, 2004, ibid):

"Our national goal must be to reduce the total annual consumption of nonrenewable energy for many coming years."

This solution must mean not only severe conservation – much less driving and energy use overall- but also a concerted effort to cut population (which fuels demand). A first start can be made in ceasing all per-child tax credits and breaks, and even (indeed) placing a child tax on couple that insist on having more than one child.

No solution is palatable, but the consequences of inaction will be a million times worse.