From the University of Oregon a clue as to why green energy isn’t making much inroads. For example, compare these findings to what we learned recently from Matt Ridley about the big fat zero of wind power in the bigger scheme of things.
Wind and other alternate energy is essentially no more than a rounding error. – Anthony
Focus on technology overlooks human behavior when addressing climate change
Study shows it takes 10 units of alternative electricity sources to offset a unit of fossil fuel-generated power
EUGENE, Ore. — Technology alone won’t help the world turn away from fossil fuel-based energy sources, says University of Oregon sociologist Richard York. In a newly published paper, York argues for a shift in political and economic policies to embrace the concept that continued growth in energy consumption is not sustainable.
Many nations, including the United States, are actively pursuing technological advances to reduce the use of fossil fuels to potentially mitigate human contributions to climate-change. The approach of the International Panel on Climate Change assumes alternative energy sources — nuclear, wind and hydro — will equally displace fossil fuel consumption. This approach, York argues, ignores “the complexity of human behavior.”
Based on a four-model study of electricity used in some 130 countries in the past 50 years, York found that it took more that 10 units of electricity produced from non-fossil sources — nuclear, hydropower, geothermal, wind, biomass and solar — to displace a single unit of fossil fuel-generated electricity.
“When you see growth in nuclear power, for example, it doesn’t seem to affect the rate of growth of fossil fuel-generated power very much,” said York, a professor in the sociology department and environmental studies program. He also presented two models on total energy use. “When we looked at total energy consumption, we found a little more displacement, but still, at best, it took four to five units of non-fossil fuel energy to displace one unit produced with fossil fuel.”
For the paper — published online March 18 by the journal Nature Climate Change — York analyzed data from the World Bank’s world development indicators gathered from around the world. To control for a variety of variables of economics, demographics and energy sources, data were sorted and fed into the six statistical models.
Admittedly, York said, energy-producing technologies based on solar, wind and waves are relatively new and may yet provide viable alternative sources as they are developed.
“I’m not saying that, in principle, we can’t have displacement with these new technologies, but it is interesting that so far it has not happened,” York said. “One reason the results seem surprising is that we, as societies, tend to see demand as an exogenous thing that generates supply, but supply also generates demand. Generating electricity creates the potential to use that energy, so creating new energy technologies often leads to yet more energy consumption.”
Related to this issue, he said, was the development of high-efficiency automobile engines and energy-efficient homes. These improvements reduced energy consumption in some respects but also allowed for the production of larger vehicles and bigger homes. The net result was that total energy consumption often did not decrease dramatically with the rising efficiency of technologies.
“In terms of governmental policies, we need to be thinking about social context, not just the technology,” York said. “We need to be asking what political and economic factors are conducive to seeing real displacement. Just developing non-fossil fuel sources doesn’t in itself tend to reduce fossil fuel use a lot — not enough. We need to be thinking about suppressing fossil fuel use rather than just coming up with alternatives alone.”
The findings need to become part of the national discussion, says Kimberly Andrews Espy, vice president for research and innovation at the UO. “Research from the social sciences is often lost in the big picture of federal and state policymaking,” she said. “If we are to truly solve the challenges our environment is facing in the future, we need to consider our own behaviors and attitudes.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Read this link to begin to find out why green policy advocates are so active in so many of our towns and counties. Your public officials are being wooed, sweet-talked and socialized to show how sophisticated they are by pushing green and sustainable programs on we ignorant proles.
Texas Mayor Officially Cancels Agenda 21 Membership
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/03/texas-mayor-officially-cancels-agenda.html
higley7 says:
March 21, 2012 at 4:35 am
“….Electrical vehicles are not going to happen in a big way because the energy density of batteries will never equal the chemical potential energy of hydrocarbons. Only electric trains work because they follow the circuit, which has limited utility in a big country…..”
Electric Trains as you say still working with Fossils. These have combustion engines and if we are talking about underground railways, still there are fossils but outside the system and the power would be given by power plants. The issue is keeping clean the undergrounds stations, same should be done in greater cities suffering from high rates of air pollution. EVs are a must in such areas same as undergrounds. In every greater cities in the world 390 individuals are dieing because of air pollution. But you are right, still our favorite energy resource is fossil.
http://www.ford.com/technology/electric/
http://www.caelusgreenroom.com/2012/01/10/kia-introduces-koreas-%EF%AC%81rst-production-electric-vehicle/
Do you think we can drive faster than what our EV today are giving us in urban areas?
How is oil 37%? I thought it was just 20% of emissions?
Tomorrow is World Water Day. Imagine the good our institutions of higher learning could do if they would stop focusing on harmless co2 and instead work to solve the world’s water problems. Millions are dying from dirty drinking water. It’s a sad commentary on our society when so many must die because some elites want to get rich and powerful.
These kinds of studies always start with the nonsensical assumption that “carbon” is the devil incarnate. When I hear anyone say “carbon” instead of carbon dioxide I know I’m speaking to a scientific nincompoop. Take aways the irrational and unscientific notion that carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases are deadly for the Earth and there isn’t a single good reason not to use all the hydrocarbon and nuclear energy we can and dump once and for all the “green” crap.
What he is saying is the Government needs to take a more active role in telling you how to live – you can’t buy a house bigger then X you can buy a car unless it is y, you have to pay more taxes to make alternate energy viable…Government will take care of you, don’t worry, Barry is on your side! Oh yea and Science says so….
Any money saved on electricity bills thanks to insulation or the improved efficiency of electrical appliances merely allows one to buy and run more appliances. And where is the harm in that?
More Soylent Green! says:
March 21, 2012 at 8:05 am
“You’re entirely off point….”
1- windmills are not developed as yet this was my point of view.
2- it’s not correct sometimes it is possible to get the power same as a thermal power plant.
The Greater Gabbard Wind Farm with 140 turbines generating 500MW for London is on the way.
http://acckkii.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/the-greater-gabbard-wind-farm-with-140-turbines-generating-500mw-for-london/
3- I’m not a pro wind/solar. But I pay less today to experimenting to get more in the future. Take this as part of the Research Budgets. Suppose the time your economy would not let you to proceed despite you have enough fossils.
http://peakoil.com/consumption/the-impact-on-u-s-consumers-of-every-1%C2%A2-increase-in-gas-prices-1-billion/
http://peakoil.com/generalideas/heinberg-fun-with-trends/
“If current population trends continue . . .
The population of the United States will increase to over 600 million by 2080, and in 2150 it will equal China’s present size.
World population will achieve 14 billion by the year 2075 and 30 billion by 2150.
If current energy trends continue . . .
By 2015 China will be importing more oil than the United States does that year.
By 2030 China will be absorbing all available global oil exports, leaving none for the US or Europe.
In just 8 years China will be burning as much coal as the entire world uses today.
Natural gas will be virtually free in the US by 2015.
Officially assessed US natural gas reserves will be exhausted by 2025.
If current economic trends continue . . .
China’s economy will be 8 times as big as it is today by 2040.”
More Soylent Green! says:
March 21, 2012 at 6:18 am
A few years ago, several area schools organized protests of the proposed coal-powered Sunflower electric plant….
Anybody know why the Sunflower plant is to be built in western Kansas? It’s to supply electricity to Colorado. Seems the Colorado greens have managed to shut down new sources of conventional electricity generation in that state, but they haven’t reduced their need for the juice.
____________________________________
Seems that our best bet is to cut up the grid and leave each state on its own as far as energy production is concerned. Let Kalifornia, Kolorado, and the People’s Republic of Tassachusetts taste the consequences of their foolishness.
Even better toss out the DOE and have each state determine what is acceptable. If we want Hydro or Coal or Nuclear, it should be up to the state it is located in and not up to the United Nations/District of Criminals.
acckkii says: March 21, 2012 at 7:42 am…
Look here acckkii, as a residential customer I can LOCK IN 8.0 cents/kWh for FIVE YEARS, DELIVERED to my door
https://www.enmax.com/Energy/Res/My+Account/Current+EasyMax+Rates.htm
I suggest my 4 cents/kWh to generate electricity from natural gas, before delivery (distribution costs) is about right,; at the most it is 5-6 cents.
The Ontario subsidies are also about right – I’ve seen them before,
13.5¢/kWh for worthless wind power and 64.2¢/kWh for worthless solar power
(Source – The Globe and Mail)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/adam-radwanski/mcguinty-powers-up-a-compromise-on-renewable-energy-plan/article2368524/
I think my comparisons are also about correct – the price paid to the wind and solar power generators is likely to be the wholesale price, before distribution – 13.5 cents (wind) and 62.4 cents (solar) compared to 4 cents (natural gas).
I have work to do and will not respond further today.
More Soylent Green! says:
March 21, 2012 at 8:05 am
“The fact that we have to build additional infrastructure for wind and solar makes them even more expensive.”
Our demands would speak up in the future, we cannot measure it today, yes we guess the wind would not be cheaper than fossils by our today know-how. In offshore projects somehow there are hopes for windmills to be positive by now.
Infrastructure for fossils are not the same as what it would be for windmills. There are many differences. I guessed you don’t have any problem on this. Do we have exploration, production a raw material, pipelines, ports, shipping, refinery, fuel distribution and network, transportation system, all sorts of appliances and …and ….. political matters, etc in windmills? Windmills are just starting and creating jobs, but Oil & Gas industries with millions of jobs are our existing powerful infrastructure it is our life style which we are familiar with all the aspects, how can we take it easy such an expanded and developed infrastructure? We are for example just starting to discuss about EVs, which still its source of energy is fossil.
HenryP says:
March 21, 2012 at 6:23 am
I WROTE ABOUT THIS AS WELL, I don’t like nuclear energy…
______________________________
Henry, Please look into Thorium nuclear.
Unlike many I live my convictions and can look out my window at a Nuclear Reactor Cooling Tower. My Husband is a physicist with life long friends with PhDs in the nuclear field. I have a friend who was the insurance agent for a nuclear plant up north and another who was safety engineer at Seabrook. We intentionally bought property near a nuclear plant BTW.
A Thorium Reactor Design
Could thorium make nuclear power safe?
The world can have cheap nuclear power without Japan-level risks by swapping thorium for uranium, some scientists claim. Is that too good to be true?
href=”http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html”>Thorium – World Nuclear Association
…Thorium fuel cycles offer attractive features, including lower levels of waste generation, less transuranic elements in that waste, and providing a diversification option for nuclear fuel supply. Also, the use of thorium in most reactor types leads to significant extra safety margins…”
A report on Thorium: The newest of the technology metals
An interesting discussion on thorium: Thorium, Is It Really Safe?
Allan MacRae says:
March 21, 2012 at 8:49 am
“Look here acckkii, as a residential customer I can LOCK IN 8.0 cents/kWh for FIVE YEARS, DELIVERED to my door
https://www.enmax.com/Energy/Res/My+Account/Current+EasyMax+Rates.htm
I suggest my 4 cents/kWh to generate electricity from natural gas, before delivery (distribution costs) is about right,; at the most it is 5-6 cents.”
1- this is a subsidized rate. distribution is nothing against the generating and fuel.
2- you have monthly fixed admin charge. And In don’t know how much do you pay a month. This is just to guess why the rate is that much.
3- if the plant is not DG, or the power generated in power plant is above 500MW it is reasonable.
4- Look! there is a big difference between a DG and heavy duty power plant. DG is small power plant below 25MWh the production capacity depending on the country and the region.
5- you are an off-taker (customer of ENMAX) for 5 years. This guaranteed purchase makes huge differences for the seller.
6- what is this? Direct Energy Regulated Services 8.508 KWh $8.55 admin
James Sexton at 6:49 am has nailed it. Kudos, James.
From the piece: “We need to be thinking about suppressing fossil fuel use rather than just coming up with alternatives alone.”
There are two possible definitions for suppress in my Webster’s New World that might apply here: “to put down by force; subdue; quell; crush. To abolish by authority.” The other is: “to check the flow or discharge of; stop.”
I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he is referring to the latter. The idea that people will voluntarily agree to radically diminish their quality of life based on the dubious findings of contemporary climate science is ludicrous. Only in the ivory tower can you find lunatics who believe believe they would. It simply is not going to happen.
acckkii says:
March 21, 2012 at 8:46 am
…“If current population trends continue . . .
The population of the United States will increase to over 600 million by 2080, and in 2150 it will equal China’s present size….
______________________________________
SIGH, That Malthusian cow manure again.
If you want to make the population of the USA shrink CLOSE THE DARN BORDERS!
Almost one-third of the current population growth is caused by net immigration. US Census
US Census Chart of change in percent of population by race. Note the major rise in the Hispanic population:
Replacement rate is normally considered to be 2 to 2.1 children per women. In developed countries, the necessary replacement rate is about 2.1.
From the CIA
It is our immigrants that are having all the extra kids not us. That is based not only on “Official” statistics but watching the large hispanic families that show up every weekend at the “Little Mexico” fleamarket/farmers market. And no I am not racist or against hispanics. It is NAFTA, a treaty signed by Clinton, that is causing the loss of their homes and the resulting migration.
Well DUH! That is because nuclear is actively restrained so it can not grow at the rate or faster than the rate of demand growth. What is the change in power demanded in the Western world since 1985 vs the rate of change in nuclear generation capacity? Why? Because of an irrational fear of nuclear power generation. How many people died at Fukushima? ZERO and that is a worst case scenario of THREE first generation plants malfunctioning at the same place at the same time. And the response of some people? Prevent or slow the fielding of newer plants that would have survived that scenario while keeping older plants working longer. It is pure insanity. We FINALLY see two new AP1000 plants now being built in Georgia but we still have the disposal problem because we aren’t recycling the spent fuel into new fuel.
We could, right now, today, double the generation capacity in the US. We could eliminate the disposal problem, eliminate the proliferation problem (by poisoning fuel with P-240 which makes it useless for weapons but great for reactor fuel and nearly impossible to separate out of the fuel). It is insane. They actively prevent the building of more power capacity and then have the temerity to say that growth in demand can’t be sustained. It is like refusing to buy a child larger clothes as they grow and conclude that feeding them is unsustainable because it makes them outgrow their clothes.
These people are nuts.
Whatever – whoever causes the population growth in USA, something is happening, Heinberg the fun with trends is here:
http://peakoil.com/generalideas/heinberg-fun-with-trends/
BUT!
Population was one of the important issues discussed n WUWT. You are referred to this site for more and better references.
The rate of growth whatever and wherever it is, means there are some problems around the world. Population is almost like climate changes. No one can get rid of the problems that it makes even the racists.
Gail Combs,
the rates:
United States – 2.06 2012 est.
India – 2.58 2012 est.
Panama – 2.43 2012 est.
Ecuador – 2.38 2012 est
Peru – 2.29 2012 est.
could you please specify every how many years the population would be doubled in the named countries?
The schematic being one of my favorites, here is a question for all proponents of Green energy:
How many interconnected wind generators does it take to manufacture a single ball bearing?
While waiting for the answer, I would pay money to find out how much conventional fuel is being replaced by wind generators in Hawai. In the Falklands, I hear it is about 6% (instead of the 40% initially claimed by the wind folks)
acckkii says:
March 21, 2012 at 10:39 am
Gail Combs,…
could you please specify every how many years the population would be doubled in the named countries?
___________________________________
For the USA with a Fertility Rate of 2.06 there might be a slight decrease. We see that as the dynamics are shifting towards an older population in the USA and in the EU.
With the other countries you would have to look at other statistics too such as infant mortality and the mortality of women. That is why the replacement rate is 2.1 in developed countries and “In less developed countries, the replacement rate is around 2.3 due to higher childhood and adult death rates”
That CIA website has a lot of information on the subject. It surprised me to see how many “developing” countries had a Fertility Rate about 2 to 3. and how many western counties had a Fertility Rate of less than 2.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
This also from that website:
Right now the US Census estimate of the World Population = 7,001,947,222, so the guy is not far off. But somewhere I saw we can expect population to peak and then decline.
Education and a decent standard of living are the key to halting and reversing over population.
For example:
Australia 1.77 2012 est.
Canada 1.59 2012 est.
Norway 1.77 2012 est.
All the decent countries have a zero to negative population growth. We do not need draconian measures we just need civilization.
Here in the UK, we have about 8 to 10 Gw of nuclear, (May be a little more,) but rarely more than 8Gw is running at any one time.
Minimum load is about 30Gw, maximum about 60Gw. 45Gw of nuclear would be about right for the UK, especially if what I hear about throttle-able nukes is right. The rest would be CCGT plants to cover peak demand. As we already have over 30Gw of CCGT, all we need is the new nukes.
Anyone talking about wind is on another planet.
One problem with nuclear power is that the EU doesn’t consider them to be renewable energy and gives the plants a carbon equivalence number. Crazy as with recycling of fuel, more gets used & hence there is less waste as only about 1% of the Uranium in the fuel rods is used in each pass, (not a problem with LFTR if they ever get one working on a reasonable scale, also, at least in theory, LFTR can burn up the waste from Uranium reactors.)
Back to wind power. I have seen outputs below 1% of plated capacity so 100% backup is required! Currently, output is just over 10% of installed metered capacity, set to drop to 5% or less in the next few hours.
DaveE.
David A. Evans says:
March 21, 2012 at 11:33 am
Here in the UK, we have about 8 to 10 Gw of nuclear, (May be a little more,) but rarely more than 8Gw is running at any one time.
Minimum load is about 30Gw, maximum about 60Gw. 45Gw of nuclear would be about right for the UK, especially if what I hear about throttle-able nukes is right. The rest would be CCGT plants to cover peak demand. As we already have over 30Gw of CCGT, all we need is the new nukes.
Anyone talking about wind is on another planet.
One problem with nuclear power is that the EU doesn’t consider them to be renewable energy and gives the plants a carbon equivalence number….
____________________________
I take then that the politicians in the EU are all in favor of shoving Europe back into the dark ages by force. Do they want to re-introduce the bubonic plague too…
Oh I forgot Prince Philip already expressed that desire: ” In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation. “
York should replace his computers with quill pens, soy ink, and abacii. That would reduce his energy consumption with sustainable substitutes.
Gail Combs says:
March 21, 2012 at 12:02 pm
Apart from the fact that the EU commission is an unelected body, (by definition not politicians,) you’ve got it Gail.
DaveE.
I think that any good student of human nature would predict that the human race will convert every drop of oil, every chunk of coal, every vapor of natural gas, and anything else that can be burned to produce energy. They will dig up all the radioactive materials that can be put into an atomic power plant and will dam every river with potential to generate electricity. (Maybe I should have written “damn every river.” They will build any type of power generator, no matter how inefficient, and finally go down wanting more. It is as simple an idea as predicting what a band of hungry dogs would do to a pen full of rabbits. The exact nature of our final decline is open to chance: maybe starvation, maybe crowding, maybe disease epidemic; it doesn’t really matter.
Perhaps a few survivors will find an area where they can return to a hunter-gathering existence. If that happens a small human race can last a long time because the energy-rich sources that make technological civilization will be gone.