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.”
Jerrymat says:
“I think that any good student of human nature…” Which leaves you out.
What you are writing is pure Luddite Malthusianism that is directly contradicted by reality. Parroting enviro scare stories has no place on the internet’s “Best Science” site.
Take a look around. In every country with a relatively free market, increasing population brings increasing wealth and longer, healthier lives. Wherever you’re getting your misinformation, you ought to see that it is entirely fact-free nonsense.
I lived in Tanzania, East Africa, for seven years. Many people there could just afford 1 Liter of kerosene for lighting with a kerosene lamp per one week – and this for a family with about 10 persons. I had a 10 Watt solar PV with some 5 and 10 Watt Halogen lights in our house. We were 7 persons and we used mostly one lamp for some hours in the evening.
It was a quiet live. We had no TV. We red books to the children, and after they went to bed, we talked until we got tired as well. Sometimes I think we had a better live than here in Germany, using many KWH per day. We were aware about the amount of Energy which was avilable and we had coped to it.
I have started to think about buying a Solar PV System again and to get independent from the power companies – the electricty bill here in Germany is going up steadily. Of course, we would not have the same amount of energy as now, but we would know about it. We would plan and discuss about it and have more interaction in the family because of it – like using the big consumers during sunlight and saving electricity for the night hours with some lights and small computers. But we have to discuss it in our family and to decide, if we will do that.
Yes, use of energy is a social matter. The use of energy could be easily cut down 50% ore more. if people would be willing to work on that. I don’t say, that everybody has to do so. But for some people it is a worthy goal, and they enjoy living for it. It has nothing to do with saving the planet or avioding CO2. I think it is also a matter of freedom and independency.
In some towns and villages here in Germany, the citicens have agreed to live per 100% on Renewable Energy. They do not depend on only source. They use PV, Wind, Hydo Power and Power Plants (for balancing PV and Wind), fired by biogas or wood chips, using the waste heat for heating their homes and getting warm water, It is working well, but the big task it the social one. Getting all the people together, with their different political opinions, let aside the usual social friction, which has to be overcome as well.
On the other hand, many citiciens have become entrepreneurs and shareholders. The wind turbine and the powerplant is not an anonymus matter, but their property. And everybody is aware of energy and how to use it properly.
Is there an conclusion? Let’s try: People can demand that somebody has to provide cheap energy, no matter what the real costs are. Or they can decide to make it to their own matter and getting independent. I think, the last way is more satisfying.
As long as we have them, I find no compelling reason to suppress the use of fossil or equivalent geo-carbon fuels. I think we should all recognize that our huge modern population is consuming these resources at a prodigious rate and we will soon (few generations) have to rely on another primary fuel or face a return to the stone age as predicted by the ‘Olduvai Theory’ (see the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olduvai_theory)
It seems obvious to me, as indicated by the main article, that natural energy schemes will only support a small fraction of the world’s current population. The proponents of these schemes do not appear to be mentioning the major global population reduction implied by reliance on energy technologies that produce such a small portion of our current energy use.
Based on the claims made by its proponents, thorium nuclear seems to be a real possibility as it appears to be practical, partially demonstrated and, barring unknown problems, indefinitely sustainable. At this time, I believe that no alternative artificial energy generation process should be overlooked. We should take the time to prove that these processes cannot be made to work now, while we still have the resources to do this.
Lack of resources can be offset by abundant energy to ‘mine’ the oceans if required, but lack of energy can only be offset by fewer people using it.
Gail Combs says:
March 21, 2012 at 11:21 am
“….Right now the US Census estimate of the World Population = 7,001,947,222, so the guy is not far off. ……….We do not need draconian measures we just need civilization.”
That’s the point. Thank you Gail Comb.
Energy , civilization, population, policies, and economy are working together.
Japan recent disaster changed many plans. Germans nuke plants shut down shocked energy markets. I agree with you that the next alternative for power generating plants finally would be the thorium and next generations. But we see how this technology is driven towards the wind energy. I don’t know how could Germans feel safe while Frenches or Britishs not so far from the Deutschland go on nuke power.
Major power provider systems would remain fossils and then nuke for a long time, but there are still capable zones around the world that can handle parts of our energy demands in some of these zones fuel supply and power lines are major problems and too expensive, so a self supporting local simple power generating system is the solution, here the rate per KWh is not working and comparisons must be forgotten or the cheaper one is a localized power system, renewables are not always available, but the plants designed for peak times also are not at service by the way. Both cases have “waiting capacity” and there are no ways out. One as major utilities we have all necessary production capacities but not full consumption, and the other as minor utilities which we have everything but sometimes no FUEL (the wind).
Germany energy policies also showed that even in EU zone where cheaper technologies are available, still economy cannot be taken into consideration, right/wrong.
“Bloke down the pub” (and others) might be interested in this aerial picture of a new “Zero Carbon” development sent to me by a friend. http://i42.tinypic.com/35je83c.jpg
Lots of insulation, energy monitoring, water recycling etc. AND those solar PV panels – the majority of which face East/West. Note that the house top left has a large tree close by, and what might appear to be a large skylight is a PV panel! I wonder how much light that will get thanks to shading by the tree and the roof extension immediately South of it. This shot also shows the piddling little windows you referred to.
Oh, and by the way, the “Low Carbon Innovation Centre” at a certain university had substantial input with the design…
A couple of newspaper links:
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/green_homes_in_rackheath_up_for_award_1_1232684
http://www.norwichadvertiser24.co.uk/news/rackheath_eco_homes_officially_opened_1_1128191
Spector,
After I wrote Gail Combs respond, I focused on your comment and found it the same meaning I was writing to Gail.
I checked up the link Olduvai Theory, that was also very interesting at this time, I had lost it. Great, thanks.
Once you remove the assumption of so-called renewable energy replacing carbon-based fuels, the situation becomes clear. There was never supposed to be an equalization. Tightening the supply, to the point that eventually it becomes a net-negative, induces a ‘crisis’ due to expectation of demand. Then of course the technocrats swoop in with ‘ideas’ to ‘help control the situation’. The only stumbling block would be how to proceed….hence the CAGW arguments combined with the direct health assertions, some reasonable, from carbon fuels (“fossil fuel” is a misnomer).
As for the population debate above, here is an interesting read from 10 Dec 1974 from the US Gov, that I believe may be the officializing of wealth redistributing to help curb population growth. http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/76904132
At worst it’s a 40year reference of a thought process, much like the ‘climate’ articles of times past.
acckkii says:
March 21, 2012 at 3:04 pm
… Olduvai Theory….
______________________________
There have always been those who prophesied the collapse of civilization for one reason or another, but some how mankind make another discovery and stagers on.
I met a woman many years ago born in the 1800’s shortly after the first commercial power station opened in San Francisco in 1879. She lived through the time when Henry Ford constructed his first horseless carriage in 1896 and when he incorporated the Ford Motor Company in 1903. She was alive when the Wright brother’s first flew at Kitty Hawk in 1903. She was alive when the first commercial computers became available in the 1950’s. She was alive when the first commercial nuclear power plant in the United States was opened in1958 and when Neil Armstrong became the first man to walk on the Moon in 1969.
THAT is what happened in the life of one woman. The only thing that is holding mankind back is greedy politicians/bureaucrats and “Scientists” more interested in sucking up grants than in actually doing science!
if we do not find another usable form of concentrated energy by the time we have depleted the carbon reserves of the planet, natural energy will be our only resource. With declining rare technical resources, it will be ever more difficult to manage and distribute energy. We would not be talking about tar sands and oil shale today if there were still bubbling crude to be found on dry land. Thus we appear to have already made a sizable dent in global petroleum availability.
As of now, there is no other energy generation process in place that can replace carbon power on an indefinitely sustainable basis. It has been estimated that about forty years would be required from first successful demonstration to full utilization of any new energy technology; so if we have a ‘Peak Oil’ pinch next year, as some speakers are predicting, we may regret that the safe thorium molten-salt reactor development was halted around 1975, to focus all work on the doomed uranium/plutonium, fast breeder reactor project.
I do hope someone born today does not have to go through the reverse experience of someone born in 1879.
acckkii, I’ve done some more checking – my comments below in CAPS.
Regards, Allan
acckkii says: March 21, 2012 at 9:46 am
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,
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.” TRUE. I BELIEVE THIS IS A REALISTIC WHOLESALE AVERAGE RATE FOR POWER IN ALBERTA.
acckkii says:
1- this is a subsidized rate. NO. distribution is nothing against the generating and fuel. NO
2- you have monthly fixed admin charge. YES BUT IRRELEVANT, THESE ARE ALL WHOLESALE RATES And In don’t know how much do you pay a month. This is just to guess why the rate is that much. NATURAL GAS IN ALBERTA COSTS ABOUT $2/GJ. THAT’S NOT A TYPO.
3- if the plant is not DG, or the power generated in power plant is above 500MW it is reasonable. THIS IS AN AVERAGE WHOLESALE RATE FOR A PROVINCIAL SYSTEM THAT RUNS MOSTLY ON LARGE COAL PLANTS AND THE REMAINDER MOSTLY NATURAL GAS.
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. I’M GIVING WHOLESALE AVERAGE RATES, CANNOT COMMENT ON THESE DETAILS.
5- you are an off-taker (customer of ENMAX) for 5 years. This guaranteed purchase makes huge differences for the seller. NO – RETAIL SPOT RATES AND FIVE YEARS RATES ARE BOTH ~8 CENTS.
6- what is this? Direct Energy Regulated Services 8.508 KWh $8.55 admin IRRELEVANT
Ref: dave ward on March 21, 2012 at 2:59 pm
Rackheath eco-homes
Interesting picture. One of the linked articles states: “A total of 12 affordable, zero carbon homes in Trinity Close”
Zero Carbon? Are they stoned? That’s asphalt on the driveway and road… you don’t get that from a PV panel. I also rummaged around to verify that they do use brick in the construction.
I wonder how long it took to collect and mix the clay and then fire the bricks in the zero carbon brick kiln at temps up to 1,300 °C for a few hours. The same can be said of the glass.
They must have come a long way to make all that construction material without using any carbon based fuels.
So it takes 10 units of renewable energy source to offset 1 unit of fossil fuel. Hmmm. It took 100000 units of fossil energy to make 1 renewable energy gizmo of which we still need 10 gizmos to offset 1 unit of fossil fuel energy. Hmmmmm.
Gail Combs says: March 21, 2012 at 4:42 pm
“I met a woman many years ago born in the 1800′s…”
Thank you Gail for causing me to recall a dear old neighbour when I was at Queen’s University.
“Miss Rodgers” described to me the funeral of Sir John A MacDonald, Canada’s first Prime Minister which she attended as a child in 1891.
She later lived in New York City and saw Fanny Brice at the Ziegfeld Theatre, and Paul Robeson sing “Old Man River” in “Showboat”.
She travelled to Florida in the winters and described the Florida Land Boom and Bust of the 1920’s.
She recalled in detail the major and minor history of almost a century, from the Boer War, the first automobile, the Wright Brothers, WW1, the Great Influenza Epidemic, the Roaring Twenties and the Dirty Thirties, WW2 and Korea, the Cold War, Sputnik and the first man on the Moon.
Thanks for the memories.
Solar and wind are called “alternative energy sources”, are they?
Their most important feature is that they are INTERMITTENT: days and night, cloud coverage, and ecliptic angle cause solar output to be on and off, and variable when on; daily wind variability and muti-day periods of calm cause wind mills to stop grinding.
Depending on where you install it (latitude, cloudiness) photovoltaic can deliver between 10 and 25% of the installed nominal capacity, or 880 to 2200 kWh per year for a 1 kW unit. For wind, the range is 20% in accidented terrains to 40% in seaside windfarms.
Demand is there and is not in line with delivering capacity. This is why for each kW of installed capacity of an intermittent type there is a need for a 1 kW stand-by “on-demand” capacity, e.g. gaz or hydro. Or a intermediate storage system is needed (e.g. pump-storaged hydro with energy losses of 15-30%, but so far it is justified economically by high price supply during daily peak demand using low cost band energy during nights and week-ends).
In addition, existing distribution grids can only cope with intermittent sources if their total output is not surpassing 25-30% of the total load. Beyond that baby-boom nights may result (which may not be a bad thing).
Intermittent electricity sources cannot be an alternative to current technologies, at best they are a useful complement, at worst a total waste.
Allan MacRae says:
March 21, 2012 at 9:41 pm
acckkii, I’ve done some more checking – my comments below in CAPS.
“…..THIS IS A REALISTIC WHOLESALE AVERAGE RATE FOR POWER IN ALBERTA……
……NATURAL GAS IN ALBERTA COSTS ABOUT $2/GJ. THAT’S NOT A TYPO…..”
A “BILL” is a document. We don’t need to prove the “sun”, the reason is the “SUN”.
Now I could find my “?” marks:
1- you live in Alberta,
2- we are talking about just Alberta, the results cannot be developed to other places,
3- You said Natural Gas in Alberta is about $2/GJ,
4- you said some c4.00/KWh for the utility & gas consumption, and c4.00/KWh for transmission @ur momisugly your door, total c8.00/KWh, and as you said THIS IS A REALISTIC……”.
These are your data. To fix our fuel definition, we agree when we say “gas” our destination is “natural gas” not “gasoline”. Now we see the anatomy of your energy system:
just keep in mind:
1- the efficiency of a regular power plant is %25, and in combined cycle is approx. %33,
2- the efficiency of a gas combustion/turbine engine (DG: distributed generators) is approx. %40,
The above rates are important to the power suppliers and are irrelevant to your case.
Calculus:
1- one GJ equals to 278 KWh,
2- I refer to ENMAX
https://www.enmax.com/Energy/Res/My+Account/Current+EasyMax+Rates.htm
which shows the fixed plan gas rate is $6.59/GJ, so your given $2.00/GJ is not correct for this plan, you are referring to floating rates of the gas, which is $2.328/GJ for the south as min.rate and c4.183/KWh as max. rate in the north, both are below $6.59/KWh comparing with the fixed plan,
3- let’s go on with your gas fixed plan $6.59/GJ, here you pay ($6.59x c100/278KWh=c2.37 KWh). Please be advised that in floating plan, the share of the utility would be more than c6.5/KWh in the south,
4- considering c4.00 for the utility+ gas consumption, it gives:
c4.00/KWh-c2.37/KWh=c1.63/KWh for the utility which is absolutely impossible, to see it please write a simple job plan and feasibility study for a power plant,
5- we try that ENMAX c8.00/KWh for the utility+gas and less %2 for the transmission lines, here it comes: c8.00/KWh x %98- c2.37/KWh= c5.47 /KWh, which is more realistic. So far as I know the network fee is being paid when you order your electricity demand and contract, but I don’t know about Alberta policies. c4.00/KWh for the network or transmission lines is very high rate, it is same as the roads and highways that you pay for every kilometer travel, actually you pay it but through fuel tax and municipality fees and tax, here you pay it through the gas rates, sorry I don’t know about Alberta, but this is what’s happening elsewhere,
6- I refer to floating rates given by your service provider, you see even c13//KWh, this is irrelevant to your case but this rate is closer to my calculations when you are outside Alberta, and when you take floating plan in Alberta, THE RATE approx c12.00/KWh was my point of view.
Anyhow, keep your fixed plan as long as you can even you know you are paying at least %50 more for the gas, but %30 less as a good off-taker.
Finally, the rates we are talking about are valid for GAS as fuel, if it is changed to HFO and Diesel you have to pay more and even c20.00/KWh.
Johannes Herbst said “I have started to think about buying a Solar PV System again and to get independent from the power companies – the electricty bill here in Germany is going up steadily.”
Do you realize that part of the reason your bill has gone up is subsidies to inefficient solar PV? Your sun in Germany is very weak in winter and sporadic in spring. You would produce extra (unneeded) power in the summer which other ratepayers will be force to buy at an exorbitant rate. But unless you have a large bank of batteries you will be generously sold fossil power from the grid when you need it.
dave ward says:
March 21, 2012 at 2:59 pm
This shot also shows the piddling little windows you referred to.
As the photo you reference is viewed from the North, in this case it is appropriate to have small or no windows. Unforunately I have little faith that the view from the South would be much of an improvement.
acckkii says: March 22, 2012 at 2:31 am….
acckkii you are mixing wholesale and retail rates and getting nonsense as a result.
I was suggesting you use wholesale undelivered prices to make a sensible comparison of North American grid-connected electrical generating costs, which I estimate to be approximately:
4 cents/kWh to generate electricity from natural gas, before distribution costs, at most 5-6 cents;
13.5¢/kWh for (intermittent and therefore essentially worthless) wind power;
64.2¢/kWh for (intermittent and therefore essentially worthless) solar power.
You are mixing apples and oranges, with a sprinkiling of cherry-picking, resulting in a falsehood.
Alberta wholesale natural gas prices are indeed about $2/GJ as proven here:
http://www.ngx.com/
Prompt Month (Apr) Last: $ 1.8675
Deferred Month (May) Last: $ 1.9100
North American gas prices are similar to Alberta, as proven here
http://www.cmegroup.com/
Natural Gas (Henry Hub) Apr 12 $2.361
It is true that natural gas prices are much higher elsewhere in the world, and much closer to the energy-equivalent price of oil. However, it is unlikely that wind and solar power, because of their intermittent nature, will ever be competitive with natural gas-fired power, which is available on demand for peaking needs and can be scaled back quickly as demand falls. Since electricity cannot be easily stored, intermittent power sources are essentially worthless (and even a liability) when connected to the grid.
There are two slogans which accurately summarize the economics of grid-connected wind and solar power:
“Wind power – It doesn’t just blow – it sucks!”
“Solar power – stick it where the Sun don’t shine!”
Please do not take these slogans as personal insults – they are however, well-deserved jibes to those purveyors of worthless wind and solar power, who have managed to fool our politicians into forcing consumers to pay ridiculously exorbitant rates for intermittent, unreliable electric power.
Spector says:
March 21, 2012 at 6:55 pm
if we do not find another usable form of concentrated energy by the time we have depleted the carbon reserves of the planet, natural energy will be our only resource….
_____________________________________
Sorry but that is incorrect I just wrote about the cutting edge technology in my comment directed to http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/21/study-it-takes-10-units-of-alternative-electricity-sources-to-offset-a-unit-of-fossil-fuel-generated-power/#comment-930578“>HenryP
I will add to that:
Navy Nuclear-Powered Surface Ships: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33946.pdf
Thorium lasers: The thoroughly plausible idea for nuclear cars …(from GE corp.) http://www.txchnologist.com/2011/the-thorium-laser-the-completely-plausible-idea-for-nuclear-cars
Aircraft:
Not only is it a theory but “a proof-of-concept fluoride reactor was built and operated in 1954” So this is not just pie in the sky wishful thinking and Los Alamos National Laboratory in the National Security Science Magazine verifies it.
FROM: Los Alamos
Allan MacRae says:
March 21, 2012 at 10:32 pm
…She recalled in detail the major and minor history of almost a century, from the Boer War, the first automobile, the Wright Brothers, WW1, the Great Influenza Epidemic, the Roaring Twenties and the Dirty Thirties, WW2 and Korea, the Cold War, Sputnik and the first man on the Moon.
Thanks for the memories.
_____________________________
You are welcome. The kids and young adults today seem to forget how fast we went from horse and buggy to spacecraft. My father, born in Harlem NYC in the roaring 20’s, remembers traveling in a pony cart around the city as a child. My husband’s aunt delivered milk in a pony cart near Boston MA around 1925.
It was not until the 1920s that road building was becoming a standardized process and we did not see interstate highways until the passage of the Interstate Highway Act in 1956. Originally automobile clubs were formed to promote better roads, and many trail associations were created to address the need of having marked interstate highways. Yeah TRAIL Assoc. because paved roads outside of cities were little more than improved wagon trails before the 1920’s. Heck I remember traveling before the interstates and getting lost all the time. It is the reason I learned to read a map as soon as I could read so I could direct my parents correctly during vacations.
In the face of the type of progress our “Old Dears” have seen I have to laugh at statements like Spector when he says “…if we do not find another usable form of concentrated energy by the time we have depleted the carbon reserves of the planet, natural energy will be our only resource…” Only those unacquainted with the history of technology and its literal explosion since the mid 1800’s would say that. Not his fault of course because our schools never bother to teach it and unless you have the fortune to run into an “Old Dear” like you and I have it will not hit you between the eyes.
A silent thanks to the “Old Dears” that remind us ‘history” was not all that long ago.
Allan MacRae says:
March 22, 2012 at 6:03 am
Come down Allan!
1st. could you please forget about the wind and solar here in our comments? I don’t care about these two baby energies. Don’t make both of us tired about this mess. Our talks is about the electricity you gain in north America and my view is Alberta ONLY, where you have documents on your table.
So I don’t take into account what you are telling me here about as you said NONSENSE solar/wind.
2nd. I referred to what you gave me and I checked that link nothing more/less. The given data as your proof still is on your table. Here I extracted only your figures. There are 2 types of contract, fixed and floating rates, this is what ENMAX is saying, there is nothing about solar/wind, so I didn’t see anything to discuss about wind/solar, who is mixing the figures.
3rd. Could you please specify what do you like to pay to ENMAX!, I was just a mirror! showing your figures, let’s forget about what I said. Just talk about 5 years fixed rates as you said and strongly pointed out, Electricity and GAS price included and if you have any reference regarding the rate of the network I would be appreciated to have it, but please do not guess. I’ll tell you why.
Pushing the hidden meme: total consumption and living standard reduction is the only real means of reducing carbon impacts.
So far, the Greens are doing a decent job of engineering depressed output and consumption when given a free hand. What they want now is to ENFORCE that depression. Permanently. To save the planet; to restrain and cull the humanity-disease infecting Dear Gaea.
The video includes the obvious conclusion that education increases consumption, and is therefore anti-sustainability.
In reality, what is unsustainable is Big Government. It implodes every society it’s tried in.
___
Note to all: scroll-by ACCKK’s incoherent ungrammatical nonsense. There’s nothing of value that can be extracted from or injected into his impenetrable messes.
Gail Combs,
You may be interested in:
http://peakoil.com/alternative-energy/indian-works-on-track-for-worlds-first-fusion-reactor/
Brian H,
Sorry as you said I cannot help you.
Regards