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.”
acckkii says:
March 22, 2012 at 1:01 pm
Gail Combs,
You may be interested in:
http://peakoil.com/alternative-energy/indian-works-on-track-for-worlds-first-fusion-reactor/
____________________________
Thank you
India seems to not have its head wedged like other countries do.
Brian H says:
March 22, 2012 at 10:00 am
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….
_________________________________
You are correct Education is Anti-sustainability and the World Bank has a report that shows this.
World Bank Report to government of Burkina Faso (Africa)
It seems Pol Pot must be the ultimate role model for “Sustainability” …if you had a diploma or wore eye glasses, especially those appearing to be educated. All of these people and many others — along with their families – were murdered.
Dr. Mann and his buddies should take notice since Attacks on Intelligentsia also occurred in the USSR after the Revolution without “Sustainability” as an excuse.
This is properly called “Jevon’s Paradox” and was first realized with respect to coal usage in the 1800s when a big put was put on to make coal use more efficient. The result was more coal usage, as each use cost less, so people had more individual uses…
We also saw it after folks bought fuel efficient compact cars after the Arab Oil Embargo of the 1970s; and promptly moved further from work to get a bigger better house since the cost of the commute had dropped and they could get more home for the money further away.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/05/12/jevons-paradox-coal-oil-conservation/
The most recent example I’ve observed, personally, is that I bought some LED light bulbs. They are so efficient that it is no longer worth the effort to turn them off… I now have three that are “perpetually on”. Hallway, livingroom, and office. It’s convenient that I don’t have to enter a dark room ever again… ( Total Wattage is about 20 Watts. The idle draw on the entertainment stack is about 200 W, so this is now in the noise level of the entertainment system… I also have about 8 Watts of yard lighting that is never turned off. It would cost more to get a suitable day/night sensor than it is worth…) So I’m now setting up the lighting plan with “always on” LEDs and then whatever additional light as needed for ‘special purposes and work areas’…
It is simply not possible to “conserve” via improved efficiency on a population basis as most folks are not fanatics about it and act as rational consumers… which means they act in accordance to Jevon’s Paradox.
Reading the comments, I see that the “Running Out” meme is making the rounds again….
We aren’t, we can’t, and it doesn’t. Enjoy life, we have unending energy available to us (or, more precisely, we run out of planet and the sun blows up before we run out of energy).
The entire world can be powered by uranium from the sea, harvested with about the same sized fleet of ships as haul around oil today, at very economical costs, and with enough washing into the ocean each year via rock weathering that we never run out:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/ulum-ultra-large-uranium-miner-ship/
But we have several hundred years to go before we need to worry about it:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/there-is-no-energy-shortage/
Oh, and Thorium can be used in the regular reactors we have now ( or you could build new kinds if you like) and we have about the same amount (or perhaps double – nobody has looked really closely because there IS so much of it…) of Thorium as we have Uranium…
The whole ‘running out’ idea, even for minerals and materials is just paranoia.
BP and Wind Energy:
What’s going on….
BP is the principal owner and operator of wind power facilities with interests in 13 wind farms across the US. BP has a gross generating capacity of 1,955 MW – enough electricity to power over 586,000 average American homes.
It has taken just 60 months for BP Wind Energy to go from zero turbines to the 1,000 milestone and, by the time 2012 is finished, the company will have a total electrical generating capacity of 2,600MW, located across eight US states.
Why the US?
In 2011 6,810 MW of wind power capacity was installed in the US, the US wind industry now totals 46,919 MW of cumulative wind capacity through the end of 2011. There are over 8,300 MW currently under construction involving over 100 separate projects spanning 31 states.
The US wind industry has added over 35% of all new generating capacity over the past 4 years, second only to natural gas, and more than nuclear and coal combined. Today, US wind power capacity represents more than 20% of the world’s installed wind power.
Today, the U.S. wind industry represents not only a large market for wind power capacity installations, but also a growing market for American manufacturing. Over 400 manufacturing facilities across the U.S. make components for wind turbines, and dedicated wind facilities that manufacture major components such as towers, blades and assembled nacelles can be found in every region.
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9024940&contentId=7046497
What do the others think about future of energy in US by 2030?
BP says:
http://www.youtube.com/user/BPplc/featured?v=6j2yzL0PdOw
Stanford University on Oct 1, 2009
Roland Horne, Thomas Davies Barrow Professor in the School of Earth Sciences at Stanford University, discusses the future of oil. The Energy Seminar meets weekly during the academic year. For a list of upcoming talks, visit the events page at the Woods Institute for the Environment website.
Stanford University Channel on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/stanford
Stanford University and Renewable Energy:
April 1, 2009 – Dan Arvizu, director of the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory, discusses the current state of renewable energy technology and implementation in the U.S., as well as potential advancements in the near future. The Energy Seminar meets during the academic year on Wednesdays, 4:15 to 5:15 p.m. For a listing of upcoming Energy Seminar talks, please visit the events listing at the Woods Institute for the Environment website.
Stanford University Channel on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/
Stanford University and Economic Analysis of the Solar Industry :
October 28, 2009) Annie Hazlehurst, graduate student at the Stanford Graduate School of Business and in the E-IPER program, discusses the current state and future of the solar photovoltaic industry from an economic and business perspective with a specific focus on when the price of photovoltaic-generated electricity will be competitive with other generation methods.
Stanford University
http://www.stanford.edu
Stanford Graduate School of Business
http://gsb.stanford.edu/
Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources
http://e-iper.stanford.edu/
Stanford University Channel on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/stanford
Stanford University and The Future of Wind Power:
(April 16, 2008) Christina Archer, consulting assistant professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University, discusses the importance of win power in a clean and renewable future. The Energy Seminar meets weekly during the academic year. For a list of upcoming talks, visit the events page at the Woods Institute for the Environment website.
Stanford University
http://www.stanford.edu/
Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford:
http://woods.stanford.edu/
Christina Archer
http://www.stanford.edu//~lozej/
Stanford University Channel on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/stanford
(April 16, 2008) Christina Archer, consulting assistant professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University:
1- 4 cents/KWh the cost of electricity from wind turbines
2- the density per km2 6 turbines
3- estimated $ 1,000,000 per MW EPC.
Evaluating Energy Solutions to Climate Change
Stanford University:
Mark Jacobson, professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University, discusses proposed energy solutions to climate change, air pollution and energy security. The Energy Seminar meets weekly during the academic year. For a list of upcoming talks, visit the events page at the Woods Institute for the Environment website.
Stanford University:
http://www.stanford.edu/
Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford:
http://woods.stanford.edu/
Mark Jacobson
http://www.stanford.edu//group/efmh/jacobson/
Stanford University Channel on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/stanford
Wow! What a refreshing change from the usual uninformed leftist drivel such topics usually elicit! So many excellent and informative comments, from so many obviously bright individuals — people who even know how to spell and use grammar!
RE: Gail Combs says: (March 22, 2012 at 8:22 am)
“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 …”
The statement is “If we do not find….” I am not necessarily saying we will not find an alternative source of concentrated energy unless we suffer a ‘Chernobyl Syndrome’ that makes any attempt to adopt such a technology ‘politically incorrect.’ There is also the remote possibility that some technical problem like neutron corrosion would plague the construction of these reactors—but I think we should be thinking more about how to make this technology work rather than looking for reasons to ignore it. The potential energy is there.
Do not take seriously any talk about nuclear powered cars or aircraft. Any accident would require a HAZMAT response. These vehicles would probably be powered by artificial transportation fuels manufactured from the energy generated by large stationary reactors. The thorium nuclear proponents claim that such artificial fuels made by their process would be cheaper than the equivalent petrochemical fuels.
Ref: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4
Comparing the Costs of Intermittent and Dispatchable Generating Electricity Technologies
MIT CEEPR:
http://web.mit.edu/ceepr/www/publications/reprints/Reprint_231_WC.pdf
Evaluating Policies to Increase Electricity Generation from Renewable Energy
MIT CEEPR:
http://web.mit.edu/ceepr/www/publications/workingpapers/2011-008.pdf
The Outlook for Energy — a focus on natural gas to 2030
MIT CEEPR
November 2011 Workshop
http://web.mit.edu/ceepr/www/about/November%202011/november%20handouts/onderdonk.pdf
Electricity Market Reform in the European Union: Review of Progress toward Liberalization
& Integration
MIT CEEPR:
http://web.mit.edu/ceepr/www/publications/reprints/Reprint_201_WC.pdf
DECOMPOSITION OF COST AND VALUE CALCULATIONS
• “Raw” cost of investing in intermittent generation taking account of
market prices at the time the electricity is produced
– Levelized cost comparisons are meaningless because they ignore
variations in the price of electricity at different times and the actual
time when supplies are forthcoming from intermittent technologies
• 6 cents/kWh is not cheap if it is produced at night when the market value is 2
cents/KWh
• 9 cents/kWh is not expensive if it is produced during peak periods when the
price is 10 cents/kWh
– Comparing PDV of expected net revenues for incremental additions of
intermittent generation to the supply program makes more sense
– A “with and without” system analysis of costs that takes reliability
constraints into account is the gold standard but the “full monty” is a
modeling challenge
• Reliability considerations
– Meeting peak demand reliably
– Responding to rapid changes in intermittent generation on the
network (operating reliability).
MEASURING THE COST AND VALUE OF INTERMITTENT GENERATION
Paul L. Joskow Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and MIT November 3, 2011:
http://web.mit.edu/ceepr/www/about/November%202011/november%20handouts/joskow.pdf
Mark Jacobson, professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University
on Oct 1, 2009
Where are subsidies are going now?
Ethanol, Nuke, Coal, CCS.
eric1skeptic says:
March 22, 2012 at 2:55 am
“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.”
Eric, you are right, independent PV is not an easy game. I have worked with it for many years – I was a teacher on Renewable Energy many years. The idea is to use it when it is available. Which means to run the fridge, the dishwasher and the stove during daytime and to store some energy for the night. Or baking and preserving food when the energy is there.
It could be possibel to sell the surlpus Energy to the Power plants. They must buy it. But that’s not my plan. I would transfer my costs to others. And the power companies and the electric net provider would have to balance it with other sources. By the way, the price of solar electrictiy here in germany now for new PV Arrays is down to 19 ct per KWh, paid to the producers. On our electricity bill we alredy see about 25ct which we have to pay to the Power companies for mostly fossil energy. And still the price for solar energy will go down 1.8 ct every year. It is not that exorbitant anymore…
Our family solar project is just a trial to see if it works. And it is a social task. We have just started to discuss in our household, because we would have to change som habits. We are about eight Persons, and we could learn something from this, especially the kids.
10 years ago, the price of PV modules and batteries were about five times as much as today, so it will be no loss to us, even if we could not use every watt.
We found out something interesting: For buying the PV System, we have save some money in advance. It is normal to use your budget money, if it is availabe. But when there is a special goal, you will be able to put some money aside for your special purpose. An this is what makes your live interesting: To try something new, to work on it, to struggel and to reach it, together with the family.
Possibly I am just working on one of my midlife crisises. Other men feel a sudden need to have an SUV, a cabrio or a sports car. And they will find reasons to get it. Even I could get a new car: An electric one, charged by the surplus of the PV System. And If the car is not used, then the batteries of the car could be used as a storage for the house energy… I am just daydreaming… but maybe in some time… just don’t tell it to my wife!
I am not shure, if you have got the point. Mankind and especially men love to play, to try something new, to concentrate on something special, to have their own project. It is not pure logic, which leads us in our dayly live. I’ve loved to play all my live with Renewables, with conservation, and with simple life. Others try to frighten us and tell us to save the planet by any means. But I have just the opposite approach. If you love to do something, this cannot be wrong. And of course, like mentioned above, all this energy stuff is a social task as well.
Mark Jacobson, professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University
on Oct 1, 2009
Where the subsidies are going now? (apology for the mistake double “are”)
Ethanol, Nuke, Coal, CCS.
Gail Combs,
An interesting video that follows what you explained about population.
You may ignore the other parts if you don’t like it.
http://bcove.me/ezmk38qk