Nah. What that would be is the common Veblenian influence on Technocracy/Hubbert and on Kenneth Burke's 1930 satire, "Waste, the future of prosperity". Speaking of Technocracy, I can't resist mentioning the 1933 Loony Tunes cartoon, "Bosko and the Mechanical Man" in which Bosko is inspired to build a robot when he sees the headline in the Daily Bugle: "ROBOT WILL DO WORK OF HUNDRED MEN SAY TECHNOCRATS."
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Eugene Coyle <[email protected]> wrote: > Tom, > > I see hints of a belief in Peak Oil in your post. I like Gar's > reply but would add this: > > The singular focus on SUPPLY of energy is what leads to Business As Usual > (BAU) with clean energy, a frightening prospect. > > It is the DEMAND for energy that the left should be discussing, > addressing, and reducing, specifically demand by the affluent, North and > South. > > Gene > > > On Jan 15, 2013, at 2:31 PM, Gar Lipow wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Tom Walker <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Although I can't eliminate uncertainty and won't try, I suspect there is > >> indeed a "fundamental and unsolvable" problem with so-called renewable > >> energy sources that arises from the nature of "embodied energy." > >> > >> Currently, the cost of wind and solar infrastructure depends on cheap > inputs > >> of fossil fuels in their manufacture and construction. Wind and solar > built > >> by wind and solar would be much more expensive than wind and solar > built by > >> coal and petroleum. However, if that problem was solved it would give > rise > >> to yet another problem: the low cost of renewable energy inputs would > then > >> be available to subsidize unconventional fossil fuel extraction just as > >> today the availability of cheap natural gas makes tar sands oil > economically > >> feasible. > > > > > > Wind and Concentrating solar replace the fossil fuels embodied in > > their manufacture and transportation about twelve to eighteen times > > over. Wind, though higher in cost than coal, is not that much higher > > in cost than coal, so if input for renewables was largely wind energy > > the cost of renewables would not be all that much higher. Even if a > > balanced approach with lots of wind and solar, long distance > > transmission, storage, some geothermal some hydro and what have you > > could replace almost all fossil fuels for a cost difference of around > > what the world spends on wars. As to using renewables to subsidize > > fossil fuels - a sane society would choose not to. > > > > That last hints at the real problem. There are close zero technical > > obstacles to phasing out almost all fossil fuels (a few industrial and > > transport processes where they are not currently replacable, though > > the quantity is small enough that biofuel, maybe as a net energy loser > > subsidized by wind electricity, could replace fossil sources and > > possibly be sustainable). But the political and social obstacles are > > overwhelming. It is easy enough to build mental models of a "green" > > social democracy that could create a temporarily sustainable > > capitalism, but really it is hard to picture the changes we need > > happening except as the result of an ecologically aware socialist > > revolution. A revolution that is both red and green. A strawberry > > revolution, > > > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:20 AM, raghu <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Tom Walker <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> The substitution of fuel for labor is cost effective only to the > extent > >>>> that fuel is cheaper than labor. Currently, the relative cheapness of > fuel > >>>> results from the shifting of the social and environmental costs of > >>>> extracting and burning the shit. Sachs and Kotilikoff discuss the > machines > >>>> as if they run on some mysterious unknown substance. Clue: 85% fossil > fuels > >>>> at present. Among the words that do not appear in their paper: energy, > >>>> climate, emissions. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> What about the theoretical possibility that fossil fuels are replaced > by > >>> wind and/or solar power? > >>> > >>> I am well aware of the many technical difficulties with alternative > energy > >>> sources, but is there any reason to think that these difficulties are > >>> somehow fundamental and unsolvable, rather than merely being a > limitation of > >>> our current state of knowledge? > >>> > >>> -raghu. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> pen-l mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Tom Walker (Sandwichman) > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> pen-l mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Facebook: Gar Lipow Twitter: GarLipow > > Solving the Climate Crisis web page: SolvingTheClimateCrisis.com > > Grist Blog: http://grist.org/author/gar-lipow/ > > Online technical reference: http://www.nohairshirts.com > > _______________________________________________ > > pen-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
