----- Original Message -----
From: "Jed Rothwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: How $1 trillion could eliminate oil
John Coviello wrote:
I have no doubts anymore that we now have the technology to eliminate most
of our use of oil. From wind to solar to geothermal to waste to energy to
advanced batteries. We could do it over a period of a decade or less with
the proper investments.
I think that has been true since the mid 1970s. The only question has been
the cost. It would be cheaper now than ever before, but still expensive.
It is interesting to see how much environmentalists have changed their
minds about which form of alternative energy is best. Take this book I have
here: Robert Stroh bow and Daniel Yergin, "Energy Future -- Report to the
Energy Project at the Harvard Business School," (Ballantine, 1979), 493
pages. Yergin is still respected expert. The blurb on the cover says,
"Heroic . . . a truly magnificent book." -- Wall Street Journal. This book
has a lot of useful information, but it devotes hundreds of pages to things
like solar PV chips and biofuel, and it includes exactly three references
to "windmills" (not turbines -- even though they do not mill anything):
1. Windmills are listed in one table.
2. There is a parenthetical statement about "small windmills," -- claiming
they have no future. (I agree)
3. A statement near the conclusion: "Congress should fund prototype
versions of the centralized electric technologies (power towers, solar
satellites, ocean thermal, large win machines), and . . . commit
substantial funds to photovoltaics and energy plantation research and
development." Good thing we did not follow that advice!
Based on this, I would say we should not listen to environmentalists when
it comes to energy policy and alternative energy. Scientists also have a
poor track record. Modern wind power began when backyard hippie enthusiasts
in Denmark began building wind turbines, and engineers took it from there.
So we should listen to lunatic fringe backyard inventors and engineers.
In point of fact, no one should try to pick the best source of alternative
energy. The only practical way to do this would be to let unfettered free
market competition decide the issue. That is something the Bush
administration will never allow. They have tilted the playing field 45° in
favor of fossil fuel and nuclear power. They talk like capitalists but they
act like socialists -- their creed is socialism for wealthy people and rich
corporations. If we must have socialism I would prefer to have the
old-fashioned kind that at least tries to enfranchise poor people. They
need the money more than Enron did.
- Jed
The costs have come down at least ten fold since the 1970s, bringing it well
within reach now if we have the will do spend the money. Another thing that
has changed since the 1970s is that lighting and appliances are much more
efficient than a generation ago. A house in 2005 could easily be
retrofitted with new appliances and flourescent lighting to use much less
than 50% of the electricity that the same house in 1975 used. That is a
factor, since it would require less energy to power our modern society if we
got serious about efficiency. It also make home-based renewable systems
much more practical than they once were. If you only need a 2 kW solar
electric system rather than a 4 kW unit, because your energy consumption is
50% less, then your costs come down considerably.
