DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Catastrophic Climate Change
*****************************************************
#Post#: 5--------------------------------------------------
You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Procra
stination
By: AGelbert Date: October 10, 2013, 12:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Robert F. Kennedy Jr: In the next decade there will be an epic
battle for survival for humanity against the forces of ignorance
and greed. It’s going to be Armageddon, represented by the oil
industry on one side, versus the renewable industry on the
other. And people are going to have to choose sides – including
politically. They will have to choose sides because oil and
coal, they will not be able to survive – they are not going to
be able to burn their proven reserves. If they do, then we are
all dead. And they are quite willing to burn it. We’re all going
to be part of that battle. We are going to watch governments
being buffeted by the whims of money and greed on one side, and
idealism and hope on the other.
Read more at
HTML http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/06/interview-with-robert-f-kennedy-jr-on-environmental-activism-democratization-of-energy-more/#JSW31ABzPkmZ6PTh.99<br
/>
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.dasolar.com/images/pages/alternative-energy-carbon-offsets2.jpg[/img]
ONLY Renewable Energy AND its prudent use can get us from the
Baked in left to the Biosphere Harmony right. I know what I
want. How about YOU?
#Post#: 14--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Pr
ocrastination
By: Eddie Date: October 10, 2013, 9:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Put me in the green camp. Oil and coal should be only used to
build the next stage of sustainable systems and then conserved
for their non-fuel uses.
Nice site, AG, and best of luck. You deserve wide readership.
#Post#: 15--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Pr
ocrastination
By: AGelbert Date: October 10, 2013, 2:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you Eddie. I will do my best to provide some food for
thought and discussion.
I'm still trying to figure this 'administrator' thing out. I
feel like I'm in an aircraft cockpit with my start up checklist
but I haven't found the location of the switches, fuel selector
valve, throttle and most of the gages. ???
HTML http://morganreynolds.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/757-cockpit-midi-outline1.jpg
I'll get it. I'm very stubborn about figuring something out. All
this mental exercise will ward off Alzheimers too! ;D
#Post#: 25--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Pr
ocrastination
By: Surly1 Date: October 10, 2013, 6:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
AG, you can vote my proxy on this one. Am with eddie.
Have always enjoyed RFK Jr. and would wish for bigger things for
him, except that I am afraid he would then be targeted by the
same machine that has removed the Kennedys from the electoral
process.
#Post#: 42--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Pr
ocrastination
By: AGelbert Date: October 11, 2013, 5:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Than you Surly. We are going to win this, my friends.
HTML http://www.websmileys.com/sm/violent/sterb029.gif
#Post#: 43--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Pr
ocrastination
By: AGelbert Date: October 11, 2013, 5:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Going All In with Renewable Energy
Is the goal of using 100 percent renewable energy crazy,
idealistic or achievable?
Elisa Wood, Contributing Editor
September 27, 2013 | 21 Comments
After a monster tornado wiped out Greensburg, Kansas in 2007,
killing 11 people, the community decided to rebuild with
meaning. It set out to become one of the world's greenest
communities.
Today the town is among a growing number of jurisdictions that
generates all of its electricity from renewable energy.
Greensburg achieved a goal that many see as pie-in-the-sky.
Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore several years ago drew jeers
from his political critics when he proposed that the U.S. go all
green within a decade. The jury remains out about the
plausibility of a U.S.-size economy functioning with all
renewables anytime soon. But Greensburg, with a population of
less than 1,000 people, has demonstrated that it can work on a
small scale. Others have done the same, among them Güssing,
Austria; King Island, Australia; and Naturstrom, Germany.
It's not just cities with the ambition. Eight nations are 100
percent renewable or moving in that direction: Denmark, Iceland,
Scotland, Costa Rica, Maldive Islands, Cook Islands, Tuvalu, and
Tokelau. Add 42 cities, 49 regions, 8 utilities and 21
organizations, and going 'all green' looks like a bona fide
trend.
Times have changed since the mid-2000s when a group that
included the late Hermann Scheer, TIME magazine's 'Hero for the
Green Century', first explored the idea. The group formed the
Renewables 100 Policy Institute, but in the early years found
that the concept was too "bleeding edge" for established
non-profits, which declined to sign on.
"Now that is starting to change," said Diane Moss, the
institute's founding director. The Renewables 100 Policy
Institute held its first international conference in April,
drawing a crowd of more than 200 people. The presenters were not
from the fringe of the green world, but were representatives of
established advocacy organizations, elected officials, corporate
executives and the head of the California Independent System
Operator Corp.
"If we want to fill our goal on a global scale it is important
that regions like California, like Germany or other regions
unify together in a movement to 100 renewable," said Harry
Lehmann, Director of the German Federal Environment Agency at
the conference. "We have to share our experience."
Today, the Renewables 100 Policy Institute is actively
supporting the trend and reports on global progress via the Go
100 percent Renewable Energy project it created. An interactive
map on the site tracks those pursuing and achieving the
all-renewables goal. (The site is the source of the numbers
above on how many jurisdictions the movement encompasses.)
[I]full article here (plus some choice comments from yours truly
;D and Leon Lemoine )
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/19.gif
[/I]
HTML http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/09/going-all-in-with-renewable-energy
#Post#: 46--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Pr
ocrastination
By: AGelbert Date: October 11, 2013, 6:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Proof a one to two Decade Transition To 100% Renewable Energy is
[I]DOABLE[/I]
HTML http://csmres.co.uk/cs.public.upd/article-images/Wind_turbine_smiley_shutterstock_28691215.gif
The other day, a knowledgeable mechanical engineer I know stated
this concern about the colossal challenge and, in his opinion,
impossibility of switching to renewable energy machines in time
to avoid a collapse from an energy to manufacture and global
industrial capacity limitation in our civilizational
infrastructure.
He said:
[quote]I admire your enthusiasm, and I agree with many of the
points you make. Yes ICE (Internal Combustion Machines) waste
high EROEI (energy return on energy invested) consistently, yes
fossil fuels and conventional engineering has a warped distorted
perspective because of the ICE, and yes we have an oil oligarchy
protecting its turf.
However say we hypothetically made all the oil companies
dissappear tommorow and where able to suspend the laws of time
and implement our favorite renewables of choice and then where
tasked with making certain all of societies critical needs were
met we'd have a tall order. The devil is in the details and
quantities.
Its the magnitudes, it's 21 million barrels per day we are
dependent on. Its created massive structural centralization that
can only be sustained by incredible energetic inputs. Not enough
wind, and not enough rare earth material for PV's to scale and
replace. We have to structurally rearrange society to solve the
problem. Distributed solar powered villages, not big cities and
surely not suburbia. I fear we'll sink very useful resources and
capital towards these energy sources (as we arguably have with
wind) when the real answer is structural change.[/quote]
I have shown evidence that there are several multiples of the
energy we now consume available just from wind power. This data
came from a recent study by Lawrence Livermore Laboratory
Scientists.
He thinks we CAN'T do it even if we had enough wind because of
the colossal challenge and, in his opinion, impossibility of
switching to renewable enrgy machines in time to avoid a
collapse from an energy required to manufacture and global
industrial capacity limitation in our civilizational
infrastructure.
His solution is to survive the coming collapse with small
distributed energy systems and a radically scaled down carbon
footprint. Sadly, that option will not be available to a large
percentage of humanity.
Hoping for a more positive future scenario, I analyzed his
concerns to see if they are valid and we have no other option
but to face a collapse and a die off with the surviving
population living at much lower energy use levels. :P
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-106.gifI'm<br
/>happy to report that, although the mechanical engineer has jus
t
cause to be concerned, we can, in reality, transition to 100%
Renewable Energy without overtaxing our civilizational
resources.
This a slim hope but a real one based on history and the word's
present manufacturing might. Read on.
I give you the logistics aiding marvel of WWII, the Liberty
Ship. It was THE JIT (just in time), SIT (sometimes in time) and
sometimes NIT (never in time because it was torpedoed) cargo
delivery system that helped us win the war.
This was a mass produced ship. These ships are a testament to
the ability to build an enormous quantity of machines on a
global scale that the U.S. was capable of over half a century
ago.
[quote]The Liberty ship model used two oil boilers and was
propelled by a single-screw steam engine, which gave the liberty
ship a cruise speed of 11 to 11.5 knots. The ships were 441.5
feet long, with a 57 foot beam and a 28 foot draft.[/quote]
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.byteland.org/taltales/liberty_ship.jpg[/img]
[quote]The ships were designed to minimize labor and material
costs; this was done in part by replacing many rivets with
welds. This was a new technique, so workers were inexperienced
and engineers had little data to go on. Additionally, much of
the shipyards' labor force had been replaced with women as men
joined the armed forces. Because of this, early ships took quite
a long time to build - the Patrick Henry taking 244 days -
but the average building time eventually came down to just 42
days.[/quote]
[img width=640
height=480]
HTML http://www.skylighters.org/troopships/libertyship-hi-new.jpg[/img]
[quote]A total of 2,710 Liberty ships were built, with an
expected lifespan of just five years. A little more than 2,400
made it through the war, and 835 of these entered the US cargo
fleet. Many others entered Greek and Italian fleets. Many of
these ships were destroyed by leftover mines, which had been
forgotten or inadequately cleared. Two ships survive today, both
operating as museum ships. They are still seaworthy, and one
(the Jeremiah O'Brien) sailed from San Francisco to England in
1994.[/quote]
These ships had a design flaw. The grade of steel used to build
them suffered from embrittlement. Cracks would propagate and in
3 cases caused the ships to split in half and sink. It was
discovered and remediated.
[quote]Ships operating in the North Atlantic were often exposed
to temperatures below a critical temperature, which changed the
failure mechanism from ductile to brittle. Because the hulls
were welded together, the cracks could propagate across very
large distances; this would not have been possible in riveted
ships.
A crack stress concentrator contributed to many of the failures.
Many of the cracks were nucleated at an edge where a weld was
positioned next to a hatch; the edge of the crack and the weld
itself both acted as crack concentrators. Also contributing to
failures was heavy overloading of the ships, which increased the
stress on the hull. Engineers applied several reinforcements to
the ship hulls to arrest crack propagation and initiation
problems.[/quote]
[img width=640
height=480]
HTML http://menokin.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/b0026a_francis_l_lee_01_nara.jpg?w=529&h=478[/img]
Heavily loaded ship
HTML http://www.brighthubengineering.com/marine-history/88389-history-of-the-liberty-ships/
Today, several countries have, as do we, a much greater
industrial capacity. It is inaccurate to claim that we cannot
produce sufficient renewable energy devices in a decade or so to
replace the internal combustion engine everywhere in our
civilization. The industrial capacity is there and is easily
provable by asking some simple questions about the fossil fuel
powered ICE status quo:
How long do ICE powered machines last?
How much energy does it require to mine the raw materials and
manufacture the millions of engines wearing out and being
replaced day in and day out?
What happens if ALL THAT INDUSTRIAL CAPACITY is, instead,
dedicated to manufacturing Renewable Energy machines?
IOW, if there is a ten to twenty year turnover NOW in our
present civilization involving manufacture and replacement of
the ICEs we use, why can't we retool and convert the entire ICE
fossil fuel dependent civilization to a Renewable Energy Machine
dependent civilization?
1) The industrial capacity is certainly there to do it EASILY in
two decades and maybe just ten years with a concerted push.
2) Since Renewable Energy machines use LESS metal and do not
require high temperature alloys, a cash for clunkers worldwide
program could obtain more than enough metal raw material without
ANY ADDITIONAL MINING (except for rare earth minerals - a drop
in the bucket - compared to all the mining presently done for
metals to build the ICE) by just recycling the ICE parts into
Renewable Energy machines.
3) Just as in WWII, but on a worldwide scale, the
recession/depression would end as millions of people were put to
work on the colossal transition to Renewable Energy.
[size=14pt]HOWEVER, despite our ABILITY to TRANSITION TO 100%
RENEWABLE ENERGY, we "CAN'T DO IT" ??? because the fossil fuel
industry has tremendous influence on the worldwide political
power structure from the USA to Middle East to Russia to China.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/swear1.gif
In other words, it was NEVER
1. An energy problem,
2. A "laws of thermodynamics" problem,
3. A mining waste and pollution problem,
4. A lack of wind or sun problem,
5. An environmental problem,
6. An industrial capacity problem or
7. A technology problem.
EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE ABOVE excuses for claiming Renewable
Energy cannot replace Fossil Fuels are STRAWMEN presented to the
public for the express purpose of convincing us of the half
truth that without fossil fuels, civilization will collapse.
It was ALWAYS a POLITICAL PROBLEM of the fossil fuel industry
not wanting to relinquish their stranglehold on the world's
geopolitical make up.
It drives them insane to think that Arizona and New Mexico can
provide more power than all the oil in the Middle East. Their
leverage over lawmakers and laws to avoid environmental
liability is directly proportional to their market share of
global energy supplies.
They are threatened by Renewable Energy and have mobilized to
hamper its growth as much as possible through various propaganda
techniques using all the above strawmen.
It is TRUE that civilization will collapse and a huge die off
will occur without fossil fuels [i]IF, and ONLY IF,[/I]
Renewable Energy does not replace fossil fuels. It is blatantly
obvious that we need energy to run our civilization.
It is ALSO TRUE that if we continue to burn fossil fuels in
ICEs, Homo sapiens will become extinct. This is not hyperbole.
We ALREADY have baked in conditions, that take about three
decades to fully develop, that have placed us in a climate that
existed over 3 million years ago.
We DID NOT thrive in those conditions or multiply. This is a
fact. We didn't really start to populate the planet until about
10,000 years ago.
The climate 3 million years ago was, basically, mostly lethal to
Homo Sapiens. To say that we have technology and can handle it
is a massive dodge of our responsibility for causing this
climate crisis (and ANOTHER strawman from Exxon "We will adapt
to that"
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil19.gif<br
/>CEO).
Fossil fuel corporations DO NOT want to be held liable for the
damage they have caused, so, even as they allow Renewable Energy
to have a niche in the global energy picture, will use that VERY
NICHE (see rare earth mining and energy to build PV and wind
turbines) to blame Renewables for environmental damage.
　
[size=12pt]In summary, the example of the Liberty ships is proof
we CAN TRANSITION TO RENEWABLE ENERGY in, at most, a couple of
decades if we decide to do it but WON'T do it because of the
fossil fuel industry's stranglehold on political power,
financing and laws along with the powerful propaganda machine
they control.
　
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-106.gifWhat<br
/>can we expect from the somewhat dismal prospects for Homo
sapiens?
1) Terrible weather and melted polar ice caps with an increase
in average wind velocity in turn causing more beach erosion from
gradually rising sea level and wave action. The oceans will
become more difficult to traverse because of high wave action
and more turbulent seas. The acidification will increase the
dead zones and reduce aquatic life diversity. But you've heard
all this before so I won't dwell on the biosphere problems that
promise to do us in.
2) As Renewable Energy devices continue to make inroads in
fossil fuel profits, expect an engineered :evil4: partial
civilizational collapse in a large city to underline the "you
are all going to die without fossil fuels" propaganda pushed to
avoid liability for the increasingly "in your face" climate
extremes. ;)
3) Less democracy and less freedom of expression from some
governments and more democracy and freedom of expression from
other governments in
direct proportion to the percent penetration of Renewable energy
machines in powering their countries (more RE, more freedom)
and an inverse proportion to the power of their "real politik"
Fossil Fuel lobbies in countries. (more FF power, less freedom).
The bottom line, as Guy McPherson says, is that NATURE BATS
LAST. Nature has millions of "bats". Homo sapiens has a putrid
fascist parasite bleeding it to death and poisoning it at the
same time. The parasite cannot survive without us so it is
allowing us to get a tiny IV to keep us alive a little longer (a
small percentage of renewable energy machines). It won't work.
But the parasite has a plan. The IV will be labelled a
"parasite" (the villain and guilty party) when Homo sapiens
finally figures out he is going to DIE if he doesn't fix this
"bleeding and poison" problem. Then the real parasite will try
to morph into a partially symbiotic organism and Homo sapiens
will muddle through somehow.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs2277341.gif
I think that the parasite doesn't truly appreciate the severity
of Mother Nature's "bat".
THREE FUTURE SCENARIOS:
1. If the parasite (as a metaphor for a fossil fuel powered
civilization) does not DIE TOTALLY, I don't think any of us will
make it. :emthdown:
2. If the the parasite takes MORE than 20 years to die, some of
us will make it but most of us won't. :emthdown:
3. If, in 2017, when the north pole has the first ice free
summer (as I estimate), all the governments of the Earth join in
a crash program to deep six the use of fossil fuels within a ten
year period, most of us will make it.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/balloons.gif
　
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-106.gifA<br
/>word about political power and real politik living in a fossil
fuel fascist dystopia.
IT simply DOES NOT MATTER what the 'real world", "real politik"
geopolitical power structure mankind has now is.
IT DOES NOT MATTER how powerful the fossil fuel industry is in
human affairs.
Fossil fuels have to go or Mother Nature will kill us, PERIOD.
Pass it on. You never know when somebody on the wrong side of
the Darwinian fence will read it and join the effort to save
humanity.
　
#Post#: 119--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Pr
ocrastination
By: AGelbert Date: October 20, 2013, 2:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
A. G. Gelbert
Anonymous (Of COURSE!) said, "Anyone who believes that we can
eliminate fossil fuel and nuclear from the grid, without an
unprecedented breakthrough in long term energy storage, needs a
refresher course in Physics and Engineering."
Anyone that thinks fossil fuels and nuclear power plants are not
poisonous technology that remain the main source of energy use
in civilization by any other means than corruption,
externalizing costs and gaming the subsidy playing field needs a
course in empire politics in the 20th century and a review of
the history of Standard Oil and the Rockefeller empire. Neither
the physics nor the thermodynamic properties of fossil fuels or
nuclear fusion have anything whatsoever to do with it. The
Manhattan project ALONE was bigger than the automobile industry
while remaining secret. Not one penny of that was EVER recovered
by the American public.
As far as Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) is concerned
for fossil fuels, long before PV or wind power was envisioned,
ethanol from farm crops was CHEAPER than gasoline but a huge
alcohol tax and then prohibition forced ethanol out of the
competition even though it is a HIGHER OCTANE FUEL than
gasoline.
And for those who think the lead spewing poison additive now
banned from cars, tetra ethyl lead, is no longer poisoning
children and adults, I'm sorry to tell you that in the USA it is
LEGAL to put tetra-ethyl lead in aviation gasoline! So if you
live near an airport with a lot of light plane general aviation
traffic, you are getting showered with it. Of course they can
design aircraft engines to run on ethanol instead of high octane
tetra ethyl lead gasoline for high compression aircraft engines.
Brazil has been doing it for years. The reason WE don't do it is
because big oil is protecting more of its turf.
For those who want to understand the ACTUAL physics and
engineering proving renewable energy has ALWAYS been more cost
effective than fossil or nuclear fuels, this detailed,
multi-page article comparing the various energy source EROEI
numbers (with ALL THE COSTS included) will clear up the doubts
about the insanity of fossil fuel and nuclear power use in human
civilization.
In short, unlike renewable energy, fossil fuels and nuclear
power never have been cost effective for civilization and the
biosphere because governments controlled by these industries
massively subsidize them though taxes, turn a blind eye to
health costs the people must pay, and reward the small group of
elite investors that hold stock in these poisonous industries.
That is corruption, not thermodynamics.
Hope for a Viable Biosphere of Renewables
Why They Work and Fossil & Nuclear Fuels Never Did
Published July 17, 2012. | By A. G. Gelbert.
Hope for a Viable Biosphere of Renewables
HTML http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2012/07/17/hope-for-a-viable-biosphere-of-renewables/
Snippet:
When they fall back on the EROI formula Procrustean Bed with the
claim that EROI only deals with energy density in fuels and not
efficiency coefficients in different engine types, calmly remind
them that gasoline is not customarily used for furnaces, room
lighting, barbeque grills or to boil water; it’s used almost
exclusively in the ICE (internal combustion engine).
For these fossil fuel lackeys, water carriers and quislings to
refuse to measure gasoline’s EFFECTIVE USABLE ENERGY when it is
actually used in an ICE to do work is the height of duplicity.
But this subterfuge by Rockefeller’s admirers is not new. As I
have mentioned before, way back at the end of the 19th century,
Rockefeller was flushing his gasoline waste product in the
rivers by his refineries at night. He could not avoid producing
gasoline in his refinery cracking towers (about 19 gallons of
gasoline for every 42 gallon barrel of crude refined)*. When the
automobile came out in the early twentieth century, the early
car fuel called benzene had to be eliminated because that
hydrocarbon is a carcinogenic. As you read above in the 1906
Edison lab study, ethanol was considered competitive energy wise
with gasoline.
What did Rockefeller do? He lowered the price of gasoline
(remember his cost was near zero because it had been a waste
product of the refining process) so much that ethanol was priced
out of the market**. It was a win-win for Rockefeller.
It was only a matter of time before his nasty habit of flushing
gasoline into rivers at night was going to get him and his
refinery employees facing the wrong end of a shotgun from some
irate farmer who noticed his horses and cows getting sick or
dying when drinking the river water downstream of an oil
refinery.
So Rockefeller managed to change the flush operation from the
rivers to the atmosphere and make a bundle out of it too. But
this predatory capitalist wasn’t done killing ethanol yet. He
gave millions to a temperance group that ultimately succeeded in
Prohibition legislation banning the production and use of
ethanol (ethyl alcohol), not just for drinking, but for ICE fuel
as well (and you thought Prohibition was just the fundies not
wanting you to get high on booze. Rockefeller USED the fundies
to block ethanol competition).
The reality was that the “cheap” gasoline was far, far more
expensive than ethanol due to the atmospheric poisons
introduced. It got even worse when tetra-ethyl lead entered the
mix in the 1920s. It wasn’t until about 1973 that the severe
damage from leaded gasoline was recognized and even so, to this
day, unleaded gasoline is not mandatory in off road vehicles.
Now that ethanol is out there and available once again as a
competitor to gasoline, the fossil fuel enablers return with the
familiar FALSE claims that ethanol is not competitive with
gasoline and the poppycock that gasoline gets better mileage
than ethanol.
Call out these overeducated, Procrustean Bed, creative
thermodynamics “geniuses” carrying water for the fossil fuel
industry on their lies and distortions. Accuse them of being
well aware of the above and deliberately distorting the fuel
facts when they are actually applied to their use in engines.
Tell them their Procrustean Bed EROI BS isn’t going to fly
anymore.
"*On average, about 19.5 US gallons (16.2 imp gal; 74 L) of
gasoline are available from a 42-US-gallon (35 imp gal; 160 L)
barrel of crude oil (about 46% by volume), varying due to
quality of crude and grade of gasoline. The remaining residue
comes off as products ranging from tar to naptha.[4]"
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline
** "The gasoline engine became the preferred engine for the
automobile because gasoline was cheaper than alcohol, not
because it was a better fuel. And, because alcohol was not
available at any price from 1920 to 1933, a period during which
the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol was banned
nationally as mandated in the Eighteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution. The amendment was repealed by the
Twenty-First Amendment on December 5, 1933. In time to produce
alcohol fuels during World War II. By the time World War II
ended, the gasoline engine had become “entrenched” because
gasoline remained cheaper than Alcohol, and widely distributed –
gas stations were everywhere."
HTML http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2012/07/17/hope-for-a-viable-biosphere-of-renewables/<br
/>
HTML http://thehalloffame.wikidot.com/agelbert
Full Knock Down Drag out Thread from above with article fueling
the debate here
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/3ztzsjm.gif
HTML http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/09/going-all-in-with-renewable-energy/
#Post#: 185--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Pr
ocrastination
By: AGelbert Date: October 28, 2013, 2:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The Official Explanation for the German Energy Transition
America's Power Plan
[I]By Bentham Paulos[/I]
October 28, 2013
In a recent posting, John Farrell of the Institute for Local
Self Reliance lays out three clear drivers for why Germans are
going renewable at all costs. He lauds their focus on bills
(rather than rates), a clear long term energy policy, and the
widespread participation in the energy economy facilitated by
feed-in tariffs.
Another side of the coin is what the politicians think of the
energiewende. Critics abroad seem convinced that German leaders
will come to their senses and change course on energy. Based on
what the leaders say in their official documents, these critics
are likely to be disappointed.
First, some background. There are two federal ministries
responsible for energy, the Ministry for Environment, Nature
Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) and the Ministry of
Economics and Technology (BMWi). Until the recent election
these were headed by Peter Altmaier and Peter Rosler. (Rosler
has resigned due his party's loss in the recent election.)
With near unanimous support, the German parliament adopted
legislation in 2010 that sets ambitious targets for carbon
reductions, renewable energy and energy efficiency, and commits
to a phase-out of nuclear power. According to Altmaier, the
environment minister for the Merkel Administration, “this is
unprecedented and brings to an end decades of public debate in
Germany.”
While much international attention is paid to the rapid growth
of solar energy and the phaseout of nuclear power, the
legislation is a comprehensive energy policy, covering
transportation, heat, and electricity use across the whole
economy.
German Energy Policy Goals
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-281013151934.jpeg[/img]
[I]Source: Dr. Martin Schöpe, Federal Ministry for the
Environment[/I]
Now that the political debate about whether is over, the issue
now is how. Most of the debate hinges on how to minimize costs.
The bulk of our energy is to come from renewable sources by the
middle of the century,” writes former economics minister Peter
Rosler. “At the same time, Germany is to remain a competitive
business location. This requires a complete restructuring of
our energy system.” With typical German practicality, member of
parliament Hans-Josef Fell has said, “This is not a problem, it
is a task.”
Full article here:
HTML http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2013/10/the-official-explanation-for-the-german-energy-transition#comment-127506
[move]My comments to this positive, but overly conservative ,
article.[/move]
A. G. Gelbert
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/34y5mvr.gif
October 28, 2013
I agree that Germany has exactly the right rationale and
motivation to transition to 100% renewable energy as evidenced
by this statement, “A policy of responsibility for the future,
policy that also takes account of the interest of our children
and grandchildren, means that wherever technologically and
economically feasible it is our duty to choose an alternative
form of energy supply.” .
However, I do not agree that the transition must be so slow
(100% STILL not reached by 2050).
The renewable energy marketplace is extremely dynamic, unlike
the ossified fossil fuel and nuclear power marketplace that
responds at a glacial pace to consumer needs and health.
Who would have said in the year 2000 that China would, in a mere
decade, so completely overwhelm the solar panel market with mass
produced, as well as reliable PV panels, that the price would
drop vertiginously and the pace of implementation of this
renewable energy technology would accelerate far beyond
electrical grid penetration estimates?
Germany, as well as most other countries in the world, CAN be
powered totally, not just in the electrical grid, but in
transportation systems too, by renewable energy technology by
2030.
How? What is lacking now that makes erudite individuals like Dr.
Martin Schöpe, Federal Ministry for the Environment for Germany,
make such conservative predictions?
Large scale financing is what is lacking, not the desires of the
people. The people want a 100% renewable energy powered
civilization. The issue, as you pointed out, is not WHETHER, but
HOW. I will add that, just as important, if not more so from a
human civilization health perspective, is WHEN.
To answer the question of financing, we need to zero in on who
is mainly responsible for profiting from the old dirty energy
infrastructure. This group of fabulously wealthy individuals has
a much higher responsibility to aid the renewable energy
transition by paying civilization back for what they owe the 99%
for the environmental degradation that polluting energy has
brought the biosphere.
Simultaneously, these individuals that wield enormous financial
leverage as well as political influence are dragging their feet
because their fossil fuel and nuclear power assets turn into
liabilities in direct proportion to the implementation RATE of a
renewable energy powered civilization.
For this reason, the powerful 1%, who, as I have detailed in a
recent blog, OWN over 80% of the polluting energy
infrastructure, must be held responsible for footing the bill
for 80% of the renewable energy transition as well.
This is vital because, otherwise, civilization will have to deal
with the exponentially harmful effects on the biosphere of the
snail's pace of renewable energy implementation favored by the
elite while they orchestrate a transfer of responsibility for
all the decommissioned fossil fuel and nuclear power plants to
we-the-people. They profited from them. NOW they MUST pay the
piper. It is in their best interests to do so but their greed is
obviously interfering with logical thought.
It's our job to convince the 1% that the longer they stand in
the way, while pretending otherwise, the greater the negative
biosphere consequences, not just for the "little people", but
for the elite as well.
A Renewable Energy Global Transition Tax of 80% of the net worth
of the One Percenters may sound punitive and economically
destructive but it is a simple cause and effect calculation that
any serious analysis of our global economy would conclude is the
BENEFIT the 1% have gotten and continue to get from polluting
energy technology.
Tell your government officials, "The 1% must carry the burden of
responsibility in order to justify their continued privilege and
power".
It is the duty of the governments of the world to transition to
a 100% renewable energy civilization, not some pie in the sky
"nice" tree hugger thing to do. The free ride for the 1% is
over. Let's make them pay their way instead of continuing to
allow them to greedily force the rest of us to shoulder the
lion's share of the renewable energy transition in order to
allow them to cushion their polluting energy assets turned
liabilities.
Article Here:
The 1%'s Responsibility to Shoulder 80% of the COST of a 100%
Renewable Energy World
HTML http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2013/10/one-percents-planetary-assets-equals-80-responsibility-for-funding-a-100-renewable-
A. G. Gelbert
October 28, 2013
Tax the
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.smilies.4-user.de/include/Spiele/smilie_game_017.gif<br
/>One Percenters to accelerate a transition to a 100% Renewable
Energy Powered civilization. We CAN do it by 2030 if we make
those that profited so much from polluting energy assets pay
their proper (80%) share of the cost of the new technology.
"Half of the world's richest one percent are Americans.
According to Milanovic, the other half of the global one percent
live in Germany, the rest of Europe, Latin America, and a "few
Asian countries."
HTML http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/americans-make-up-one-half-of-the-one-percent_n_1183713.html
#Post#: 266--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Pr
ocrastination
By: AGelbert Date: November 6, 2013, 1:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Costa Rica Launches Carbon Trading, a First For a Developing
Country
SustainableBusiness.com News
In September, Costa Rica's President, Laura Chinchilla, signed a
decree launching the developing world's first carbon trading
program, part of its plan to be carbon-neutral by 2021.
Called the "Costa Rican Voluntary Domestic Carbon Market,"
carbon credits will be issued and traded between local companies
to compensate for emissions they can't reduce. As the name
indicates, however, it is a voluntary program.
Polluters can also buy Certified Emissions Reductions from the
United Nation's Clean Development Mechanism, which invests in
projects in developing countries.
The credits will be used for forest protection and
reforestation and other projects that capture and sequester
carbon, reduce emissions and increase energy efficiency.
Yes, Costa Rica has a "Department of Climate Change" - which is
administering the program. Credits have started to be issued and
trading begins next year.
In a unique move, Costa Rica launched an environmental bank,
aptly named BanCO2! - to broker carbon trades. The bank is
setting up an exchange where companies can buy and sell carbon
credits. Currently, it costs $5 for a ton of carbon.
Costa Rica Carbon Bank
BanCO2 will also make lower interest rates available to finance
fuel-efficient cars and home energy retrofits.
Costa Rico is one of eight countries to receive a $350,000 grant
from the World Bank to assist in the design and implementation
of a carbon market. And the World Bank's Carbon Fund is buying
up to $63 million worth of forest-based carbon credits in Costa
Rica's program. That will allow Costa Rica to expand its program
that pays landowners to protect forests to an additional 340,000
hectares.
About 8000 landowners are paid $25 million a year to protect
their forests. Most of the money comes from a tax on gasoline -
the world's first national fee used to reduce emissions from
deforestation and forest degradation.
Costa Rica has tripled its GDP over the past 25 years while
doubling the size of its forests. [img width=60
height=60]
HTML http://www.smile-day.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Smiley-Thumbs-Up2.jpg[/img]<br
/>
HTML http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/25332
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page