My thanks to everyone who has participated in the recent 2GreenEnergy survey.  I note that Dr. David Doty, one of the greatest intellects I’ve ever run across, boldly predicted the following for the coming five years:

Oil, coal, and gas will steadily become more expensive at a mean rate of ~20%/year. EVs will have negligible impact on oil usage – for decades.

Global economic growth will still continue at a rate of ~2%/yr, and inflation in the U.S. will remain low.

The gap between the rich and the poor will continue to widen. It will take 10-12 more years of this before something close to revolution (major rioting) comes to the U.S. We will not see another period of sustained strong growth in the U.S. until several years after that happens.

We will not see serious and effective commitment to reduced CO2 emissions until after we’ve seen several years of strong economic growth.

Much of what you’ve written here is so counter to most people’s thinking — not to say that this means it’s wrong.  20% CAGR? That’s doubling every 3.5 years. By “mean rate,” I presume you suggest an average across the three fuels, as well as their price points across the next five years. 

Personally, I don’t see anything right now that would tend to make natural gas or coal climb in price.  The anti-fracking sentiment here doesn’t seem to be gaining too much momentum, and you can still walk through Wyoming and trip over lumps of coal.  I agree about oil, though I believe the oil companies will manipulate the price, and the American sheep-consumer, as long as that’s what’s required to keep us from looking elsewhere for transportation.

I’m even more interested in what you wrote about social chaos. As I’m sure you know, you’re not alone in predicting this.   But you must be aware of our fastest growing industry: criminal justice.  While even college graduates are having the devil’s own time finding work, one segment’s booming – it’s spending a mint in advertising, and creating a whole new subject in which college students can major, like you and I majored in physics, English, history, or whatever.  That’s law enforcement.   Enjoy a rewarding career putting those lawless protesters where they belong: behind bars! 

Sorry to joke about such a lethally serious subject, but I’m not too bullish on the efficacy of civil disobedience here in the US. 

But I do agree with what you write at the end: as long as Americans feel a pinch in their wallets, there will be precious little interest in CO2 emissions.  It’s far too easy for the demagogues to convince voters that environmental responsibility means a sluggish economy and that the adoption of an energy policy that embraces renewables will result in job loss.

Again, my thanks to Dr. Doty and to all the others who have responded so far.  ”Tell your friends,” as they say.

Perhaps the greatest single threat facing mankind today is our failure to apply reason to effect solutions. In fact, we appear to openly defy and ridicule the findings of our scientific community, writing them off as so many lairs and frauds. At least here in the United States, a significant segment of our population has bought into the idea that science has conspired to fabricate the notion of global climate change, fudging the figures so as to create the appearance of a problem, in order to generate ongoing funding for additional research.

In essence, we now have an arena, i.e., politics, that trumps science. And, which the example above may be the most obvious example, it’s certainly not the only one.

Wally Rippel, an extremely senior physicist from Cal Tech, points out that top scientists are ostracized constantly for not conforming to the mainstream viewpoints on the subject. In a recent conversation, he gave me a couple of examples associated with cold fusion. Dr. Peter Hagelstein at MIT, best known for his X-ray laser, is a strong proponent, but he’s been isolated from the entire scientific community because of that belief.

Wally also tells this story:

Fred Hartley was on the board of directors at Caltech in 1989 when the results of the initial cold fusion experiments were released. He was also CEO of Union Oil. It was explained that all of this was a problem for Caltech. The vice provost who had been provost at Caltech 12 or 15 years ago, very capable physicist, left Caltech to work for British Petroleum, then left British Petroleum to become the head of the Department of Energy Science. This was the person who convinced the world that cold fusion was junk science. He directly stated that Fleishman and Pons were fraudulent—and he had the credibility to make that statement. I’ve been very troubled by that, because just seeing the scientific data, it doesn’t correspond to that. I see a reality there.

I felt a great deal of unfairness was done. I did not see a professionalism. I spoke to some of the Caltech faculty who were part of the debunking process and I did not feel it was a professional response; there was something else involved.

More recently, I was able to do this: I offered to make a significant donation to Caltech for their doing research in the cold fusion area even if that research would continue to debunk it. The offer was over $100,000.

The development association of Caltech went to the physics department—I wanted it to be through the physics department—and the physics department said, “We will not do this. We will never do it. It will not be done here at Caltech.” And the development person said, “Well, do you believe cold fusion to be fraudulent? Invalid?” And the person said, “That is not the issue. The issue is: the fact that we debunked it means we can’t go back and revisit it. It will not be done here.”

I asked, “But what about if this is scientifically valid?” The person said, “It doesn’t matter. We will not do it. Period.”

Clearly, mankind is never well-served to put its scientists in a position of subservience to big money/power, where they feel they must toe the line on any issue, whether it’s global warming, cold fusion, “clean coal,” etc.

I would further argue that we face an even bigger problem when religion and science cross paths. A few years ago, Illinois Congressman John Shimkus, who aspired to be chairman of the super-powerful House Committee on Energy and Commerce, quoted the bible (the books of Genesis and Matthew) as reason not to act on climate change, reading:

And He will send his angels with a loud trumpet call and they will gather his elect from the four winds from one end of the heavens to the other. The Earth will end only when God declares it is time for it to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth.

Shimkus continued, asserting,

There is a theological debate that this is in fact a carbon-starved planet, not that we have too much carbon.

Please do not ask me to explain what Shimkus could possibly mean by “There is a theological debate that this is in fact a carbon-starved planet.” But that’s not the point. While I hesitate to challenge anyone’s faith, I don’t hesitate for a second in recommending against electing lawmakers whose policy decision-making process so clearly and aggressively fly in the teeth of critically relevant scientific discoveries. I urge our civilization to come up with a better way in dealing with the lethally important challenges we face.

More broadly, we need to remove all influences of religion and politics from the realm of science. To the degree that we’re incapable of doing this, i.e., freeing science from the yoke of corruption and stupidity, we will richly deserve the disasters that are headed our way.

I’d like to ask a favor, if I may. We have a quick survey up on the 2GreenEnergy website – one that, interestingly enough,  calls for you to predict the future. Given our current energy policies and the rate at which they’re changing, what do you think the world will be like five years from now? What events do you believe are likely to occur between now and the year 2017? Which do you think are improbable?

As usual, we’ll tabulate the results and offer you a free copy of the report that comes as a result.

And as always, we appreciate your help.

Here’s the link:

http://2greenenergy.com/survey-what-will-happen-in-the-next-five-years/

When I first checked this morning, it was #19, thus I want to thank everyone who jumped on board and bought a copy today, its official launch day.

Over the years, I’ve learned that the most productive way to deal with climate change deniers is to point out that global warming is only one of half-a-dozen reasons to knock off our dependence on coal and oil. “Just pick your favorite,” I smile.

How about the obvious and growing damage to human health? It would seem to me that this would be a fact that even the most fanatical of the anti-government types couldn’t argue. Don’t we need some empowered body to protect our health from those who are indifferent?

One of the very clearest – and saddest – indications that we’re on the wrong road with respect to environmental regulation is our skyrocketing rate of respiratory disease, e.g., asthma, in children. In this story, I learned that Dr. Sylvia Brandt, who’s spent a good deal of her adult life studying this issue, now faces it at a personal level. Her school-age daughter (along with 40% of her contemporaries) suffers from asthma. 40% is about four times the national average (10%) which itself has doubled from 5% since 1980, according to the CDC; the anomaly facing the Brandt family is accounted for by the fact that their hometown, Amherst, MA, is bordered by two large freeways and lies near a coal-fired power plant.

How people can look at this pain and destruction and argue for the removal of environmental regulatory bodies is beyond me.

I just started a fine historic novel that my brother gave me for Christmas, The Hangman’s Daughter; the first 100 pages are really good. In addition to the story itself, a murder mystery set in mid-17th Century Bavaria, the author reminds us of the horrors and brutalities of living at that time, e.g., the persecution of witches and the outrageously illogical ways in which this took place. “If she has a birthmark, she’s probably a witch.  Stick it with a needle; if she bleeds, then she’s definitely a witch.” How would you like to have been born female with a birthmark in 1650?

To me, the remarkable aspect of this isn’t that people were at one point so stupid to think like this. The truly amazing thing is that this was fairly recent. Almost exactly 2000 years earlier we had Ancient Greece with its fantastic developments in mathematics, science, education, philosophy, theater, focus on virtue, jurisprudence, democracy and the like – not to mention logic. Aristotle did such a good job in codifying the rules of logic that very few advancements have been made in the 2300 years since his day.  I challenge you to think of another intellectual discipline that was nailed down so completely in 300 BCE.

Doesn’t this make us wonder what happened to mankind that could have taken us down so badly? I have my own theory, but I’d be interested in yours.

So, what does this have to do with renewable energy? I believe that clear thinking and some level of dedication to and respect for science is essential if we’re going to overcome the huge challenges we face here in the 21st Century, of which energy policy is most certainly one. As long as we can look at our scientists who tell us that we’re ruining our planet (the only planet we have, btw) and dismiss them as pawns of the Marxists who are trying to destroy our economy, or as frauds who have conspired to perpetrate a hoax so as to bilk our civilization out of a few bucks for unnecessary atmospheric research, we’re really living in a throwback to the 17th Century in terms of the application of logic. 

Earlier today we had a very interesting guest-post on Religion and Renewable Energy, in which the author, Brian McGowan, begins:

Recently the subject of religion has come up several times. I try not to discuss it but it keeps coming up and it is hard to avoid.

I respond:

Thanks for this very interesting post. Yes, I try to avoid the subject as well, for fear of coming off as disrespectful to people’s beliefs. Having said that, someone needs to say something when we have elected representatives using a religious platform from which to make important decisions that fly in the teeth of science. For example, last year, Illinois Congressman John Shimkus, who aspires to be chairman of the super-powerful House Committee on Energy and Commerce, quoted the bible (the books of Genesis and Matthew) as reason not to act on climate change, reading:

And He will send his angels with a loud trumpet call and they will gather his elect from the four winds from one end of the heavens to the other. The Earth will end only when God declares it is time for it to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth.

Shimkus continued, asserting, “There is a theological debate that this is in fact a carbon-starved planet, not that we have too much carbon.”

I can’t imagine what this latter remark could possibly mean, but again, I hesitate to challenge anyone’s faith. Yet I don’t hesitate for a second in recommending against electing lawmakers whose decision-making process so clearly and aggressively flouts critically relevant scientific discoveries. Our civilization simply must come up with a better way in dealing with the lethally important challenges we face.

Thanks for the post, Brian. 

Reg Wessels of South Africa’s Earth Corporation writes about my piece on the uncertainties of investors in renewable energy:

I often watch this debate with dismay, and as a non-American (but hugely supportive), I can’t help being frustrated by the US having to dance with the enemy. Whatever the solution, the free world looks to America with hope and admiration. Was this not the country that had the courage to pool all its resources for common purpose when the smoke had cleared over Pearl Harbor? Is this not the country that leads the world in innovation and technological expertise? Is this not the country that has shown ‘nothing is impossible’?

Reg:  What a good point you raise here. I too wonder where my country has gone wrong, and I have to think I’m not alone here. Since you’re from a land far away, let me explain: the normal debate lines up along the divide between liberals and conservatives.

Oversimplifying for the sake of brevity, our liberals say that the battle was lost because unbridled capitalism favors the greedy and selfish, who have raped and pillaged the world’s land and exploited her people, so that they and their direct descendents could prosper at the expense of the many. Conservatives assert the opposite, that the ruin was caused by those who would restrict these desires, and use law/government to restrain the passions of those most talented, shackling liberty and free enterprise, forming a kind of socialism where the masses mooch off the hard work and productivity of the few.

We don’t seem to be able to find a middle ground. Coincidentally, the piece on which you’ve commented represents such an attempt. All I’m asking government to do is to create a level playing field in which all forms of energy can compete fairly, and then get out of the way. Of course, it’s quite unlikely that this will happen, but I think it’s an idea worth presenting nonetheless.

Thanks for writing.

First, can someone tell me why philosophy isn’t taught in high school?  Is there some reason we think we need to shelter kids from life’s great questions until they’re older? I never taught the subject formally, though I tutored quite a few undergraduates while I was in graduate school, which often caused me to wonder how I would construct my own “101” course if I happened to be in that position, and at what age group I would present it.

What happened when mankind evolved to the point, about 10,000 years ago, that we had a solid grasp on basic agricultural principles, and so no longer needed to roam, hunting for and gathering food in a nonstop life-and-death struggle? What happened when we started to look up into the heavens — and the questions started to flow: Who made all this stuff? Why are we here? What happens when we die?

I’d certainly get the kids into questions like that – “speculative philosophy” as it’s called.  But I wouldn’t do so at the expense of “moral philosophy,” whose questions are different, though no easier: What is the nature of our responsibilities to others? What does it mean to say I have a “right” to do or have something? A “duty?” And from what do these rights and duties come? The bible? Our conscience? The mores of our group?

I bring this up because the debate about energy really unfolds along these lines. It boils down to this:

If we really don’t have a duty to anyone but ourselves, we can serve the world’s energy needs very well with fossil fuels. Yes, we’re running out of oil, but not right this minute. Yes, fossil fuels more generally are ruining our health and our environment, but they’re by far the cheapest way to power our civilization at this point in time. People who scoff at the idea of a duty to others say, “Look, we can generate baseload electricity with coal at about three cents a kilowatt-hour.   If that creates a problem, that’s too damn bad. Until someone can beat three cents, we’ll burn coal. ”

Yes, there is no doubt that we can do that. But don’t all people have certain rights — and others among us certain duties — that make this a more interesting question?

Here’s a wonderful video presentation of Billy Joel’s ‘We Didn’t Start the Fire,’ the clever reminder that problems in the world are nothing new, and really nothing to get too concerned over. I infer that this philosophy must be quite dear to him, as he expresses it in many of his songs, e.g., The Angry Young Man:

There’s always a place for the angry young man

With his fist in the air and his head in the sand

He’s never been able to learn from mistakes

So he can’t understand why his heart always breaks

His honor is pure, and his courage as well

He’s fair and he’s true, and he’s boring as hell

And he’ll go to his grave as an angry old man.

….

I do believe I’ve passed the age

Of consciousness and righteous rage

I’ve found that just surviving was a noble fight

I once believed in causes too

I had my pointless point of view

But life went on no matter who was wrong or right.

While this is brilliant stuff, and extremely musical, it’s sickeningly wrong-headed.  I know I’m decidedly unhip, but remember Margaret Mead? She left us with:  “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” And how about Edmund Burke?  He reminded us: “All that’s necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing.” Ideas like these may not sell records, but there’s a lot of truth there.

In 2009 and 2010, the oil companies took $500 million, a considerable fortune, yet a tiny sliver of the profits they had retained, and invested it into lobbying Congress against climate change legislation. I don’t use the word “evil” lightly, but it’s more than appropriate here. And labeling this behavior as evil — and trying to do something about it — is not a “pointless point of view.”

I can appreciate the hedonistic viewpoint, and the rock stars who take their riches and party, well, like rock stars.  But I submit that there are other ideals worth pursuing as well.