Bucky Fuller on Building New Realities
It’s hard to keep in mind all the great ideas that our civilization’s most brilliant minds have produced. The one we chose for our 2GreenEnergy Instagram post today really hits at the core of how the good guys are going to win the battle for clean energy. The caption:
It’s easy to hate the oil companies for their prioritizing profits over the health and safety of all living creatures on Earth. But the way to succeed in making the oil industry disappear is to build a new reality, one that drives those following old practices out of business.
Those researchers and engineers who are developing better wind turbines and better solar panels are advancing the goals of green energy more than any amount of legal wrangling with the conventional energy producers. The market dictates the winners in the end and Bucky is so right about putting human effort into those new paradigm models. It is becoming easier to pick winners and not worry about the losers.
Craig,
I agree with R.Buckminster Fuller. There are no “good guys” or “bad guys”.
The Oil Industry and earlier Coal, created the modern industrialized world. Industrial economics expanded and spread wealth. The advent of new industries expanded knowledge and education, elevated science and technology, and inevitably increased social and economic democracy.
Just as improvement in sailing vessels permitted the rapid expansion of trade, liberating societies from a narrow agricultural base, so will new technologies replace the “Age of Fossil fuels”.
All over the planet, new technologies are emerging. Some will succeed while others will prove marginal or redundant.
Attempting to create a “moral” or “ideological” dynamic to any emerging technology is folly.
The level of public funding for emerging technologies is difficult to assess. While governments have a right, and even duty, to support and encourage economic activity, they must do so responsibly and evenhandedly.
The danger of politicizing any technology is that eventually governments feel obliged to protect their investment by restricting other more promising technologies that may threaten the industry their support created.
The speed at which new technologies are emerging (and disappearing) is astonishing. Often new discoveries emerge from obscure institutions as by-products of research into other technologies.
One such discovery in the UK is the development of a new kind of cement that can safely enclose nuclear waste for over 100,000 years. Not only is the new cement safe, but only a fraction of previous amount is required.
The development of this new cement would allow for the relatively cheap redevelopment of an old disused deep coal mine into a safe nuclear storage facility capable of storing the UK’s nuclear waste for all the UK’s nuclear waste for millennia.
Another development is the announcement by China’s Nuclear Engineering Construction Corporation to start up a high-temperature, gas-cooled pebble-bed nuclear plant next year.
The plant located in Shandong , is a twin 105-megawatt Generation IV reactors. This advanced plant is claimed to be the first commercial scale, meltdown proof reactor in the world.
Ironically, the technology for this reactor originated in Germany where for political reasons the technology was rejected and sold cheaply to the PRC.
Likewise the PRC is working hard commercializing a molten-salt reactor fueled by thorium rather than uranium (a collaboration with Oak Ridge National Laboratory, where the technology originated in the 1960s). The first two of these reactors will become operational in 2019.
The NECC also announced it had laid the foundations for a traveling-wave reactor (in collaboration with the Bill Gates funded TerraPower).
Meanwhile the Chinese Institute for Atomic Energy announced construction of a sodium-cooled fast reactor was nearing completion and was expected to be commissioned in early 2018.
The PRC sees these technologies a being economically viable, and already has export orders from a number of eager foreign buyers. buyers.
These are just a small selection of amazing new development in new energy alternatives. Crucial developments are often obscure innovations in a the vital components, such as advanced ceramics, cybernetics or metallurgy, that make a project suddenly economically viable.
In the face of these developments the Japanese have responded with plans for miniaturizing Thorium reactors. So small they could be built underground in a city or industrialized suburb, this reducing the cost of distribution. These mini-sized power generators would need very few staff and maintenance, so the cost of generation would be a fraction of other generating technologies.
Obviously, corporations with huge investments in Wind and Solar won’t be sitting still. Investment in ESD ( Electricity Storage Devices) will intensify along with improvements in energy collection.
As in any competitive market place, there will be winners and losers. Passionate advocates for certain technologies will rejoice, while others are disgruntled. Investors will make or lose fortunes. Not all deserving technologies will find acceptance, while others, maybe less deserving, enjoy periods of success.
This is the nature of human beings, and human societies.
For decades, even centuries to come, the oil industry will remain profitable, maybe even more profitable, from non-energy products.
Governments will find new methods of taxation, and in my opinion, the future energy evolution will prove exciting, but not the disruptive “revolution” ideologues eagerly anticipate.
For US and Western nations, our economic security relies upon forgetting ideological purity, and working hard to ensure the best economic solutions so we are equipped to met the rising challenge from more resolutely competitive economies.
marcopolo,
China is, appropriately, taking a “kitchen sink” approach. They are trying everything: rapidly expanding hydropower, wind, geothermal, and yes, multiple technology approaches to nuclear power.
In this, we would do well to appreciate the strength of the approach. But it’s far too soon to tout the success of any of the nuclear power programs until they are functioning, and functioning for a period of time.
No sane person that cares about the environment would attack new nuclear technologies, but the same would be said about attacking wind and solar – which are working now.
The goal should be to make an incentive structure which helps any zero-fossil-emission technology. If we priced the damage of the emisisons: between the health costs, the increased wear due to increased acid levels and hard particulates, and the costs of accommodating climate change… and simply offered a subsidy to any project based on the emissions that said project would mitigate in the first 5 years of its operation; then the wind and solar would still get plenty of government support (wind more than solar, and good wind regions more than bad/good solar regions more than bad), and there will still be plenty of support for nuclear reactors or interesting 2-stage geothermal cycles, etc..
Rather than bash each other, squabbling over the same limited funding; the alternative power approaches should appreciate that there is a very large market pool. Natural gas is better than coal, and has more than 1 PWh/year of coal to replace. Nuclear, wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal are all better than natural gas… and all have their advantages in different regions (or nuclear has advantages in regions that don’t have high class winds, high sun, or develop-able geothermal or hydropower – which is most of America).
The best path would be to strive to develop everything (except coal), and give proper credit for whatever emissions are abated in all cases… and from there just let the market evolve, with all options gradually growing and diminishing coal’s share.
@ Glenn Doty
I applaud your very reasonable approach to these issues.
I agree the PRC is not the most reliable source of information but these are still interesting developments.
Unfortunately, the taxpayer and power consumer isn’t a limitless source of funding for technology. All the funds given to new alternate energy, must be at the cost of other equally worthy services.
Obviously it’s important that new technology be assisted during development and commercialization , but quagmires such as US Ethanol production can’t be allowed to be repeated.
The economy must remain competitive, or it will find itself overtaken by more pragmatic economies, leaving no funds for any innovation.
marcopolo,
“Isn’t a limitless source of funding”.
What you’re exhibiting here is called “silo budgeting.” I don’t mean this as an attack, it’s entirely too common in policy discourse… But you look at the budget for renewables and say “this is all the money that we have”.
If the production of coal power is costing America ~$300 billion in health care expenses (through additional cancer, heavy-metal poisoning, and asthma/respiratory damages); and costing America an additional $~30 billion per year in damages due to increased wear (air conditioners, vehicle engines, etc… anything that has an air intake will wear faster due to excessive soot/ozone/sulfuric oxides (acids).
And of course the additional cost of accommodating climate change (let’s say coal’s contribution to those expenses might be ~15 billion/year).
So every MWh that you offset from coal would save the country – through a combination of health care savings, longevity of working systems/maintenance of infrastructure, and mitigated global warming accommodation costs – about $250.
That means that it’s not just the current amount allocated to renewable energy (which absolutely must be spent more wisely), it’s also the amount of money saved by implementing new clean energy systems. If we were to determine (rather than guess) that each MWh of coal implemented an additional $250/MWh of burden to the commons, then give a subsidy equal to $250/MWh of energy that is either saved or produced through alternative clean means for the first 5 years of a wind farm… the wind farm would become mostly free, and society would break even with the cost of the subsidy after the first 5 years, and thenceforth would save $250/MWh for the next 35-40 years. By design such a program would save society many times the amount that society would have to spend on it.
I would call that an unassailable presentation, but I’m betting MP has some push-back here. 🙂
Glen,
I understand where you are coming from, and to a certain extent what you say makes good sense.
Or it would make sense if we were comparing apples with apples, but we’re not. Coal can be easily replaced by Natural Gas. Natural Gas plants are economically and environmental superior. Both produce the sort of “on demand” power requires by modern industrialized societies.
Advanced forms of Nuclear power also promise to fit the same criteria, but with zero emissions.
Wind and solar industries generate intermittent power, and only relatively small amounts of ‘usable’ power, if unregulated.
This doesn’t mean these technologies don’t possess merit in certain applications, but the cost of attempting to upscale inappropriate technologies and developing sufficient ESD puts wind and Solar at a competitive disadvantage with NG, and rapidly developing advanced nuclear.
Modern industrialized economies are fiercely competitive. If the US invests in a system of Fossil Fuel replacement that’s aesthetically pure, but can’t satisfy the requirements of an industrialized society, then the US will become even less able to compete with its rivals.
Western nations who choose to spend tax revenue on noncompetitive, short term solutions, (or continue to buy on credit from the manufacturers of those solutions) will become unable to compete with nations who invested in more competitive (but less idealistic) energy generation.
That’s the real danger. Once the tax revenue (or capacity to borrow ) dries up, the subsidies cease and those industries start to fail. Leaving a depressed and stagnant economy.
This is the essence of the ongoing debate between environmental Idealists and Pragmatists.
Both sides mean well and want to see positive change. Both want new and cleaner technologies.
The principal difference is pragmatists assess implementation within the reality of the full social and economic context, while idealists try to change the social and economic context to compensate for flaw in their proposed solutions.
For the last 19 years I have owned a modest enterprise building, selling, leasing, and servicing specialist electric vehicles. The business is modestly successful and I’m proud of it’s contribution. I have received no government assistance.(it isn’t my principal business).
I’ve grown weary of the over enthusiastic claims by EV enthusiasts that EV’s will completely replace conventional vehicles by 2020, then 2025..and so on.
The argument that because the average daily trip by a motorist is less 50 miles, means that consumers will rush out ‘en mass’ and buy an EV with a 100 mile range was always absurd ! It just has happened. (Although, Elon Musk and Carlos Ghosn are heros of mine).
Rather than face the simple fact that the technology contains inadequacies that detract from consumer appeal, the ardent idealist demands society changes its lifestyle to suit the technology. When this doesn’t occur, idealistic advocates demand governments coerce consumers to comply.
Germany and Spain (even Nevada) are beginning to feel the pain of supporting technologies which don’t live up to the early claims of idealists.
Craig labels me as a sort of right-wing laissez-faire capitalist for pointing out the feet of clay in many of the more idealistic claims.
Cameron castigates me for questioning his claim that a 30 ton EV fire engine, or 100 mph EV ambulance is technically feasible. (no doubt suppressed by oil companies).
In conclusion, although I agree with the principle you advance, I would suggest that it’s no good entering a mule in a horse race ! The mule may look like a horse, it might even be more available and capable of performing some of the tasks of a horse, but over time it can’t compete with those who enter thoroughbreds.
That in my opinion is the problem with Wind and Solar. For individual or specialized applications, where the technology is suited to the circumstance, they both make good sense. But as a mass replacement for industrialized power, they can’t compete with natural gas or advanced nuclear power.
No amount of shuffling the figures, or insisting on restructuring society will change the fact that governments must eventually listen to the demands of the economy, or pay the price.
I’m sorry for the length of this post, but it’s a complex issue and goes to the heart of the debate between environmentalists.
I hope Glenn takes a few minutes to explain why solar and wind are not like entering a mule in a horse race. In the meantime, let me point out that the history of government subsidies is, on balance, a positive one. The whole electronics industry exists because the US government pledged to buy a huge number of semiconductor devices from the private sector in the middle part of the 20th Century. The reason you’re so safe on airplanes (you’re 2000 times more likely to die in a car accident) is the radar that was developed by government. There is a limitless list of other examples.
When I write: “I hope Glenn takes a few minutes to explain why solar and wind are not like entering a mule in a horse race.” …I can do this fairly well, but you’ll never get a more rock-solid explanation in terms of the science and economics than you’ll get from Glenn.
It is a wonderful quote and a nice idea but maybe we could also pause to consider if every great idea has produced a new paradigm?
Without going into a long story which you can read elsewhere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteriesthere there are claims that the nickel metal hydride battery has suffered a patent encumbrance as they were held by the Chevron oil company. This may have been a factor in delaying the development of the EV for 5 to 10 years.
But this is just the latest news in an over 100 year history. It seems reasonably clear that oil companies were often concerned that electric cars (the new model) would make their old model (gas cars)obsolete and consciously worked to keep that from happening.
While the quote is full of refreshing, enthusiastic optimism we should not be so naive that we forget that resistance is also a factor that must be addressed.
@ Breath on the Wind
Don’t believe every urban myth. The modern Electric Vehicle is powered by lithium batteries developed by,…Exxon !
NiMH batteries are more suited to hybrids. Pert of the reason why the Vectrix EV maxi scooter failed, was because early computers were insufficiently developed and NiMH batteries were too large and heavy.
Oil companies have never tried to prevent the development of electric vehicles. ( nor 1000 mpg carburetors or any other conspiracy theory).
The advent of sophisticated computers made the modern EV possible. These advanced computers simply didn’t exist before the early 1990’s. The advent of the lightweight lithium battery is also an important factor.
What keeps EV’s from greater acceptance, is a combination of three things;
1) Lack of range, speed and power.
2) High cost of batteries = high purchase price.
3) Lack of charging facilities.
Sadly, EV sales need considerable government subsidies and other incentives to sell in commercial numbers. In countries or states with no incentives, or incentives are withdrawn, sales are non existent or disappear.
Elon Musk and Carlos Ghosn will be remembered as the outstanding pioneers of the modern EV, although there are many others. But the often overlooked real pioneers of EV technology is Toyota.
Toyota’s highly successful and profitable Hybrids made EV technology in the automotive industry acceptable to the general public.