What Will Become of Most Renewable Energy Concepts?
Frequent commenter “MarcoPolo” (the original pictured left) writes:
While it’s true that some technologies do become mainstream innovations, most never fulfill the dreams of their supporters, and remain only hobbyist or small scale applications.
Like you, every week, I receive dozens of proposals by dedicated, enthusiastic (sometimes a little rabid and fanatical ) innovators, seeking to finance the development, or commercialization, of all sorts of wonderful new innovative concepts. I try to sort these into five categories:
1) Sound science and technology, with enough market potential to be worth investing in further assessment and evaluation.
2) Sound science and technology, but one ‘ whose time has not yet arrived.’
3) Interesting science and technology, but improbable to expand past a hobbyist or enthusiast market.
4) Impractical, and not worth further consideration
5) Bizarre and hilariously impractical, but brightens up the day, and adds to my collection of human folly.
I totally agree; in fact, this is something I could have written word for word. I’m reminded of my numerous posts on “bad ideas in renewable energy.”
What the gentleman is saying, and he’s completely correct, is that most ideas in renewable energy are going to fail–even concepts in his category #1. Here I think about things like extracting energy from ocean currents and waves. I’ve seen many dozens of different attempts to get this done cost-effectively, but I think they are all doomed, simply because of the technology maturation and scale of solar PV and wind. Of course, if advanced nuclear comes along at the rate promised by is proponents (which I doubt) even solar and wind are dead as well.
Upon further reflection, this means that category #2 doesn’t really exist; i.e., if it’s time hasn’t arrived by now, it probably never will.
He goes on to write:
The problem facing most enthusiasts and hobbyists is they really “believe” in whatever they are supporting. Often this belief is based on ideology, or moral opinions.
It’s true that most of these people hold false beliefs about what they’re doing. I refer (unkindly) to the folks in categories #4 and #5 as “crackpots,” meaning that they honestly believe in the legitimacy of what they’re doing–in contrast to “frauds,” who do not. I also agree that crackpots really do lighten the day. For obvious reasons, I’m not as amused by the frauds.
The only other comment I would make here is that some of what the author refers to as “ideologies and moral opinions” are not really opinions at all; i.e., some are categorically wrong and others are categorically right. There is no better example of this in our world here and now vis-a-vis our environment. There are billionaires on this planet who are working hard to expand their net worth further by purchasing on Congress and disseminating lies that protect business practices that they know full well are causing incalculable levels of death, destruction and suffering. I have no more reservation about tagging this as “evil” than I do in giving the same label to the Nazis, the KKK, ISIS, or Boko Haram. They’re all rooted in a morality that is completely unsupportable.
I disagree with some of your points, even if I am a very strong supporter of solar and wind power. There will be a place for tide and wave. I am very sure that we will find cost effective ways to take advantage of the “lunar” generated power that our oceans provide.
More importantly, I disagree with calling people evil who push for fossil fuel against renewables. Yes, they are wrong about climate change and the future, and it is a serious issue. However, I remain convinced that their misguided belief is based on ideology or moral opinions, just as Marco Polo says.
The most dangerous issue facing humans is that people are “choosing camps,” and then filtering information to validate their views.
For sure there is a lot of self-interest behind this, but I don’t think anyone wants to see our world melt down. They just refuse to believe it can happen. This is criminal, but not evil.
“Criminal, but not evil.” That’s an interesting distinction. 🙂
EVIL – WHAT IS IT?
According to the Dictionary of Word Origins by John Ayto, the word “evil” “…comes ultimately from ‘upelo-“‘ a derivative of the Indo-European base ‘upo-,’…, Sanskrit ‘upa,’ at, to, and English “up” and ‘over’), and so its underlying connotation is of ‘exceeding due limits, extremism.’ Its Germanic descendant was ‘ubilaz,’ source of German übel,’ [meaning] evil as well as English ‘evil.’ ”
Universalist Gary Amirault observes that an example of this distinction is found in Ezekiel Chapter 16 verse 49. When most Christians think of the sin or evil of Sodom, they usually think of the “immoral sexual sins” of Sodom – of which homosexuality has been commonly be considered the height of their depravity. Yet, instead, this is how the literary voice of the Creator describes Sodom’s condition:
“Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.”
We’re talking about the rise of excessive pride – and its more extreme offspring, greed – and the lack of compassion thus engendered.
A peer-reviewed acedemic resource, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, notes: “[Hannah] Arendt’s first major work, [On Totalitarianism], published in 1951, is clearly a response to the devastating events of her own time – the rise of Nazi Germany and the catastrophic fate of European Jewry at its hands, the rise of Soviet Stalinism and its annihilation of millions of peasants (not to mention free-thinking intellectual, writers, artists, scientists and political activists).
“Arendt insisted that these manifestations of political evil could not be understood as mere extensions in scale or scope of already existing precedents, but rather that they represented a completely ‘novel form of government’, one built upon terror and ideological fiction. Where older tyrannies had used terror as an instrument for attaining or sustaining power, modern totalitarian regimes exhibited little strategic rationality in their use of terror. Rather, terror was no longer a means to a political end, but an end in itself.”
“For Arendt, the popular appeal of totalitarian ideologies with their capacity to mobilize populations to do their bidding, rested upon the devastation of ordered and stable contexts in which people once lived. The impact of the First World War, and the Great Depression, and the spread of revolutionary unrest, left people open to the promulgation of a single, clear and unambiguous idea that would allocate responsibility for woes, and indicate a clear path that would secure the future against insecurity and danger.
“Totalitarian ideologies offered just such answers, purporting discovered a “key to history” with which events of the past and present could be explained, and the future secured by doing history’s or nature’s bidding. Accordingly the amenability of European populations to totalitarian ideas was the consequence of a series of pathologies that had eroded the public or political realm as a space of liberty and freedom.
“These pathologies included the expansionism of imperialist capital with its administrative management of colonial suppression, and the usurpation of the state by the bourgeoisie as an instrument by which to further its own sectional interests.
“This in turn led to the delegitimization of political institutions, and the atrophy of the principles of citizenship and deliberative consensus that had been the heart of the democratic political enterprise.
“The rise of totalitarianism was thus to be understood in light of the accumulation of pathologies that had undermined the conditions of possibility for a viable public life that could unite citizens, while simultaneously preserving their liberty and uniqueness (a condition that Arendt referred to as “plurality”).”
Here we see that Arendt clearly identified the root cause of both totalitarian states – one emerging from “left wing” rhetoric and the other from “right wing” rhetoric (and yet both states soon severely betraying the core ideals in their rhetoric).
The root cause she identified in both cases was the pathological greed of the elite. We can see the unbroken line from the Sanskrit “upo” to the English “evil” carried in the First Epistle of Paul to Timothy, “The love of money is the root of all evil.”
In today’s language of political philosophy, and through the lenses that Ayto and Arendt have provided us, Paul’s admonition might better be phrased as follows:
The greed of the elite is the source of all socio-political pathologies.
You never fail to amaze me. 🙂
There is no free lunch. Wind power kills birds and more importantly they kill bats. All current alternative power has a dark side including solar when the sun goes down. The best energy generation is from magnetic flux fields interacting with coils, your classic generator design but the energy out is less than the energy in due to counter torque. The solution is a magnetic flux field moving relative to a coil wherein lens law is not realized. One such structure is the toroidal coil wherein the countering magnetic flux field is trapped within the core and unable to interact with the external magnetic flux filed thus eliminating counter torque.
This works but everyone has heard of similar energy generation device and thus it is dismissed as a crackpot idea, but it is not, it is the physics of toroidal coils.
Could you build one of these and publish the test results?
It is not “lens law”. It is “Lenz’s law”.
Right. Demo here: http://video.mit.edu/watch/physics-demo-lenzs-law-with-copper-pipe-10268/.
A more interesting demonstration of Lenz’s law uses a superconductor and magnets. The current induced into the superconductor in conformity with Lenz’s law will not dissipate. The result is levitation until the superconductive material becomes too warm to maintain its superconductive state.
http://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/accelerate/resources/demonstrations/superconductivity
I have copied the experiment using a piece of 3/4 ” copper pipe and a magnet picked up at HD but here is a surprising example of the Meissner effect that looks like perpetual motion until you understand the physics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHtAwQXVsuk
Wind power will be around till the wind stop blowing, Solar power will be around till the sun stop shining hydroelectric will be around till it stop raining Thermal energy will continue till our plant core cools and wave power l happen till there no waves thought application depend on locations and cost factors the big change is when tech will be able to build a cost effective fusion reactor.
It is a bit too harsh to refer to people with impractical or impossible ideas as evil.
One of the problems is our school system. Many people, even including people with degrees, have never taken a physics class. They have no understanding of the laws of physics, including conservation of energy, and do not understand how science works. The result is that they can easily be misled into believing all sorts of impractical ideas.
I remember a clergyman who had at least a bachelor’s degree in theology. He could read Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. He thought that he was very well educated, but his knowledge of physics was totally lacking. What many people do not seem to understand is that a person cannot claim to have a liberal education unless the education includes an adequate knowledge of the sciences. Some people who think that they are well educated have astounding gaps in their educations. I remember a man who had received a degree from a well-known and highly respected liberal arts college in the east yet he had no idea what the stock market was for, how the economy works, and had zero understanding of physics. Beyond that, he thought that such subjects were only for the common people and that he was above being concerned with practical things. There is a word for people with his attitude.
As I have stated many times, adequate science classes, including chemistry, physics, and biology should be required at both the secondary and tertiary levels. Unless people have an adequate understanding of science, they cannot direct our political leaders and officials to make sound decisions and the entire planet can suffer as a result. Of course there are also other important subjects, including history, economics, etc. etc., that are also an essential part of a liberal education.
You write: “It is a bit too harsh to refer to people with impractical or impossible ideas as evil.” I don’t think anyone’s saying that. I’m certainly not. My term (“crackpot”) isn’t exactly complimentary, but I don’t deem them evil.
I recently did some comparisons of Tidal Power and Wave Power and the thing that struck me was just how robust you have to make wave machines, because the biggest likely wave is so much bigger than the average wave but the machine must not be wrecked by that freak huge destructive wave.
Tidal stream energy ( ignoring the big estuary blocking schemes) can have machines in predictable tidal streams that can be far enough under the surface not to worry about the range of waves up above and can be based on Wind Turbine type technology but with much smaller turbines for the same power output.
There are a limited number of really good sites with large tidal flows, but they are consistent, predictable and usually found near land (if not near centres of population)
If the estuary sites where there have been aspirations for decades to build huge estuary blocking dams were to be to be equipped with free standing tidal turbines, we could be getting energy now and building up expertise in this area without the huge capital spend.
Unfortunately for wave power, the engineering and mass of materials required to build, maintain the machines and to make them strong enough to survive, and looks too expensive to provide an acceptable renewable energy investment,
My study concluded that tidal power should have a niche future but wave-power probably doesn’t.
There are also other problems.
Tidal power is intermittent which would make it difficult to utilize. Also, sea water is very corrosive which would make it difficult to design tidal power systems that would be reliable over a long life. That is difficult enough with ships. Then to, marine organisms would be likely to foul the systems and make them less efficient.
It might be worthwhile to continue research on such systems because occasionally something that seems impractical does work out well, but it would be a mistake to rely on an unproven technology.
Geothermal power is another possibility, but so far it is questionable whether it could be economically feasible on a large scale.
One of the problems with both wind and solar energy is that they are inconsistent. The sunsets at night, the sky can be cloudy for days, and the wind doesn’t always blow with enough force.
High costs, calm days and clouds are stalling solar and wind’s future say more and more energy experts.
Maybe the future of climate friendly energy won’t have as much to do with wind and solar energy as recent booms in those technologies seem to suggest. Unless of course we find practical and cost effective ways of backing up wind and solar.
Clouds and calm days are making the alternative energy stars merely bit players in a clean power future where round-the-clock dependability is critical. There is a lot of talk surrounding alternative energy sources these days. There are many different types of renewables, biomass, wind, solar, hydroelectric, and even geothermal heat pumps, to name just a few,, two types have risen to prominence in many countries including the solar cells and wind turbines. Some opponents of these renewable energy sources point out that wind and solar power combined currently provides less than 1% of America’s energy needs. But electric power generated by wind turbines has risen to over two times the amount produced just five years ago and photovoltaic solar cells now generate sixteen times the amount produced ten years ago!
There is much talk about alternative energy sources these days. Although there are several different types of renewables, biomass, wind, solar, hydroelectric, and even geothermal heat pumps, to name just a few,, two types have risen to prominence in many countries including the U.S.: solar cells and wind turbines. Some opponents of these renewable energy sources point out that wind and solar power combined currently provides less than 1% of America’s energy needs. But don’t let this fool you. America’s capacity to harness these energy sources is rapidly growing and will continue to do so. Electricity generated by wind turbines has risen to two and a half times the amount produced just five years ago. Photovoltaic solar cells now generate sixteen times the amount produced ten years ago!
Geothermal heat pumps are very useful, but it is questionable whether they should be considered to be an energy source. Perhaps it’s just a matter of semantics.
Geothermal heat pumps can be a more efficient way to heat and cool houses and other buildings, but they do take power from an external source to operate, usually from the grid. Their advantage is that they take less power to operate than air-source cooling, electric resistance heating, and gas heating. Their use is limited by the cost of the tubing and digging required, but sometimes air sourced heat pumps can be practical.
There’s a reason these two particular green energy sources have been growing so fast. Other green energy sources, like gas captured from landfills and hydroelectric dams are limited by geography. There are only so many landfills to tap into, and a limit to the number of rivers that can be used. Geothermal heat pumps, solar cell arrays, and wind farms, in contrast, can be built almost anywhere. Sure, some locations are better than others. The Southwestern US gets more sun and the Great Plains gets stronger, steadier winds-but the truth is the sun shines, the wind blows, and the earth is warm no matter where you are. Geothermal heat pumps, however, are more difficult and expensive to construct. This leaves solar and wind energy as the power sources most economically to capture and turn into electricity and it would help if there were better ways to back up these sources when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining.
Opponents of alternative energy would have us believe that as soon as the sun goes behind a cloud or the wind stills, our homes would be blacked out. Currently, coal-fired power plants generate electricity by burning coal to turn water into steam, which is then used to drive electrical turbines. The electricity generated by these turbines is fed directly into the power grid, where it is distributed. Under this arrangement, if one (or, worse, several) power plants shut off, nearby towns would indeed be without power. The huge blackout of the Northeast USA a few years ago is a prime example. This is not, however, how a solar array and wind turbine electrical networks operate. Instead of the power grid being hooked up directly to the solar arrays and wind turbines as it is now, it could be hooked up instead to massive battery banks that store electricity or it could be backed up with dispatchable resources such as biomass, coal and municipal wastes and many other opportunity fuels. Batteries could be constantly recharged by solar arrays and wind turbines and provide short term backup while biomass furnaces are being ramped up. Under this system, the battery banks would feed a smooth, continual flow of electricity onto the power grid. Even if the wind is still at times, the battery banks could continue to feed power to the grid from their stored reserves of electricity for a time until the biomass furnaces take up the slack or the wind or sun rises again.
Biomass Could Reach 60% of Total Global Renewable Energy Use by 2030
Combined biomass, coal, solar and wind power proposed
Wind would be the primary source of energy backed up by biomass furnaces to make up the shortfall.
July 21, 1999
(ENN) — A Lawrence, Kan., man has conceptualized an energy system that combines the power of the wind and the burning of biomass, such as municipal waste and agricultural waste. The system, he said, could help remedy climate change woes.
“Such a system could call up solid fuels to back up wind when the wind isn’t blowing strongly,” said Les Blevins, president of Advanced Alternative Energy Corp.
Blevins has yet to construct the system and will not release complete details of how the system works until he has secured patents for the technology. In 1993, he secured a patent for the biomass portion of the system he calls the Sequential Grates System.
Blevins said energy would primarily be generated through wind turbines until the wind drops and at that time system operators would dispatch the biomass burning furnaces to make up the shortfall.
“I’m envisioning a power plant that can take municipal solid waste and turn it into clean energy and return it to the community,” he said. Such a system could exceed 80 percent efficiency, compared to just 32 percent efficiency for conventional fossil fuel electricity systems such as coal-fired power plants.
Blevins believes his technology is adaptable for both developing and developed nations. “It is clean, highly efficient, low cost, modular, scalable, expandable and provides waste disposal and energy independence,” he said.
According to Blevins, the technology is also applicable in the fight to slow and even prevent climate change. Renewable energies, such as wind power and biomass produce much less, if any, carbon dioxide, which is the most prevalent greenhouse gas. Blevins believes his concept can double the number of wind and solar installations around the world. On the following page is pictured a Combined Wind and Biomass Farm near the town of Pincher Creek, Alberta which would work in many parts of the U.S Plains states as well as elsewhere in the world.
I am in total agreement with the article. However (at the risk of being thought of as a kook) I too have a wave energy converter prototype parked in my yard. Only took it for an “unofficial” test drive once and as expected it had some quirks, but still showed some promise. The nagging thing for me ever since my initial concept while surf sailing the Oregon coast in the 80’s was: What if it got into the hands of say Exxon (or some other “evil”) with a very bad environmental track record? Do we really need more or do we need to learn to conserve better?
Other than possibly some resilient small scale technologies, I hope we leave the oceans alone and put more emphasis on storage of the intermittent wind and solar.
I should explain that a) I think it’s cool that you are working to develop hydrokinetic technologies, b) that they can certainly make a contribution, and c) my whole premise here, i.e., that these technologies are doomed, might be incorrect.
Indeed I like dancingcreek2015’s assertion about the article–together with his very own unique contributions to the future energy prospects or promise. . .(or what one-eye naysayers would call “debacle”).
As a co-adherent in the science foretelling of a looming climate-engendered catastrophe, in the event we persist in allowing the present runaway carbon pollution, I consider as noteworthy anyone lending personal, practical support to this greatest of all challenges ever to hit the earth since mankind escaped the primeval nook to tinker with the elements that eventually made him, amongst unwieldy forces a quadrillion time more powerful than he, the equal of gods (with a not-too-small “g”).
. . . and c) my whole premise here, i.e., that these technologies are doomed, might be incorrect.
And also, CS, I’m glad you penned the above point in the fine lines about your first categorizations. Perhaps if history itself had had such “positive” prevarications to counter the natural hesitations that oft attend the birth of the “novel,” humanity would have even now been on a trajectory farther and higher than this shaky pedestal that’s even giving under our feet.
Do we remember what the experts and men-of-letters and known pundits and speakers and interpreters of the languages of supreme deities (etc, etc!) said to Christopher Columbus 6 or so hundreds years ago before the young man embarked on that “insane” voyage? Yes, the understudies of these dinosaurs are yet with us today, and it’s a horrendous pity! For now it’s not “spices” or the market value of of a salable produce that’s of concern to the great world empire. LIFE itself is at stake and thus the clarion call for all to chip in their bit of labor and or understanding.
And of course, for socioeconomic and much more relevant humanitarian demands, the need for renewables is more urgent in certain regions than others. In Africa, where I am from (and live), the following stat is true:
“…600 million people, 70% of the population of sub-Saharan Africa is without electricity.”
Do we begin to visualize wholesale dislocations of populations with glazed eyes in search of the resources that cloth life itself in comfort and warmth? I mean the disillusioned mass huddled in habitations that are nothing other than virtual ghettos? And the atrophy of the human spirit? (I could go on and on and on forever, but let’s break off here with doom and gloom.)
And so my work (and belief) in the renewable universe, no matter that certain of the ideas would be half-baked “jests.”
I should also say that it’s dubious that massive amounts of storage are going to be required for large-scale penetration of renewables. At least that’s what Amory Lovins believes, as he presents here: http://2greenenergy.com/2015/05/24/amory-lovins-40-year-energy-plan/. FWIW, I find this compelling.
I don’t particularly enjoy being disagreeable, which is why I am happy to agree with much of the article.
But I also notice that the analysis of projects is based upon the market potential. The “low hanging fruit” would be something that seems to fill a void in the market.
There are other ways of looking at an idea. You can see some different approaches in crowdfunding appeals. Sometimes the idea is pitched to appeal to a human interest rather than a market interest. This is particularly true of something that fascinates or dazzles us. Often the pitch for funding is also marketing the product.
I know a highly successful European entrepreneur. He started with an idea he acquired in California for a diet. He promoted the diet until it became a fad. And then he supplied the ingredients for the diet. Eventually it was so successful that he found it necessary to buy up the world’s supply of a product. in this way some products can be successful through promotion and cultivated interest. Tesla’s home battery seems a bit like this. Who would even have considered buying batteries for their homes 30 years ago.
Now some are considering generators and Tesla’s label makes a battery look like an interesting alternative to a generator. Co-generation fuel cells will likely gain some from this momentum. A real sleeper would be an affordable absorption cooling system that can turn heat into cool air that could then be used to make co-generation affordable in hot climates.
Yet another analysis is the motivation of the promoter or inventor. A good advocate can turn a dud into a dazzler. Unfortunately some people confuse interest in their own product with the interest potential purchasers. They are not good readers.
And then you get the sharks. These are the people who see the popularity and think that with so many fish they should be able to reel one in. Sometimes “the fish” are attracted to the lure of anything with renewable in the title.
I agree that we need to be careful with our labels and snap judgements; that was the point I was trying to make here: http://2greenenergy.com/2015/05/28/a-lesson-from-linus-pauling/.
I doubt that tidal energy can really become cost effective against onshore wind and solar PV until there is a switch to floating taut tethered turbines lying just below wave action zone. This is now being looked at in Japan and in UK a little. The prototype heavy seabed structures being deployed in tidal flow streams in France, Canada and Scotland now are just too big and costly. Floating Wave Energy Converters [WECs] could always end up being too expensive on their own in my view. The current LCOE numbers are just far too high. Offshore wind Horizontal Axis 3 bladed turbines are basically onshore turbines put in the water. Those projects in Europe (UK and Germany) are still entirely subsidy dependent. The move towards floating wind structures, either semi-sub steel, floating spars or Tension Tethered [TLP] is gaining ground. Sandia Labs are looking at this over 2012 to 2107. The only way in my view floating TLP wind can be cheaper than benchmark onshore wind and Solar PV is to go floating at WD > 40 m in combination with a linear damping wave converter acting as a damper to floating Vertical Axis [VAWT] wind structure movements. This can have the advantage of getting an extra block of energy from the same vertical linear structure tied down on stiff buoyancy under the water. This could do well in high wind, high wave environments in the Atlantic and be genuinely as cheap as Solar PV/Onshore Wind LCOEs – eventually.
Energy saved by RS counter wheigt their limitations as intermittancy, cost, and diffculties to connect them to high voltage transimission system. However these limitations are hopefully to be solved in the next few years as energy storage systems are investigated by a large scale to be used in a smart power systems.
Craig,
Yes, deliberate fraudsters are annoying. Not just because of the inherent cruelty of loss when the victim is an individual, but frauds make it that much harder for genuine, worthwhile projects to secure funding for R&D and commercialization.
Wind, Solar, Wave, Bio-fuels, Geo-thermal, and lots of other alternate energy technologies, are valid subject for research.
Some, particularly Geo-thermal and Solar, are finding applications where they can make a valuable contribution to the production of energy.
No sensible person would argue that research and development of these technologies isn’t a laudable, and positive contribution to human progress and civilization.
But that’s a long way from advocating the immediate adoption of these immature, technologies in preference to existing energy supplies. Equally irresponsible, is advocating the premature abandonment of existing energy generation, without economically valid replacement technologies.
Every day I receive proposals from hopeful advocates, most of whom require society to re-arrange itself to suit some new alternate energy solution. What always amazes me is the tremendous amount time these people spend on researching the technical and idealistic aspects, of their pet projects, and how little time they have spent on understanding the needs and motivations of potential customers.
They seem to inhabit an alternate universe, where the complexities economics and convenience, don’t exist.
No environmental progress can be achieved without a strong, confidant economy.
In his book, ” Economic after the Crisis: Objectives and Means ” , Lord Adair Turner, (former chairman of the UK Financial Services Authority, President of Cambridge Union, banker at Merrill Lynch, etc) rejects two of the most fundamentals of modern economy theory ie: a) continuous improvement in material wealth, as measured by GDP, is good
B) The free market, especially the financial services sector, is the best allocator of resources.
He illustrates his argument with the example “One winter coat keeps you warm; two winter coats don’t keep you warmer, but gives you a second-order benefit of fashion and style,” !
Since becoming retired and Tony Blair created him a Life Peer ( Baron Turner of Ecchinswell ), Addy, has become very noble and altruistic. (perhaps it’s all that time he spent at Cambridge).
He misses the point. civilizations, are built on surplus. It’s not the importance of “owning’ two coats, but making two coats, and the variety of two, three different coats for different occasions, that is essential to a civilized economy, and culture.
That’s why it’s important that the alternate energy industry should continue the compete for a place at the table, with older more conventional energy sources. But, although government incentives can play an important role in the development and establishment of alternate energy, governments can’t interfere on a permanent basis.
The overall economic must remain a sound, and realistic structure, free from aesthetic considerations,
” There are billionaires on this planet who are working hard to expand their net worth further by purchasing on Congress and disseminating lies that protect business practices that they know full well are causing incalculable levels of death, destruction and suffering. I have no more reservation about tagging this as “evil” than I do in giving the same label to the Nazis, the KKK, ISIS, or . They’re all rooted in a morality that is completely unsupportable.”
They KKK, ISIL, Boko Haram, are certainly nasty, vicious organizations, they are really just crazy, pathetic fools, fearful of the modern world, and yearning for a yesteryear, that should never have existed.
However, the knowing adherents of Hiltler, Stalin, Mao, Pot Pot etc, were truly evil monsters. My objection to your equation of their activities to a vague illusion about unnamed ” billionaires” disregard for the environment , is that it trivializes the monstrosity of the truly evil, the suffering of the victims, and denigrates the huge sacrifice of lives lost to suppress this evil.
Your assertion is the same as the disgusting reference to climates change skeptics, as being ” deniers” the intention being to put skeptics in the same category, as holocaust deniers.
I guess as time goes by, the truly frightening evil these monsters sought to create, is receding in the public consciousness. My fear is that if the lessons are forgotten, or diluted by careless usage, that evil may one day return.
That’s a fair statement.
Charles and David Koch are names that come to mind.
Craig,
As you can see from Cameron’s reaction, there’s real danger in equating two very conservative businessmen famous for their opposition to leftist economic theories and advocates of climate change, with the truly evil aspects of totalitarian monsters.
Both Charles and David Koch, may not share Cameron’s political views, or philosophies, but that’s not a crime.
Neither of the Koch brothers have ever espoused, or endorsed, any of the ‘evil’ activities of the regimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot.
In fact, the worst that can be said of these two elderly men, is they belong to a past era.
Both men hold master’s degrees in chemical engineering. Both are typical of that uniquely American type of cantankerous, old fashioned, “libertarian” political view of the world.
Both men have exercised their constitutional right to political activism. While it’s true that the brothers are major donors to conservative think tanks, and fund scientific research by skeptics and even opponents of the ‘consensus’ view of climate change, that’s neither “evil” nor “criminal,” but a right guaranteed by the US Constitution.
The Koch’s are also the largest single contributors to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), (the donation quoted as being, “substantially more than the Kochs have contributed to all political candidates combined for at least the last 15 years”).
They also gave a $25 million grant to the United Negro College Fund, the ASPCA etc.
They vehemently opposed the introduction of the Patriot Act, and other legislation restricting individual freedoms.
It’s true the industries owned by the Koch brothers, are by their nature, among the most environmentally problematic. However, the products produced by those industries are essential to both the US economy, and civilization.
It’s also reasonable to assume that the brothers opposition to the growth of environmental regulation, stems from self interest. The Koch’s wealth provides them with a potentially much louder voice than other citizens (although, wealth alone seems ineffective, or Mitt Romney would be President).
But far more dangerous, are attempts to silence opposition from such citizens as the Koch Bros.
The Koch bros, have a right to question climate change orthodoxy. Trying to silence opposition by announcing “the debate is over”, and preventing free speech (even free thought) is very dangerous. Champions of Climate change orthodoxy, such as Professor Richard Parncutt , Adam Weinstein etc, are still highly respected, despite advocating:
“Climate change ‘deniers’ should be executed,” and “I believe that it’s time the death penalty be re-introduced as an appropriate punishment for influential GW deniers “.
“Denialists should face jail. They should face fines. They should face lawsuits from the classes of people whose lives and livelihoods are most threatened by denialist tactics,” The people, should be hurt. They should understand that if they endanger the planet, they, and their families, must be ruthlessly eliminated. ”
True evil, seldom comes from wealthy old curmudgeons, advocating antiquated beliefs, and upholding the right of free speech. True evil, usually comes with a far more subtle face. The face of the populist, who masks his own twisted paranoia, and insecurity, by telling you what you want to hear!
The populist fanatic, takes what is essentially good and benign, and creates absolutism. It’s in that absolutism, that fanatics can grow and create their own reality, where even the most monstrous deeds can be perpetrated in a distorted reality.
Evil begins by ‘demonizing” opponents, strengthens with intimidating all dissension, grows with the ‘righteous’ persecution of heretics, and comes to full bloom with the “dehumanizing’ of even mild doubters.
No, the Koch brothers aren’t ‘evil’, the evil lurks within each of us. It’s just waiting for a “righteous cause” to be released.
You’re a very smart guy, and there is a lot of truth here.
You have some bizarre perspectives though. Maybe our disagreement on some of this turns on the definition of the word “evil,” which obviously is a charged term. Let’s say that I’m “not too thrilled” with the moral character of people whose life work is enriching themselves at the expensive of the health and safety of the other seven billion of us. If you prefer “warped” or “twisted” or “pathologically selfish,” those are 100% fine as replacements.
The Koch brothers are the two fiercest opponents of clean energy, and most powerful proponents of coal on the planet. Coal: the substance that’s doing far more damage to our health and ecosystems than any other substance on Earth. What type of person is that? You tell me.
And btw, it’s not that I hate billionaires; there are plenty of people with $40 billion in net worth who are using their money for good.
Craig,
While, I don’t necessarily agree with the attitudes or opinions of guy’s like the Koch brothers, I can understand some of their point of view.
Naturally, I don’t think may opinions are bizzare. (a little analytical maybe).
There will always be an argument between the rich and poor. (Well, mostly between the rich and the moralizing middle ).
There is no question that all industrial activity, must be subject to public scrutiny, and governments have a duty of care to their citizens, to establish strict environmental regulations to prevent avoidable pollution.
You may argue that the Koch brothers, are “warped” or “twisted” or “pathologically selfish,”.
They may respond, with equal justification, that it’s you who are selfish, and bound up in self-righteous moralizing.
The Koch’s can point to the employment they provide for 150, 000 families directly, and millions more indirectly. They could point out that most of their “wealth” is tied up in the enterprises that produce the wealth and prosperity the nation depends upon. What you call, “pathologically selfish”, they would call “responsibility “.
They would argue that while they enjoy the use of no more government services, (probably less) than you, the pay more tax in an hour, than you will pay in a lifetime! Why is that fair ?
They would argue that that the “welfare or nanny state”, only results in dull mediocrity, impoverishment, stagnation and wasted lives. They would argue (with considerable truth) that the “peoples republics of the old eastern block” created pollution on a scale unimaginable in the “evil” west, with all those “evil” billionaires !
They would argue, that their political philosophy, may seem harsh to some, it’s at least based on the dignity of individual rights. The Koch would argue, that at least they protect and encourage the right of their critics to free speech. Could you have said the same of the old GDR or the National Socialists ?
It’s all a question of perspective.
While I may not agree with the views espoused by Charles and David Koch, if that’s the most extreme of the “Climate Skeptics” , then there is little to fear !
Far more dangerous, are those fanatical climate change extremists, who would shut down all debate. I have witnessed the havoc wrought, and lives lost, by adherence to the proposals of such fanatics !
Craig, like you I’m politically a moderate. I can appreciate that most philosophies, contain some merit. What I require from any public expenditure, is effectiveness.
Ideologues should pursue their agenda’s, with their own money, not the taxpayers.
OTEC, though not a ocean current extractor, could displace the heat of the surface waters (which are melting the icecaps) into the deep via a refrigerant. It would seem that on a large scale, these machines are economically doable (because they’d deliver 24/7 power). Obviously not a serious contender at this time, however, I believe that there is a little bit of evil involved by inaction to promote any clean 24/7 energy source for the obvious reason of eternally propping up the old fossil fuel “lords”.
Batteries to store solar and wind will “always” be just out of reach to be competitive with “load following coal” and NG.
Molten salt nuclear will always be too much of a liability to compete (even though on a scientific level, less dangerous than conventional nuclear) What’s his name at the NRC doesn’t want any new research on it because of BAU (or he’s a communist that hates American industrialism). And fusion is probably already available – you know the old saying – it’ll always be 20 years away. Eventually, “they’ll” come out and say FUSION! – but it’s way too costly 🙁 Meanwhile, there’ll probably be “fusion on a chip” – trillions of them.
To which, a tinsy bit of radiation will cause outright denial all over again.
The ONLY solution is a well (intellectually) armed populace.