For Better or Worse, Politics Is Central To the Success of Renewable Energy and Environmental Stewardship More Generally
Regarding my piece “How the Media Is Ruining the United States,” a reader goes off on me, beginning as follows: “Geez … an anti-Trump rant that has excessive liberal bias helps me grow my knowledge about green energy –how?”
I would simply say that a Trump presidency would set the world back several decades in terms of clean energy, environmental stewardship, and the other related good things that 2GreenEnergy and (most of) its readers advocate. If this were just a minor kerfuffle in politics I would have let it slide; in fact, I would stay out of the realm of politics completely if it weren’t such an important driver of change for the better or worse.
I’m aware that this offends some people, and I try not to be deliberately offensive. Here, however, it’s unavoidable, and it’s an acceptable cost in my maintaining my integrity as a human being.
Craig for you or any others to complain so vehemently (in advance of an event happening) and in this case a particular political candidate that might be voted by the United States electorate into a high public office, is an attack directly and specifically aimed at [1] the US voting public in its entirety; and [2] all of those public administrative bodies; societies; institutions; universities; etc. that collectively over time have built and shaped the democratic character of the US nation and its values.
It is a complaint that demonstrates no faith in; no respect for; or confidence in, fellow citizens [particularly electors] of the US, by the complainants.
Craig you have the air of an academic at times but if so you should be able to bring an air of professional detachment to this subject, and espouse in simple terms [no hype or vitriol] the strengths and virtues that underpin the principles of US electoral democracy in your commentary.
There is no justification whatsoever to focus exclusively on the candidate per se. The discussion should [and will ultimately] come back to “let’s hear the policy detail”.
Never forget, ordinary people as individuals have their own way of evaluating where and why and in whom they place their trust in leadership roles. And we have all learned over a long time, leadership is not a precision mathematical formula, it is one subject to many checks and balances along the way, and importantly if it doesn’t seem to work out to well, then there are processes available to all have another go at improving it. That’s life, that’s politics, that’s democracy.
I appreciate your viewpoint, and you are at least partially right: I have a new-found disdain for the US voting public. Until a few weeks ago, I had no idea that I was living my life surrounded by so many ignorant and hateful people. This is going to take some getting used to.
But now, back to the matter at hand: helping businesspeople effect the rapid migration to clean energy and sustainability more generally.
Again, thanks for your comments.
Thanks. I would also comment that I do not “attack directly and specifically the US voting public in its entirety.” Fortunately, Trump supporters are a minority whose numbers will decline between now and November as people wake up to the catastrophic impact that such an event would wreak on the US and the rest of the world.
Neither do I attack “all of those public administrative bodies; societies; institutions; universities; etc.” I guess I could say that our educational system has let us down, but that’s hardly controversial.
Lawrence,
My attitude towards Trump and the confluence of circumstances which have led to his almost certain nomination is almost identical to Craig’s. I have other differences with Craig about which there are no secrets, but Trump is not one of them.
On the other hand, we don’t know exactly what would happen in the unlikely event of Trump’s election. As I see it, he is putting on a show for the media. It is conceivable, although perhaps barely so, that if he were actually elected, he might surround himself with level headed advisors and not do too much damage. On the other hand, it could be an unqualified disaster.
Mrs. Clinton is not my first choice for president, but that’s another matter.
Craig I understand, but we should remain mindful that “ignorance and hatefulness” are not hard wired genetic traits of people [including electors]. They are of course acquired negative characteristics, the foundations which can often be related back to the quality of “social policy” implemented over time by our elected leadership.
To some that might seem to be a conundrum – but looking forward I see it to be a salutory and positive lesson.
So what’s all this got to do with Clean Energy policy going forward? well just about everything. So you are right on this point.
Politics is not the only thing that is central to the success of renewable energy. The laws of physics and the current unavailability of practical and adequate energy storage systems are more of a problem, especially considering that the laws of physics must be accepted as they are because they are unchangeable.
Currently the cost of energy storage would greatly exceed the cost of capturing renewable power. Thus, even if the cost of wind and solar systems were ZERO there would still be a problem for which no solution has yet been found. The discussions in the following link cover that quite thoroughly:
https://bravenewclimate.com
The discussions go into the amount of storage which would be required to assure reliable power, the materials required, how much it would cost, etc.
There are niche situations in which wind, solar, or hydro systems are the best solution, but that does not include providing for the power needs of most large countries. With current technology, only nuclear power can do that without emitting CO2. And, because we have unfortunately and negligently neglected adequate nuclear power R & D for decades, we are temporarily saddled with a nuclear power technology that costs more than necessary, requires multiple layers of safety systems, and which generates far too much nuclear waste. But considering the probable horrors of global warming, we have little choice but to expand it as fast as possible until a superior nuclear technology becomes available.
In 15 years France went from zero nuclear power to 80% nuclear power for electricity. That would be impossible to do with renewables without adequate energy storage for which the technology does not currently exist and may never exist. If there are actually attempts to expand renewables at that rate, the problems will quickly become inescapably obvious by which time the delay in dumping fossil fuels is likely to result in considerable damage to civilization.
Lawrence makes a valid point when he complains that passionate commitment can spill over into an arrogant disdain for fellow electors, the constitution and the system of democratic representative government.
Without realizing it, even a well intention person can convince themselves that a national crisis has arisen that justifies the vilification of those how don’t agree with their agenda.
Lacking respect and acceptance of the decision by the majority of the electorate justifies changing the rules to ensure only one agenda prevails. (This is always justified by claiming it’s in the “peoples ” best interests).
The challenge to democracy doesn’t always come from power seeking demagogues, but also from well-meaning people who have become just too passionate about a particular ideology or agenda, and in their righteousness seek to remove the liberties of others while still claiming it’s in the public good !
It’s also counter-productive to combine environmental issues with other political agenda’s. In Australia as with many other nation, “Green” political parties have slowly transformed into a socialist left. The parties have gained strength and supporters as a result be attracting voters from the traditional centre-left parties.
As a result the “Greens” have remained marginalized, but weakened the moderate left vote. Rightist factions have also gained strength at the expense of more moderate conservatives due to a fear of the agenda of the newly extreme Green-left coalition.
IMO no democracy is enhanced by weakening the moderate centre and concentrating on bitter warfare between extremists.
Worse, the result of such bitter internecine conflict weakens the ability of of any society to co-operate with the implementation of programs with genuine benefit to all citizens.
I think it dangerous to feel disdain and contempt for “hate filled ” people. ( better to feel sorry for their misjudgment and pain, but respect them as fellow citizens and voters).
The danger comes from labeling people as worthy for contempt and disdain. Sooner or later this attitude extends to everyone who doesn’t adhere to a particular political or philosophic viewpoint.
The next step becomes to blame the object of disdain for making it necessary to de-humanise them, and that allows you to disqualify them as equals.
Now we all know where this process leads. The human race has been down this paths so many times, and it never ends well.
Your point, that political rants and renewable energy don’t mix with one another, is one that you’ve made literally dozens of times over the past few years. Don’t you find it tiresome?
Craig,
Tiresome ? Well I suppose so, but then that’s the should a counter-productive practice go unchallenged for fear that opposition be considered repetitious ?
“Political rant’s and renewable energy don’t mix”, isn’t the real problem. Obviously there will always be a certain degree of political debate required in implementing renewable energy programs.
My point is that demanding every environmental issue from climate change to renewable energy be interpreted through the narrow prism of any political ideology, is counter-productive.
Counter-productive because it sacrifices broad support by excluding all those sympathetic to positive environmental and renewable energy reform, but unwilling to join a political crusade with a wider social agenda.
Counter-productive because it distracts focus and dissipates energy from positive environmental action.
IMHO, the phenomenon of Donald Trump, can be attributed to the voice of protest from a huge number of people who feel excluded by professional politicians and a disconnected political process.
While Donald Trump certainly has no answers, he vocalizes the discontent of people who feel excluded and treated with disdain by elitist crusaders of the left and right. These folk don’t want grandiose ideology, or endless internecine fighting.
It’s my belief that the both the GOP and the Democrats have failed the vast majority of Americans. Instead of listening to the real concerns of the American people, both sides have become intoxicated with the high drama of political advocacy, and grandiose crusades.
The vast majority of the American people simply want good governance, sound economic policy, and a restoration of the national optimism which made America a nation of achievers.
Elon Musk tapped into this sentiment, not because he “hates” General Motors, but because Tesla inspires in a way General Motors and Ford once did !
Anyone contemptuously writing off Trump supporters as just ignorant rednecks, is making a bad mistake. It’s exactly that sort of sanctimonious political conceit that produces such populist demagogues.
My plea is for more inclusive environmental policies, that can accommodate and inspire the co-operation of the widest number of citizens.
Thanks. I agree with 90% of this–not too bad. 🙂
According to this post on bravenewclimate.com, PV panels require so much energy to manufacture them that that energy may not be recouped during their lifetime:
*******
Euan Mearns has a new post on Energy Matters: http://euanmearns.com/the-energy-return-of-solar-pv/
A new study by Ferroni and Hopkirk [1] estimates the ERoEI of temperate latitude solar photovoltaic (PV) systems to be 0.83. If correct, that means more energy is used to make the PV panels than will ever be recovered from them during their 25 year lifetime. A PV panel will produce more CO2 than if coal were simply used directly to make electricity.
Ferruccio Ferroni and Robert J. Hopkirk 2016: Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI) for photovoltaic solar systems in regions of moderate insolation: Energy Policy 94 (2016) 336–344 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516301379
*********
I’m in no position to evaluate this. However, I don’t thing that it should be dismissed without adequate research. I suggest following the links and reading the complete articles.
What a nauseating experience it is to come across climate denier BS propaganda like this. The EROI of solar PV, though not a straightforward calculation, is about 6 for regions of moderate solar irradiation. Please see http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/eroi-behind-numbers-energy-return-investment/ and check out the rigor with which the numbers are derived.
That is not climate denier BS!
If the article’s links are actually read, it will be clear that they are NOT climate change deniers! Rather, they fully except climate change. They are simply questioning whether PV systems in MODERATE CLIMATES can actually contribute to reducing CO2 emissions. Obviously the results would be different for tropical climates, or even if tropical climates were included in the calculations.
Although the EROI calculations may be questionable, one of the links indicates how carelessly some PV installations are made. The panel orientations are commonly so far off that the output of the PV systems is far less than would be the case with proper orientation. Even if one disagrees with the EROI calculations, there is plenty of real and useful information in the links.
The small portion of The Scientific American link devoted to PV power is based on a study done by Raugei et al. It would have been better to site that study itself rather than site an article that simply referenced that study.
Here is a portion of an article in sciencedirect:
“A positive aspect of most renewable energies is that the output of these fuels is high quality electricity. A potential draw back is that the output is far less reliable and predictable. EROI values for PV and other renewable alternatives are generally computed without converting the electricity generated into its “primary energy-equivalent” (Kubiszewski et al., 2009) but also without including any of the considerable cost associated with the required energy back-ups or storage. EROI calculations of renewable energy technology appear to reflect some disagreement on the role of technological improvement.”
And the link:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513003856
Evaluating EROI clearly is not an easy thing to do considering what is included in the calculations. For example, as pointed out by the above quotation, if the need for storage is excluded, which is the usually situation, the EROI will be unrealistically high.
It is interesting that you linked to a Scientific American article. If one does a google search on “scientific american nuclear” one will find many Scientific American articles which assert that nuclear power is essential to reducing CO2 emissions to acceptable levels.
You are correct. I shouldn’t have referred to them as climate deniers. But the article is based on BS nonetheless. If you read through a few of the articles on the subject, you will find that the number that the Scientific American article quoted, that is, 6, is an approximate average of the figures.
There are a couple of other points that need to be made, though I suppose they do exist in both the articles you’ve quoted and Scientific American, that is, that calculating the energy return on investment for solar is not a straightforward task for a number of different reasons discussed in those articles. It’s also true that energy storage will be required when the penetration of solar becomes an order of magnitude or two larger than it is now.
By the way, I do not deny that nuclear energy may be required in order to get us to the low carbon footprint required to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change. This, as you can imagine, is a highly controversial issue.
I think that “order of magnitude” should be defined since I’m sure that many readers don’t know exactly how it is defined. I didn’t until I recently looked it up.
By definition, one order of magnitude means 10 times; two orders of magnitude means 100 times. So, for each order of magnitude, one adds a zero or moves the decimal point one place to the right. Thus, if solar penetration increases by one order of magnitude, it will generate about 10 times as much power as it does now, etc.
I don’t know how accurate this site is:
http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/11/solar-energy-will-produce-less-than-one-percent-of-us-power-in-2015/
But according to it, the percentage of solar power in the U.S. was projected to be less than 1% in 2015. It may be up to, or even greater, than 1% by now. Thus, if it increased by one order of magnitude, it would go up to approximately 10% which could probably be accommodated by various means without storage. If solar increased by two orders of magnitude, that would mean that solar systems would be capable of generating 100% of our power requirements which would be totally impossible without having huge amounts of storage or depending on fossil fuels for backup which would be unacceptable.
It is unclear exactly how much solar power could be accommodated without storage or fossil fuel backup, but 30% is probably a reasonable guess. Beyond that point, the cost of solar power would, unless some new storage technology becomes available, result in a rapid increase in the cost of electricity as more solar power is added. It would also result in a reduction of EROI.
Nuclear power would be less controversial if one of the function of the media were to inform the public rather than to maximize advertising revenue.
Yes, that is the definition of “order of magnitude.” And yes, the incursion of renewable energy onto our grid will not become an issue with respect to storage until it represents somewhere more than one order of magnitude larger than it is now.