![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bruortonI'm not a huge fan of the Silver Bullet Theory of crisis solution -- for example, that a single technology will save us from global warming. There are too many structural things that need to be changed for us to actually live within our means, habitat-wise; I also think that much of our structure itself needs to become decentralized, with everyone depending more on the food, energy, and community in the places they live.
That said, as far as large-scale power generation goes, concentrated solar power is the only thing I'd feel particularly inclined to support. I only happen to mention this because over lunch today I read an article describing the history and theory of CSP which included the amusing revelation that "Leonardo da Vinci's notebooks contain many designs for solar concentrators, including some for industrial purposes, because he worried about the destruction of the earth's vast forests in humanity's search for fuel." Gotta love that guy. 550 years old, and he still knows how to keep with the times.
That article, on the other hand, is a bit out of date. It was a link in an article today about the challenges to actually building these plants, one of which appears to be either Sen. Dianne Feinstein, or conservationists' concerns about building power plants in the fragile desert ecosystem... depending on how you look at it. Anyway, I really only bring this up to suggest (if reading about climate change issues appeals to you) to check out this blog in general. Joe Romm is one of those people who likes silver bullets, and wants to find ways for us to keep living more or less the way we do now, but nonetheless knows what's going on in the world of climate science, politics, and economics.
He's also the one who came up with my favorite line so far on the whole thing (I'm paraphrasing): "We're all Bernie Madoffs... we have constructed the grandest of Ponzi schemes, whereby current generations have figured out how to live off the wealth of future generations."
Now that's what I call staying on the rhetorical cutting edge.
That said, as far as large-scale power generation goes, concentrated solar power is the only thing I'd feel particularly inclined to support. I only happen to mention this because over lunch today I read an article describing the history and theory of CSP which included the amusing revelation that "Leonardo da Vinci's notebooks contain many designs for solar concentrators, including some for industrial purposes, because he worried about the destruction of the earth's vast forests in humanity's search for fuel." Gotta love that guy. 550 years old, and he still knows how to keep with the times.
That article, on the other hand, is a bit out of date. It was a link in an article today about the challenges to actually building these plants, one of which appears to be either Sen. Dianne Feinstein, or conservationists' concerns about building power plants in the fragile desert ecosystem... depending on how you look at it. Anyway, I really only bring this up to suggest (if reading about climate change issues appeals to you) to check out this blog in general. Joe Romm is one of those people who likes silver bullets, and wants to find ways for us to keep living more or less the way we do now, but nonetheless knows what's going on in the world of climate science, politics, and economics.
He's also the one who came up with my favorite line so far on the whole thing (I'm paraphrasing): "We're all Bernie Madoffs... we have constructed the grandest of Ponzi schemes, whereby current generations have figured out how to live off the wealth of future generations."
Now that's what I call staying on the rhetorical cutting edge.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
stayin' relevant
Date: 2009-03-25 05:50 am (UTC)Have you seen this article: http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/21747/
(don't know how to hyperlink in a comment)?
It discusses some of the structural changes you're talking about (I think), as well as some of the challenges midwestern developers have faced in generating their "own" power.
Your concerns with wind... birds 'n bats? noise? MW/acre? altering weather patterns?
I've been thinking about local/central generation lately, too. I wonder what differences there are in energy investment between installing/maintaining generation at several communities versus central hubs. I know that generating efficiency tends to increase with the size of the plant, but transmission over large distances has to wash that away at some point, no?
Re: stayin' relevant
Date: 2009-03-25 01:07 pm (UTC)As for wind, sure, those are issues the same way that highly toxic byproducts is a problem with the manufacture of materials for solar cells. The pragmatist in me, though, says we'll likely need to pay the price for all these options to head off catastrophic climate change in the next few decades (except for nuclear -- that's trading one long-term headache for an even longer one). So from that angle, this just looks like the best option in our portfolio.
But I didn't actually mean grid improvements when I referenced structural changes (though that is another one of the shorter-term pragmatic things that need doing). Besides decentralization of power production (as you say, a kind of physics trade-off) I'm talking about changing the scale we live at. For starters, we have to just use less power -- so conservation is probably as important a priority as getting any one new power source up and running.
But ultimately, its going to mean adapting our ways of life. When I say there's no silver bullet, I mean that there is no way to magically make sustainable a way of life that is simply unsustainable. As much as we want to convince ourselves otherwise (I actually read someone yesterday excited about a new cold fusion theory), there's just no power source that will continue to give us energy as cheaply and plentifully as we've gotten it from oil for the last 60-70 years; there's no new planet to mine for all the high-value minerals that we're rapidly depleting; there's no fertile new continent to discover to replace all of the priceless arable land we've destroyed and aquifers we've depleted.
We're hitting limits, even as we culturally demonize the very idea of limits. But our adaptations needn't seem harsh in the least. Would it be so bad to not spend hours of the day commuting, but living within walking distance of your workplace -- if that was in the context of an aesthetic residential area organized around a high-density town center? We've come so far from the civic art era of the last turn of the century that we've forgotten cities can be beautiful places to live.
Would it be unpleasant to get your food not wrapped in plastic from the sterile aisles of a supermarket, but from the hands of nearby farmers who produced it? Maybe to raise some of it yourself? Could you cope with eating only food that was in season where you live, and not from Brazil year-round? I could go on, but you get the point--and I'm not directing any of this at you personally, mind, it's what I'd like to say to everyone in our country. But I wanted to be sure you understood where I was coming from.
It hasn't even dawned on our nation at large just what a clusterf*ck our way of living is, not only for everyone else but for ourselves as well.
natch
Date: 2009-03-26 03:37 am (UTC)Thanks for the html tutorial. There's a handy hyperlink button I can use when writing an entry, but I don't see one to use when replying.
One of the nifty things about concentrated solar seems to be that it doesn't have to involve photovoltaics (though some do, I think). Others use the heat to spin a turbine (through steam, for example).
Understood, and I figured this is where you were coming from, but I appreciate the fleshing-out. We need structural changes in the very ways we go about living. How to thrive without growth looks to me like one of the bigger questions of our time.
I agree with your points and examples. I do think it's good to be open-minded about the possibility of advances that are beyond our current understanding and capability. History is full of smart people saying "it can't be done" (lightbulb, transistor). Of course that raises another good point: just because we can do it doesn't mean we should. We need to decide as a culture what additional requirements we would have for any future solutions (besides cheap and plentiful... wait, are those redundant? :) For now, we can hope for a soft landing using what we already know how to do, and in the meantime we should redefine the problem as a social one rather than a physical one. I imagine that technical progress in a newly defined social context might be more meaningful, anyhow.
I'm glad this isn't directed at me personally. I am conscientious about conservation, energy, where my food comes from, stuff like that. Not that I couldn't be doing more, I'm sure. There are dozens of farmers' markets and CSAs nearby and I should take more advantage of them. I, for one, have not forgotten that cities can be beautiful places to live. It would be nice if home and work were closer, but my commute is shorter than most (hopefully becoming shorter in the near future).
Re: natch
Date: 2009-03-26 01:59 pm (UTC)As I'm sure you get, I'm no foe of technology; as you say, I'm cautious about its trade-offs, but we need all our different kinds of human innovation to hold it together. I do like your point about technical progress in a different social context, too -- damn, it sounds like a great premise for a near-future sci-fi(?) novel.
And no, I didn't mean this to be about you, I just wanted to be sure you knew where I was on this because it's so central to who I am. I can't possibly ask any more of anyone than to wrestle with the ambiguity of their own compromises. It's all I can do too, to recognize the paradox of my existence -- that I could live on a fraction of my income (I met someone via my class last term who makes do with $5,000) and still be counted among the wealthiest fifth of the world's inhabitants.
And yet, I'm not about to do even that. It would take several Earths to support us all if everyone lived the way I do. I mean, shit, you know? But I'm still accepting all of this compromise, struggling to stay aware that my name is daily growing larger on the bill that is coming due.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-27 06:58 pm (UTC)This absolves them from the need to change their patterns of consumption and behaviour which helped to cause the problem in the first place...
no subject
Date: 2009-04-30 01:46 pm (UTC)Exactly!
Date: 2009-05-01 02:40 pm (UTC)