WastedEnergy

Topics on Energy, Resources, Waste and Culture

Archive for the ‘Climate Change’ Category

A Transitory Opportunity

Posted by wastedenergy on March 30, 2012

Anytime I’m about to say what I’m about to say, I feel it necessary to open with a qualifying statement:  Better to be half right than completely wrong.

So when it comes to comparing energy and transportation policies between the major political parties of the United States, it is very important to keep in mind that Republicans couldn’t have it more wrong.  Their notion of an energy policy is to remove all environmental barriers to fossil fuel production in ways that would have no impact on domestic supplies or prices while continuing to provide unneeded subsidies to old industries and systematically undercutting support for any alternatives.  In other words, they want you hooked on their patrons’ product, and they don’t want people entertaining any ideas about alternatives anytime soon.  What they want is for you to get steadily nickeled and dimed into oblivion so they can blame you for our nation’s financial ruin and use your subsequent reliance on the dole as excuse for even further cuts to the public services that provide some semblance of first-world civilization.  It’s just as bad as their positions on everything else.

Really, to anyone who claims to be too apathetic or disenchanted with the parties to vote, my response is to vote not for the meek and useless Democrats, but against Republicans, whose purely greed-based agenda that can only be described accurately as the absolute dark substance of evil incarnate, should they fully take the reins of power, will fuck you and everyone else so hard it will make your head spin and launch our pre-existing condition of an economic and environmental death spiral into overdrive.  Really, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

President Obama’s policy proposals are at least an improvement from those emanating from the Republican hive overmind, although this may be the definition of damnation with faint praise.  He and his party are essentially proposing to maintain the status quo for as long as possible, which is decidedly better than pushing to regress to 19th century policies for an interconnected world of over 7 billion people.  The non-Republican transportation bills floating around the Hill today wouldn’t completely shred a hundred years of environmental protections and would provide funding for infrastructure maintenance and add jobs instead of celebrating “firing government workers” like the leading Republican presidential candidate, while Obama has been on a bit of an energy kick lately, talking a lot about “wind, solar, biofuels and advanced batteries.”  Better than nothing?  Sure, but I can’t help but notice that not mentioned even once in any of the president’s recent speeches is the single most effective measure, far and away, that policymakers can take to reduce dependence on “foreign oil,” or any oil at all.

Anyone who bothers to take a serious look at transportation in the U.S. will readily be able to identify the root cause of why Americans feel so much “pain at the pump,” to use the tortured phrase, every time the price of oil inches upward: we drive too much.  For some reason, stating this obvious fact is anathema to anyone even in low earth orbit around the political establishment.  Challenging automobile culture is off limits, and the only meaningful way to do it, which goes by the name of “transit,” is a third rail in U.S. politics.  Maybe it’s just me and my zany green socialist inclinations again, but I think if you’re going to talk about transportation policy and oil dependence, the ideas you propose should have some bearing on the problem.

This is all because of you!

But wind and solar power, while fine ideas in themselves, are not even linked to transportation; biofuels are not scaleable, require massive subsidies and have probably already contributed to the global rise in food prices the last few years; and advanced batteries are, to be honest, still not ready for prime time and will only get you so far, both literally and figuratively; and even much more fuel-efficient vehicles still run on oil, and I have serious doubts that improvements in fuel economy can move fast enough keep up with depleting oil reserves and rising prices.  I do not expect technological revolutions in any of these areas in the near future that will suddenly make a serious difference.  A serious effort to electrify transportation infrastructure can and would.  How complicated is this, really?  There are a million excuses given as to why we can’t, shouldn’t or won’t build out electric rail systems in this country, all of them empty and all of them empirically disproven by the fact that we already did it in the first half of the 20th century!

This is the perfect opportunity to talk about something that actually will make a difference in addressing the root cause of the problem, but nobody will even mention it by name.  Someone tell me what’s going on here; what parallel universe are we living in here?  It’s like watching a baby smash its head against a brick wall!  Does anyone really think the climate for public investment is going to improve anytime soon?

Speaking of climate, is that even on anyone’s radar anymore?  Since when do we look at increased fossil fuel production as an unqualified good?  Maybe come summertime people will care again, if only for a brief moment.  The good news is that the window of time for caring grows longer and longer every year.

In any event, some will surely point out that what I have suggested is politically impossible in today’s environment; the idea of public transportation, or public anything for that matter, will be denounced as (gasp) socialism!  This may well be true, but it’s still a point worth making.  And maybe it is time to move on to other subjects now.  But I still just have this crazy feeling that won’t go away, and it tells me that just because the current officeholders and the teabag nation that elected them reside in La-La Land, that is no reason the rest of us should be forced to abandon all reason and adapt our ideas to fit more closely within their warped notion of how the world operates.

Posted in Climate Change, Energy Consumption, Energy Production, Urban Planning | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Palest Green

Posted by wastedenergy on April 6, 2011

Now that enough time has passed to witness what is really happening in Fukushima, I am ready to pass judgment. I notice a lot of other commentators offered their two cents up immediately, as if they could tell the full scale of the disaster from the first few hours. Not me, though. I knew something strange was afoot the instant it happened, but it’s important to keep in mind that one must always do the necessary homework before making ultimate determinations of value. Now that time has come.

The most common argument I see supposed “environmentalists” making in favor of “nuclear power” (which is a misnomer since it is actually a drain on energy over the long run) is that it is “better than coal.” “It’s carbon neutral,” they say, as if to suggest that were the only criterion that mattered, and also as if to ignore the full energy-consumptive effects of the nuclear fuel cycle from mining to ultimate disposal (it’s supposed to get disposed ultimately, right?). But the path to “clean” nuclear energy is laid with many other booby traps, and it takes an eye open to truth and closed to propaganda to catch them all.

In nature, the color yellow often means “Don’t touch me, I will hurt you.”

As I see things today, the quest for nuclear power, hailed as tomorrow’s energy source by those so obsessed with technocracy that they blind themselves to the big picture, represents better than almost any other story our civilization’s descent into madness. We have become truly power-obsessed, seeking cheap thrills today and tossing tomorrow to the winds. Let our children handle the nuclear waste, we keep saying. Well, the children have arrived, and they are ready to take the reins of power now, and we still aren’t any closer to figuring out what to do with this stuff, which keeps piling up in spent fuel pools vulnerable to release into the environment from earthquakes, volcanoes, meteor strikes, acts of sabotage, and all the other hazards that are a natural part of life on Planet Earth. So what makes today’s nuclear scientists so certain that tomorrow we will finally come up with the magic solution that will allow us to seal this stuff forever behind closed doors, especially if we continue to create even more? It’s time to stop kicking the can ever further down the road and face up to the reality we’ve created for ourselves.

Nuclear fission and radiation are natural parts of our existence. Decaying radioactive isotopes are what power the Earth’s geothermal heat, much like nuclear fusion powers radiation from the Sun. We tell ourselves there cannot be a hazard here since it is always around in one form or another. But we overdo it sometimes, and just as with oil depletion, we trick ourselves into thinking what we are doing is perfectly natural by suggesting “there’s always going to be some, so it can’t be so bad.” That is, once again, the continuum fallacy. We presume that just because we cannot draw a clear line between one phenomenon and its much larger version, that there must be no difference at all. The disaster at Fukushima, which has caused radiation levels to spike to millions of times background levels, has proven conclusively that there are real clear and ever-present dangers associated with even the most carefully operated nuclear power reactors, and the silver lining in the event is that it has brought these as well as the dangers associated with the back end of the nuclear cycle into the forefront of discussion and back into clear view. Such a perspective is necessary if we are to take an objective look at the advantages and drawbacks of our different energy options, something many players with vested political and economic interests are not particularly keen on seeing.

Which brings me back to my first point: why nuclear in the first place? Just because it’s “cleaner than coal?” Is that not the very definition of damnation with faint praise? I’m not so convinced, either way: coal power may release an awful lot of pollution and even radiation into the air and water, and it may destroy mountains, but how does strip mining uranium (also a depleting resource) not do the exact same thing? The best evidence I have seen (and believe me when I say it is not easy to come by) suggests we have perhaps fifty years of economically recoverable uranium at current rates of usage, which is to say there is no room for a nuclear “renaissance” from a resource standpoint in the first place, and even if there were, we would be looking at an energy source that becomes continually more and more expensive, even as most attempts to recycle nuclear waste have ended in failure for one reason or another ranging from expense to other brands of hazard. From a dark green rather than pale green perspective, where we are actually concerned with the sustainability and long-term viability of our civilization, it makes no difference whether you choose coal power or nuclear power. Both choices result in failure. Same goes for gas, or oil, or anything else from which you take faster than it can be replenished.

There will be more to say about the relative costs of these different choices, and why we don’t need any of them in the first place, but what we have here should be enough for now. Over and out.

My advice: get out of the radiation hot spot and pick something green instead.

Posted in Climate Change, Energy Consumption, Solid Waste | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Doctor Doom’s Lobotomy

Posted by wastedenergy on March 28, 2011

There are two ways to live in this world: the clean, efficient, sustainable way, and the dirty, low-net-energy, collapsitarian way. Which path is America and the world on right now?

If you’ve ever stood behind a truck or walked by a power plant, oil refinery, or shipyard, you know the answer already. There really is nothing quite like the smell of bunker fuel in the morning to get all the senses burning and your sense of righteous indignation at the chaotic forces of greed at work in the world today all fired up. Such experiences fuel a desire to seek out the culprits ultimately responsible for polluting not just the air, but also the airwaves, with dirty industrial byproducts, nasty messaging that seeks to advance an agenda of pure selfishness as virtue, and filthy political tricks that aim to disguise vested interests as legitimate grassroots activism.

Whence does such mischief arise? The answer, my friends, is quite simple: those with skin in the current game want to protect their own interests over those of humanity, by preventing the product they sell from being replaced with something newer, better, and far cleaner. It really is just that simple. So I’ve done my homework, I’ve pondered the message, and I’ve meditated on what is happening at great length, and I’ve finally made up my mind. I know exactly where to point the finger now, and just how to call them out: THESE are the droids you were looking for.

EVERYTHING they know is WRONG.

Orders of magnitude matter when it comes to sinning. I have referred on occasion to David and Charles Koch as “the Hitlers of our time,” not simply to make a rhetorical point vis-a-vis Godwin, but as a way of conveying the dire seriousness of the message that needs delivered to the people. If you didn’t know already, these guys have your number, and that of almost everyone else on the planet, but I have theirs too as it happens, and their area code is 666.

A little background, first, for the uninitiated: David and Charles Koch are the brains behind Koch Industries, aka the Kochtopus, a conglomerate mainly involved in the oil refining business, but also with tentacles deep in the paper and pulp industry, taking over formerly publicly owned utilities, and lobbying to reduce or even eliminate the authority of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. They would rather make a quick dime than worry about the medical bills piling up for their neighbors, but what matters even more than their direct pollution (which is vast) is that they seek to convert others to their cause, and they are extremely aggressive in doing so.

Have you ever heard of a little “movement” called the Tea Party? Not the original one in Boston, mind you, but the one that rolled through Washington a few months ago. Well, that was their doing in no small part, thanks to such Koch-money-funded organizations and “philanthropic” activities as Americans for Prosperity, the Reason Foundation (yes, the publisher of Reason Magazine), the Cato Institute, the Mercatus Institute, the David Koch Hall of Human Origins at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, hired hands to edit Wikipedia entries, and countless other propaganda mills cleverly disguised, to the untrained eye, as the doing of ordinary citizens just like you and me. They outdo even Exxon for funding junk science to deny the plain facts behind global warming, they want us all to be as addicted to oil and other dirty products as much as possible so they can squeeze us for every last penny we have, and they will stop at nothing to get their way. Let’s not be confused: these billionaires, they are the ones with the keys to the car that is our democratic republic, not you and me the average voter, and not only do they not know how to drive, but they are pushing us straight off a cliff called Peak Oil.

What I wonder most is this: how can these people not realize what they are doing, not only to everyone else, but to themselves as well, by preventing humanity from embracing the clean energy technologies of tomorrow, like wind, wave, and solar power, and by seeking to delay indefinitely the construction of our next generation of sustainable electric railroads that are our last best hope to cure our society’s oil addiction? How are they able to sleep at night knowing the blood of millions is already on their hands, and that should present climate change and oil dependence trends continue unabated, maybe even the blood of billions will be as well? Islands and glaciers are sinking into the sea, which is filling up with acid, killing off the coral reefs and plankton that form the basis for the Earth’s entire food chain, and in the meantime they continue to make us all sick by pouring poison into the skies, rivers, and soil. We are all eating Koch Industries’ detritus, so make sure you transmute that energy into something useful that will help take them down the next time you chow down on some oil-soaked shrimp.

Unlike certain others who seem to have far too much time on their hands and shall remain nameless, I do not expect David and Chuckie themselves to show up in this space to defend themselves, nor even to send their myriad foot soldiers this way to spew vile poison in the comment area on their behalf. I am not even on their radar; to them, I am less than nobody. But that works to our advantage: they are on your radar screen now, and mine too, and now you have their number as well. So now, what are we waiting for? Let’s kick some oily booty and even take some names too while we’re at it.

Posted in Climate Change, Solid Waste, The Ether | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Slice and Dice

Posted by wastedenergy on March 5, 2011

This is my diss track. Scrubs, you see, get no love from me. None whatsoever. Not a drop. Not even once. No energy wasted, and once I’m done with this one, the pigeons will be squirming in their borrowed shoes, and no further diss will be necessary.

How many Dicks does it take to frack to the center of the earth and make it pop? Answer: only one, and he used to be the CEO of a little company called Halliburton. These same bad boys who brought you boys back in body bags and $20 canned meals not fit for dog food not only cemented BP’s bad drill job in place to make the history books, but also invented a little process called fracking, you see. Lest you think they were coming along with a brand new ride, as so boldly pronounced by Exxon and their ilk, they invented it in 1947. That was before we even invented the hydrogen bomb. Talk about primitive!

While Republicons and Decepticrats were both dicking around trying to figure out how to make a quick buck for the private stash, the good people of America were paying the true price for their shenanigans: once again, oil in the water, in this case countless millions upon millions of gallons of the freshest stuff instead of fire on the salty seas. Well, what’s a headache and a few bloody noses here and there? A small price to pay for cheap natural gas, right? Well, not so much on that cheap part. ‘Cause it wasn’t just the good Americans who paid that price: I got news for you tea party types, there’s more than one way for a cat to catch a mouse. And by that, I mean there’s more than one way to subsidize drilling: environmental externalities aside, it was the shareholders who were paying that two or three times the price on the futures market for each thousand cubic feet. Fiscal conservatives? Hardly, these guys have a mountain of debt all the way to the Kingdom Come they’ll be sending us all to climb on our own two feet if they have their way.

Speaking of which: did you know these guys want to cut funding for the next-generation energy technologies we need to save our skin? Yes, that’s right, apparently the future is a low hanging fruit to some, and they don’t mind picking it right off the tree before it’s even gotten to its full size, let alone ripened. Apparently, anything that slices even a dollar off the profit margin of Koch Industries is considered bad for America. Well, it’s certainly bad for general motoring, that much we know without a doubt. The conspiracy to which I refer, of course, is the attempt to de-fund the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. This would be roughly the equivalent of ending the Space Program at Mercury.  We may be abusing plastic like it’s our job, but remember that if it weren’t for public sector investment in science and technology, we’d never have the stuff in the first place, and I don’t just mean trashy bags, but the also what lets me tell you this over the tubes right at this very moment. Let’s hope these boys get caught Red-handed just like the CIA with their friends in the Taliban and left and right, but mostly Right, all over South America. Talk about Forbidden Fruit! (Sidebar: do I even dare mention the extraterrestrials? Nah, save that one for another day. First things first.)

And if that wasn’t enough, they dare not touch those Red State agricultural subsidies either, oh, no sir! When it comes to pretending to be pound-wise, these guys have even the old Reagan, Reagan II, and Reagan III and IV administrations beat! Oh yeah, I went there, and I’ll even go a step further: everyone’s beloved Saint Reagan was even worse than Bush II. Sure, he may have had the gift of gab, but just because a pigeon can cluck doesn’t mean he has anything to say. His vision for America included painting red stripes right over the blue background for the stars, and I don’t mean a smooth brew from Jamaica: we’re talking red and white bottles of high fructose chemical poison processed from the fruits of God’s Green Earth. If only we had the foresight to support real green agriculture, we might be eating a lot more fruits and vegetables, but corporate criminals get first dibs when it comes to government handouts, so it’s not just the price of wheat going up these days, but cabbage and tomatoes too. Shrub, grandchild of the famous friend of fascists, may have taken it to the next level in dropping a cool trillion on fruitless wars in the Mideast, but his ideological predecessor and the source of his worst Dicks and Donnies was the one who set the stage. Reagan invented neoconservatism, and you just can’t top that when it comes to Worst President Ever.

Last, but not least, I’m willing to bet some private waste management contractor has some skin in the game when it comes to the recent dicing of the Green the Capitol initiative. And de-funding the EPA, whose total budget amounts to a mere handful of billions, isn’t exactly the best way to balance the budget. Remember, not every office has its head in the sand like the one that lets the haters keep hating on waste-to-energy so much: these are the folks who make sure our rivers don’t catch on fire and air doesn’t contain enough smoky soot to choke a camel. Next time you need to pull off a balancing act, try using your head instead.

Look at that, I even managed to hit all seven categories, and then some. Eat your heart out, double rainbow, I got sixteen ways ’til Sunday to call out a Scrub and make him run crying back to the hole he came from! Speaking of which, it might be time to return to our ongoing discussion soon. But ah, as the Good Book says (and a little bird or two as well): to everything, there is a season. How I do love Spring!

Posted in Agriculture and Food, Air, Climate Change, Energy Consumption, Energy Production, Solid Waste, The Ether, Urban Planning, Water and Soil | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Sixty Thousand Feet Under

Posted by wastedenergy on February 9, 2011

Don’t worry, folks, there’s plenty of oil left. We just can’t get to any of it, at least not without killing ourselves.

Let’s rewind for a second. Perhaps you’re shaking in your boots after reading the “news” about the recent WikiLeaks cable detailing Saudi Aramco’s shenanigans in covering up their empty oil pits. Of course, there’s nothing new in there to those who have been paying attention. Turns out my generation really was the only good thing to come out of the 1980′s (well, that and some awesome rock and roll music): if you recall, every other OPEC nation engaged in a war to bid up their quotas in order to shake down the West for more of its hard-earned white-collar dollars. Unfortunately, that had the side effect of creating valueless reserve estimates. And it’s not just Kingdom Come, but the whole rest of the oil-dependent world about to come crashing down in a sea of fantastic damage.

Yes, that’s right, Matt Simmons was right, and that guy up in Cambridge, as they usually are, was wrong. Now, shall we keep on burning?

Posted in Climate Change, Energy Consumption | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Wipeout

Posted by wastedenergy on February 3, 2011

EXTINCTION!  It’s a concept with which most of us are familiar only in passing, in the abstract or from our experience using it stack up W’s back in our high school debate days. But what about the real thing?

Well, you don’t actually have to try that hard to imagine it, because it’s already here. Consider how the mass extinction event occurring today as a result of human encroachment on habitats, pollution and climate change stacks up against past events. Last time we checked, a full 40% of all species have disappeared from the face of the planet Earth since 1970. Forty percent in just forty years! Imagine what we might be able to accomplish if we just try a little harder, by colonizing the remaining biodiversity hotspots with industrial agriculture, burning all the remaining coal we can find and flushing as much methane as we can get out of the continental shelves, and filling up the rest of our streams and oceans with choking garbage.

Percent of species going extinct versus millions of years ago

Now consider the trilobite. The fossil record is rife with trilobites; this group of animals dominated the planet’s oceans for some 250 million years, almost half the time multicellular animals have existed at all. Have you seen any of these guys around lately? How is it possible that something so common, so entrenched, so basic and ubiquitous in the Earth’s ecosystems is entirely gone? It would be as if all mollusks or all insects were wiped out. In our efforts to exploit the Earth’s resources to suit solely our own needs, we are tinkering with forces we do not understand and cannot hope to control. Now ask yourself, do large brains and opposable thumbs really make us so special? Unfortunately, most of us seem to be under the illusion that we are better than other creatures, as opposed to both exactly the same as them and wholly dependent upon them.

“What are you lookin’ at?”

Now, there are some who would tell you none of the above matters. What really matters is relaxing restrictions on oil drilling, so we can frack away bits of the environment slowly but surely until all that remains is skies of acid filled with clouds of soot and rivers that run purple with poison. They don’t believe in the value of other species, or even the human species; the only thing that concerns them is the bottom line. These mammon worshippers believe all our problems would be solved if we simply reverted our monetary system to the gold standard. They might have some of their own skin in the game, if they happen to be invested in gold as a commodity, but if we want to save our own skin, then it behooves us to pay attention to the bare facts instead of the issues that seem to occupy the teabaggers on Fox News and the Ragnarok promoters over at the Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute.

Joker of Doom

If we were really so self-interested, we might be more inclined to protect our own home. Julian Simon’s followers might like to believe human ingenuity is the ultimate resource, but I’ve got news for them: we’re not going to be landing on another planet with trees anytime soon. So maybe it’s finally time for the dinosaurs to go extinct, before they take the rest of us down with them.

Posted in Agriculture and Food, Air, Climate Change, Solid Waste, Water and Soil | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Auto-Matic Earth

Posted by wastedenergy on January 18, 2011

I must admit, I’m a bit confused.  How do automobile enthusiasts square their love of four-wheeled travel, possible only thanks to the largest public works project in history, and arising from a desire to maintain rapid cross-continental military dominance, with the professed libertarian ethic supposedly underlying their arguments, that the government ought not to interfere on behalf of matters of the public good?  Certainly, the social isolation of the solo commute makes sense given the harrowed place of the individual in their ideal society.  But let’s face it: it takes a lot of work to make it all happen.  There are no accidents here, other than the thousands that litter the freeways every day; the default option, given a withdrawal of government support, is not cars and roads, but rather nothing at all. Yet somehow, many true believers still seem drawn to the purported neutrality of the automobile option, as if believing that the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System arose naturally based upon its merits in a free market.

Sometimes I have to wonder if those who advocate taking humanity along such a regression curve have ever really bothered to expose their own arguments to any scrutiny.  Here I am talking both about conservatives who espouse status quo apologism as if current living patterns and disparities in wealth arose from some presumptive natural system of ethics rather than massive government intervention, and also leftist do-nothing “doomers” who put the cart before the horse in arguing that the best way to protect the living planet is a massive die-off or worldwide degeneration of living standards to abject poverty for living humans. Strangely, these two groups, of such divergent political philosophies, seem to have found some common ground of late: they both seem to think it would be best if we stopped trying to make life better for people and instead let everything just come crashing down.  This validation of the “horseshoe theory” of politics helps us make sense of the current popularity of deflationary, minimal-interventionist, “Austrian”-style economics.  After all, it is a system that offers no way out, and both sides are essentially arguing that we ought to get used to wading through smog and feces instead of trying to build a future life that is livable by getting interested in technologies like solar panels and high-speed rail.  High speed in general is the antithesis of an ethic that believes most in grinding progress to an absolute halt.

High Speed Nothings

While the selection of transportation systems is far less than automatic, and their deterioration absent continual reinvestment and replacement far more so, perhaps most automatic of all seems to be our acceptance of the idea that “Americans have a love affair with the automobile.”  Providing transportation for the public, rather than merely publicly funded systems that serve the private motorist, strikes us as morally wrong; why, the idea itself is downright socialist!  Or as Chris Christie and his ideological kin might say, “You can have my Lexus, when you pry my cold, dead body out of the pool of twisted metal it will become should it be struck by a semi truck!”  Are we really that sworn over to asphalt and rubber instead of sidewalks and cold steel rails for any practical reason, or is it just something we find important in order to feed a fantasy?  After all, in the nation enamored of a Tea Party aesthetic (as in, get your grubby government paws out of my pocket, except for the highways, the military-industrial complex, and my Medicare-subsidized scooter), communal mobility strikes us as an insult; it offends the sensibilities that favor some macho notion of the lone cowboy or the lone gunman, the individual stalwart against some kind of creeping communitarianism.

Or, to put it more bluntly, without big cars, big suburban roadways, and lots of big open spaces in between, it’s a lot harder to get away from minorities who live in cities and therefore to insulate and protect ourselves from the idea that we might actually owe some debt to society at large for our affluence.

Were things always so black and white?

So, what exactly is the point of refusing solutions to problems upon which most all (reasonable) people can agree, such as the ever-increasing scarcity and cost of petroleum-based fuels, the social and environmental pollution of automobile culture, or the isolation and ghettoization of urban spaces?  The simplest explanation is often that those who stand for the status quo have their own dogs in the fight.  I’m not much for conspiracies myself, but they certainly aren’t unprecedented.  Take, for instance, the great highway robberies of the 1940′s and 50′s: it’s been well established that the transformation of American cities from transit- to car-based spaces, from mixed-use developments to suburbia unsurvivable sans automobile, was no accident, but bore the particular mark of interests invested in particular forms of mobility.  Unless, of course, you work for the Cato Institute, but therein lies another dog: it exists only thanks to funding from, and in order to replicate and justify the ideology of, the oil billionaire Koch brothers.  And given the continuing prominence of the auto and oil lobbies in public policymaking and electioneering, it should be no surprise that their beneficiaries in the halls of government choose the long and difficult road of collapsitarianism, rather than the easier path of choosing to adequately build out technologies of tomorrow to serve broader public interests and more sustainable, less isolated styles of development.

It would, of course, be too easy to just sit back and complain.  Is it really enough, after all, to just identify the source of the problem?  To do so would simply replicate the behavior described above.  The problem isn’t really the immense staying power of lobbies, as every major industry has them.  The problem is really that we give their arguments so much credence, and that as a result, the level of discussion of policies as a means to solve problems remains superficial.  Mull this one, for instance: the “debate” over use of Canada’s tar sands is not really one at all, but merely ships passing in the night.  Are ”Oil creates jobs!” (all industries do, though, so it’s really a non-point) or “Hundreds of millions of Americans depend on cars!” (a bit of a scarecrow, that, as it’s not the only way to get you there) really responses to “Mining tar sands devastates the local environment and First Nation communities, and exacerbates anthropogenic climate change”?  Neither side really does much to deny the validity of the other’s point.  But from a bird’s-eye view, it is possible to see that there really are some answers out there, and that there is no ideologically neutral choice in the menu of options supposedly handed to us by The Powers That Be.  Rather than accept ideologically loaded points at their face value, then, and in turn act as if economic development and protection of basic environmental and health standards were inherently at odds with each other, we might instead ask ourselves not merely “what is the best way to continue doing what we do today?” but instead, ”what are the systems that might serve both of these perceived needs?” In such a manner we might go about finding real answers.

But first, we must find the actual will to do so.

Posted in Climate Change, Energy Consumption, Urban Planning | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

If It Ain’t Broke…

Posted by wastedenergy on November 10, 2010

It was suggested by a friend that I share this handy reference chart with the Internet at large.  Keep in mind the numbers here are simply rough estimates and should be adjusted for inflation, but hopefully it gets the point across.  There’s been a lot of chatter about the “clean coal” concept lately, and, predictably, the industry has been advertising that “it works.”  Unfortunately, now that the technology has cleared the lowest possible hurdle and moved up to the same level of credibility as plasma gasification and algal biodiesel, it’s the same old story again: no amount of money can buy it any more love.  Anyway, if old king coal can live up to its reputation for affordability, we might start thinking about adding it to the list of contenders.  Until this time, any additional promotional materials will be treated as such.

Posted in Climate Change, Energy Production | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

My Two Cents

Posted by wastedenergy on November 8, 2010

The race for energy in the twenty-first century has begun.  While the big stories to follow, those that define the timeframe of our present energy crisis, involve the great powers such as the United States, Russia, China and Saudi Arabia seeking to lock up control over dwindling oil reserves around the world, the race has already become much tighter than many analysts have predicted in the area that will come to define this century: harnessing the boundless energies of the Sun and Earth.

I do not mean to suggest that the battles over finite energy supplies and other materials critical to the survival of industrial civilizations will be fought lightly.  There will certainly be casualties, and the consequences of resource conflicts will most assuredly be made more dire if political trends continue promoting scientific denialism and private industry control of governments, once again killing off attempts to break the chains of fossil energy addiction.  But it is important to keep things in perspective.  While the period until 2030 or so will undoubtedly be fraught with bitter social divisions, struggling and even dying economies, and hordes of cold, hungry people as everyday material and energy needs become impossible to meet, what lies over this horizon is still uncertain.

That we have already reached a peak in fossil energy production is undeniable at this point.  While those with ideological and professional blinders on may refuse to believe the evidence lying plainly before them or lose sight of the big picture in the daily twitches of the market, the truth is impossible to miss for those with their eyes open.  If you allow yourself to dismantle your inner capitalist contraptions and forget about dollars and cents for a moment, the trends become obvious.  It is everywhere the same story, whether we mean drilling multiple horizontal wells and fracking each well thirty-two times to produce tiny irregular pockets of oil and gas along with some of the multiple millions of gallons of water used in the process, boiling tar out of sand with steam and chemically enhancing the resulting goo to produce something resembling crude oil, or melting down the last of the forests and coal mines into synthetic alcohols and volatile oils to fuel fighter jets and excavating trucks the size of warships.  The real costs are to the health of ourselves and the other species inhabiting our present biosphere, and they are not just rising.  They are staggering.

With drilling equipment already poking around 20,000 and more feet underneath the deepest and darkest parts of the ocean, it is difficult to imagine digging a hole any deeper than we have already gotten ourselves into.  But the powers that be, eager to cash in on advertising revenue from the same dope pushers who have fought vigorously for the right to poison freely since the days of Rockefeller, continue to promote the idea that we have no choice but to push forward into ever deeper and uncharted waters in a vain quest to squeeze the last drops of flammable liquid from the crust.  Insisting that renewable energy can never possibly be competitive economically, they draw on examples such as solar power (which competes mainly with peak retail rates) and offshore wind (still a technological toddler from a commercialization standpoint) as “too expensive to matter,” never mind what actually happened to nuclear power.  A casual glance at the headline would suggest that, thanks to the Hundred Year Supply of gas just discovered a few months ago, etc., the fossil economy had just been given a new lease on life and that renewable energy could never be commercially viable.  But if you actually read the article in question, you might notice tidbits like this one:

“The ratepayers of Virginia must be protected from costs for renewable energy that are unreasonably high,” the regulators said. Wind power would have increased the monthly bill of a typical residential customer by 0.2 percent.

Those who would fight against the advance of renewable energy have a rather overplayed and quixotic way of referring to its advocates: they like to say that we are “tilting at windmills.”  It takes a fool to fail to recognize that they refer only to themselves.  With a monthly power bill on the order of $10 (not too hard in DC in November), I’d certainly like to see my two cents go toward something more productive.

All the way!

Posted in Climate Change, Energy Production | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Highway to Hell

Posted by wastedenergy on October 31, 2010

Welcome to Fort Chipwyan, Alberta.  If you’re looking to cash in on Canada’s “oil” boom, here is where you want to be. 

Whether we’re talking about building, grading, and widening highways to accommodate McMansion-sized trucks and whole factories being hauled to the site, or the tar sand itself being transported and processed by those vehicles and equpiment, shoveling asphalt is the only game in town.  You don’t have to drive a tar sand truck or work in an upgrading plant, but whether you work laying down airstrips or milling steel for new pipelines, there’s many a bucktoothed buck to be made in selling your soul to Syncrude.  99% of the universe here is composed of dark energy. 

It’s a pretty good deal for everyone involved, unless of course you happen to be one of the few remaining quaint folk who prefer to live off the fruits of the land rather than profiting off fuel shipped in from the underworld.  Thin strips of land separate the tar sands operations and the vast pits of waste sludge they produce from the Athabasca river and its headwaters, the essence of life for countless generations of farming and fishing communities.  Crops, livestock, fish, and people now die bearing mysterious markings and tumors never before seen by the First Nation elders of these communities.  Government officials and university professors living off the oil dole from boomtowns named after the original people to inhabit this countryside dismiss their concerns over the water’s toxicity as just so much “folklore” and hogwash.  Perhaps a healthy environment is something citizens of Earth should be prepared to give up in the name of progress, as the lands once known for their bounty are covered over in pavement and plastic.

We now travel a few hundred miles west, where something strange is afoot in a remote corner of British Columbia.  The zombie invasion, we shall soon see, is no longer limited to Alberta and the Gulf of Mexico, and the infestation has begun to feed on anything it can find that hasn’t already been chewed up by mountain pine beetles:

Look a little bit closer, and some familiar patterns begin to take shape:

What we are looking at in these photos is, of course, the signature “circuit board” pattern of fracking, the process now used to unlock much of the energy used to keep spinning the wheels of the oil machines over in Alberta.  North American natural gas, the primary fuel used to boil tar out of the ground and upgrade it to synthetic crude oil throughout an ever-increasing share of Canada’s middle provinces, has already peaked and has been in decline for the past decade.  And the tar sands are always hungry for more gas.  Look a little bit closer, and the thoroughness of the change that is happening becomes clear.  Some of the last remaining wild lakes and rivers in the whole continent now sit adjacent to massive industrial operations, where a single careless spill or feckless operator has the potential to poison vast and formerly unspoiled ecosystems for generations to come.  These remote waters are now being tapped.

You’re probably saying to yourself: wait a second.  Isn’t natural gas supposed to be abundant in North America?  It’s touted as an “alternative” fuel, even though it already makes up a quarter of the continent’s energy mix.  But supposedly we’re sitting on a veritable bonanza of cheap methane, much of it in the form of shale gas, tight gas sandstone, coalbed methane, and such “unconventional” gas sources, right?  And all of it is going to cost $3.50 per thousand cubic feet to develop and bring to market, so cheap we can afford to put off living sustainably for as long as anyone alive today cares…no?

The media echo chamber continues to recite the conventional wisdom that technological breakthroughs are responsible for the oversupply of gas that has depressed prices this season.  Meanwhile, the gas producers themselves have begun to sing a different tune and are now liquidating their assets to those able to bail out the industry, as revenues at such low prices are unable to keep up with the costs of production.  The trend over the past several months has been increasing consolidation of smaller, independent gas-drillers into large multinational corporations with diverse portfolios and a wider range of hedging options.  The likes of Exxon-Mobil and the China National Offshore Oil Company are the kind of names you see coming up in the news about shale gas today, but it’s not because they think the gas is going to come for cheap.  It’s because these are the companies that have the cash flows and deep pockets to hold onto undeveloped land and poor-performing wells while the price of natural gas recovers from years of continuous new drilling subsidized by swindled shareholders and high costs hidden by arcane accounting procedures. In the meantime, the executives of these companies continue to talk up their gas plays in an effort to convince the public and the market to continue to support gas development off which they have no intention of making a profit anytime soon, at least not until the gas markets witness another one of the price surges we have started to see over the past decade.

Meanwhile, as more and more fracks per well are used, the energy and water intensity of the process expands: the amount of energy consumed by trucks hauling fluid and equipment to and from drilling and disposal sites, and the energy needed to process and transport the produced fluids and gas skyrockets along with the water consumed to drill each new well.  As gas from wells fracked dozens of times in British Columbia flows eastward to the Alberta tar sands, more oil is needed to produce more of this “natural” gas, which in turn is needed to produce more oil.

 

As the circle formed by such a tail-chasing operation continually expands and a surplus of energy production disappears, less energy, and hence less wealth, becomes available to the rest of society, until finally the profit of fossil energy completely disappears and energy production itself becomes impossible to sustain.  By the time we catch on to what is happening, will there be anything left to keep us cruising down our own highways?

What we are talking about is not new technology, of course – just look at how the industry likes to bring up the “50,000 wells that have been successfully fracked without incident over the last fifty years.”  What we really mean is the application of old technology, formerly used to squeeze the last bits of juice out of dying wells, as the now-mainstream means of acquiring onshore oil and gas in the United States and Canada.  The process mimics what is happening in the tar sands, as the toxic byproducts of an energy- and water-intensive process claim a growing share of ecosystems and the communities that depend on them.  What we have now begun to do is multiple-frack the countryside in all corners of the continent to free up the last few little pockets of energy, in a vain attempt to stave off the ever-dwindling gap between what the rest of the world can afford to export and what we can afford to consume.  In other words, it is the classic story of peak oil and gas: newer, more expensive technology and methods used to access and process ever-smaller and more remote resources of continually lower quality.  If it can’t go on indefinitely, it won’t.

Whatever the noise of the market says from day to day, the signal only points in one direction.

Creepy…Happy Halloween

Posted in Air, Climate Change, Energy Consumption, Solid Waste, Urban Planning, Water and Soil | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.