Reality
I will embark on a series of posts concerning what I consider reality. The topics may not be well received, and you may hate me if you wish, but they are worthy of consideration (IMHO).
One of the things, I presume, we agree on is the use of renewable energy (RE). For this initial foray I will disregard the hoped for correlation between RE and CO2 reduction (that is its own complicated discussion, even my beloved algae). This is about business - down and dirty business.
I have spoken of the economic impact (energy storage, carbon tax, biodiesel, politics, finance, and if you want to try your hand at it) of trying to change a petroleum-based economy to an RE economy in a brief period. Besides the initial investments in uncertain technologies (not to mention returns) there is a lot of “inertia” (displacement - human and capital, and vested interests - but that is really saying the same thing).
There is the seedier side, the quick-buck artists. You would think business is a highly analytical affair where reason rules over emotion. You would think the same thing about computer programming, another highly analytical field. You will have to trust me that both are as much art as science. Not only in the execution of business is this true, the investment side it is more so.
The purpose of investing is to to make money (the “return”). The investor who wants the best return has to invest where no one else wants to. This is usually either in the least known businesses (such as developing technologies), or out of favor industries (aka, the “contrarian” view). RE would be the former, buggy whips would be the latter. No investors - no business.
The dirty secret of investing is that it is, in reality, gambling. You, the investor, is betting you can make/buy something at one price and sell it to another person for a higher price. If this is too fundamental for you my apologies, but is seems there are many greenies who have a limited grasp of business and economics.
So let’s get to this unseemly side. For this I will turn to Forbes Magazine which I have read for decades. From their recent collection of articles “Green Is The New Black” (which I take to mean black is profit, as opposed to red which is loss) contains something for everyone, as is their style. There are the less than noble, their take on the big names, and the star-studded cast.
Here are a few teasers to get you started.
Up until early 2005 AFV was known as Dogs International and planned a chain of “bed and biscuit” upscale kennels. (It still owned one in Flagler Beach, Fla. as of its most recent sec filing in November.) Dogs International turned green after Jeffrey Groscost, former speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, took over as chief executive. Groscost was famous in Arizona for pushing through a subsidy program for alternative-fuel vehicles in 1999 that cost the state more than $200 million before it was shut down; buyers could get up to half the cost of a $50,000 suv back from the state.
Winner: General Electric
Losers: North American Automakers
The veteran actor/director is a fervent environmentalist. Under his creative direction, the Sundance Channel will air a block of enviro-related programming starting in the spring.
But RE has bigger hurdles than just the hearts and minds of investors. There is the reality of numbers. One component of inertia is raw material supply. This affects every industry from clothes manufacturers to coal fed power plants. I would like to check out bamboo clothes but it’s just a niche market. I can buy cotton cheaper and easier - inertia.
So too, the coal fired power plant has to evaluate the options. Specifically, where can I get the amount of material I need to generate the electricity? With coal providing the fuel for about half of our electricity generation this is a serious question. Would we be able to switch to a “carbon neutral” fuel like biomass?
In 2005 there were 1,415 mines producing 1,131,498,000 tons of coal. Yes , that’s over a billion tons of coal annually. And we’ve got tons more where that came from. What are you going to burn, trees? If you could find a supply of trees that each way 1,000 pounds you would have to harvest over two billion of them each year. Them’s goin’ to be some fast growing trees. You got railroads goin’ to them trees? I got ‘em goin’ to the coal mines.
Ok, maybe this “snap the fingers” trick isn’t going to work with our installed infrastructure. Do we give up and sit down? No way. The easy answer it to quit using coal. What to switch to? Natural gas is a good choice. There’s already an infrastructure to carry it and the plants that use it are more efficient than coal plants. More efficiency means less CO2 per KW. Well, the demand for natural gas has been rising and so have the prices - besides, we’re already importing the stuff. I can’t quote numbers for replacement (the BTU content of natural gas compared to coal) but you get the idea.
And so it goes. Once you find a fuel there is the employment issue. In this example there are almost 80,000 people employed by coal mines in the US. You may not care but their elected reps do. The states already vie to lure businesses to hire their people. Imagine the resistance to shutting down a major local industry.
The inertia of converting the power plant itself. Do you just stop the plant and buil a new one to use the new energy? Do you build one somewhere else? More and more inertia.
Of course there are ways out of this but they will take time, and a LOT of effort. That is the reality of the situation. In the mean time please help - turn off your TV. You can always play an “old fashioned” game with the kids. Write a letter to your political reps (I think hand written gets more mileage). Let them know you are aware of the complexities of the energy situation but you want them to work on the issue - not just pay it lip service. You have to provide the impetus to overcome the intertia.
- Posted in : Environment, In the News, Pictures, Renewable Energy, Science
- Author :Rt
Comments»
The link between Mind and Social / Environmental-Issues.
The fast-paced, consumerist lifestyle of Industrial Society is causing exponential rise in psychological problems besides destroying the environment. All issues are interlinked. Our Minds cannot be peaceful when attention-spans are down to nanoseconds, microseconds and milliseconds. Our Minds cannot be peaceful if we destroy Nature.
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment.
Subject : In a fast society slow emotions become extinct.
Subject : A thinking mind cannot feel.
Subject : Scientific/ Industrial/ Financial thinking destroys the planet.
Subject : Environment can never be saved as long as cities exist.
Emotion is what we experience during gaps in our thinking.
If there are no gaps there is no emotion.
Today people are thinking all the time and are mistaking thought (words/ language) for emotion.
When society switches-over from physical work (agriculture) to mental work (scientific/ industrial/ financial/ fast visuals/ fast words ) the speed of thinking keeps on accelerating and the gaps between thinking go on decreasing.
There comes a time when there are almost no gaps.
People become incapable of experiencing/ tolerating gaps.
Emotion ends.
Man becomes machine.
A society that speeds up mentally experiences every mental slowing-down as Depression / Anxiety.
A ( travelling )society that speeds up physically experiences every physical slowing-down as Depression / Anxiety.
A society that entertains itself daily experiences every non-entertaining moment as Depression / Anxiety.
FAST VISUALS /WORDS MAKE SLOW EMOTIONS EXTINCT.
SCIENTIFIC /INDUSTRIAL /FINANCIAL THINKING DESTROYS EMOTIONAL CIRCUITS.
A FAST (LARGE) SOCIETY CANNOT FEEL PAIN / REMORSE / EMPATHY.
A FAST (LARGE) SOCIETY WILL ALWAYS BE CRUEL TO ANIMALS/ TREES/ AIR/ WATER/ LAND AND TO ITSELF.
To read the complete article please follow either of these links :
http://www.planetsave.com/ps_mambo/index.php?option=com_simpleboard&Itemid=75&func=view&id=68&catid=6
http://www.earthnewswire.com/index.php?option=com_forum&Itemid=89&page=viewtopic&t=11
sushil_yadav
I really like the points you make in this article. It gives us a good perspective for the kinds of changes that need to be made and the kind of effort it will take to make them. I see a combined effort of political action, consumer choice, regulation and good old fashion hard work.
One thing you might find interesting, after the anthrax scare a couple of years back, most hand written mail to an elected official sits in a storage vault for at LEAST 6 months before it is ever seen by anyone. If you really want your elected official to hear what you have to say, its phone, email, or direct visit. Mail lamentably is no longer a viable option (unless you have years to wait, imagine a pen pal with a 6 month lag time).
Naib, please provide references. I can find nothing to corroborate your claims.
I do not believe the officials have this delay in their mail system.
Email is way too easy - letters hit the mark.
Since I last checked it seems they have streamlined things a bit now it only seems to take 3 weeks- 3 months or so, still a hefty delay for letters. Check the very last line of this article a congressional aid talks about the delay system.
http://www.marinij.com/marin/ci_5150309
Here is an article talking about the previous mail delay in 2001-3
http://www.copyright.gov/reports/annual/2002/mail.html
Here is congressman Everett telling us how to get a hold of him because of the anthrax delays.
http://www.everett.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=453
here are a couple more sites that talk about the delay
http://www.congressfax.com/
http://www.eff.org/congress/ (check the part about why not to send letters anymore)
I emailed the EFF link to my senator. I’ll let you know what he says if I get a reply :)