Connecting the Dots
November 20, 2007 |
Two articles in today's Science Times reinforce major Breakthrough themes - human have become the meaning of the earth and it is time to imagine eco-triumph through that most core human value, invention.
John Tierney provides a cogent discussion of basis for opposition to genetically modified crops and stem cell research. This discussion emphasizes how opposition is rooted in a quasi Judo-Christian conceptualization of nature which views human intrusion as a taboo.
"Many Europeans, as well as leftists in America have rejected the traditional Christian God and replaced it with a post-Christian goddess of Mother Nature and a modified Christian eschatology. It isn't a coherent belief system. It might or might not incorporate New Age thinking. But deep down, there's a view that humans shouldn't be tampering with the natural world."
The second piece by Andrew Pollack discusses how scientists are trying to genetically engineer trees to make them more efficient at producing ethanol and other sources of materials and energy. The fundamental concept is central to overcoming the ecological crisis - stop mining carbon sequestered in the earth for materials and energy and pursue technology that will address our needs through direct conversion of sunlight. The fact such technology is critical for creating the massive efficiency gains necessary for addressing climate change does not stop the Stop Genetically Engineered Trees Campaign from constructing a taboo:
"Trees are the oldest and largest living organisms on the planet and are and have always been of significant cultural importance to many peoples all over the world. Genetically engineered trees pose unpredictable and unnecessary threats to the environment, biodiversity and human health."
If you believe the greatest threat to the biosphere lies in the perpetration of technological systems that depends on mining coal and oil, then it is time to connect the dots - recognize the degree to which human intervention has already become the meaning of the earth and embrace invention as the key to eco-triumph.
Comments
Obama should start from scratch, and look for smart, strategic investments that can solve our short-term woes while creating an economy that's built to last. Obama is the best President
By nowgoogle.com adalah multiple search engine popular on 2010 03 17
A quick comment - why all the harping on
emission reductions in capped US sectors?
Do you or do you not agree that global greenhouse
gas emissions would decrease by the amount mandated by the bill (ie by an amount equal to 20% of US emissions by 2020, etc.)? And isn't that what
ultimately matters?
By Prasad Kasibhatla on 2009 07 21
Well, Romm has said a lot of things about Breakthrough that are not true. This "politics of personal destruction" is all to typical of his writing.
If you have specific questions for us, I'm happy to answer.
As far as Joe's accusations that we are deliberately lying about President Obama's position, please simply refer to WhiteHouse.gov where the Administration's position is unequivocally stated:
"Investing in the Next Generation of Energy Technologies. Invest $150 billion over ten years in energy research and development to transition to a clean energy economy."
(We cited this in our post clearly)
Or refer to Secretary of Energy Steven Chu's testimony before the Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee in March where he states:
"The president's proposed budget allocates $150 billion for research and development of new green technologies. ... That is putting back the [carbon auction] money into developing better solutions."
Or look at Obama's Budget outline wherein $15 billion per year of cap and trade revenue is specifically dedicated (starting in 2012), in addition to other line-items for DOE's existing budget, to clean energy R&D (as per Chu's testimony).
Whatever Obama's position during the campaign, which was always a vague commitment to "$150 billion investment in clean energy technology" generally (hence my concerned post here), the Administration's current position has been stated in clear terms which we cite in our analysis.
As to Joe's assertion that Breakthrough has somehow flip-flopped and now supports only R&D, that assertion is blatantly groundless. We have always supported, and continue to support, dramatic scale-up in investment in both R&D and direct deployment incentives/investments. We support at least $15 billion for R&D and $30 billion for deployment. Overall, we believe a $30 billion investment in R&D and deployment is a bare minimum for effective climate and clean energy policy, and like the Apollo Alliance, call for at least $50 billion per year in RD&D ideally ($50-80 billion being the ideal range).
We simply happen to be capable of analyzing the R&D component of Waxman-Markey separately from the overall investment component, and we present our analysis of both provisions in our posts and in our presentation. For those curious about our policy recommendations, they are clearly stated here: http://www.thebreakthrough.org/ideas.shtml
As for Romm's assertion that emissions fall 8% according to CBO, he provides no supportive analysis or evidence so neither I nor anyone else has any way to evaluate his claim. That claim is inconsistent with the findings our our analysis (which you can examine here.)
By Jesse Jenkins on 2009 06 18
Joe Romm bans comments he doesn't like, so any response would have to be here. I would say this .5% reduction is misleading since it doesn't include purchased offsets. However, the numbers are technically accurate as the 5000+ in offsets is about equal to the estimated reduction.
By MikeN on 2009 06 18
Hey all, this is penetrating stuff. One suggestion, could you do up a chart that combines the 2 insights? That is, take the over-supply of emissions credits in the pre-2030 period and apply them to total emissions/business as usual? (I guess you'd have to make some assumption on period, unless the permits lapse, but you could arbitrarily use same period as now-2030). That chart would have more impact than first one alone - which, graphically tends to cut against your argument, as the subliminal communication is of cuts - and, I think, have more impact then the bar chart because it tells story better. Best, Ken
By Ken Ward on 2009 06 18
I still think this bill is worth criticizing and I'm not convinced it is better than nothing. But Joe Romm over Climate Progress is lambasting you guys and it does look like he's caught you guys in some contradictions. And now I read that your funding is suspect.
I liked your book and recommend it to colleagues but I'm starting to wonder what motivates you guys.
You need to respond (constructively).
By Mark on 2009 06 18
Joe Romm at ClimateProgress is calling you a liar.
He says the CBO projects an 8% cut in emissions.
By MikeN on 2009 06 18
I don't understand why this bill isn't criticized more. The argument that this "is at least a start" and may be our "last chance" just don't hold water. It seems to me that if enacted, this bill will construct a facade of success that will make much of the public think we've done something. It will lead to complacence and very little actual improvement.
Scary.
By Mark on 2009 06 17
I wish our new President the very best. I defiantly felt he was the best person of the job. He prepared himself since he was a teenage for this position by attending the very best schools and universities. I strongly believe in the vast majority of his policies. It is just too bad that he is forced to start in such a bad position, thanks to our last president, the worst one we have ever had in my life time.
By FX on 2009 03 29
What was so galling about the original post was this: "However, supporters of this system have either not considered or chosen to overlook the regional inequities that will inevitably result from cap and dividend." This is exactly the kind of supercilious comment that harms Breakthrough's reputation, making it that much more difficult for honest brokers like me, Ted, to focus on the content of Breakthrough's work. And not only is this subtle put-down completely self-serving; it's utterly inaccurate. Of course advocates of this approach have looked into these possible inequities! If the author of this post had bothered to look into what scholars have done on this question, they would have found studies like those mentioned here: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/3/12/14433/9136?source=daily. So yes: as the Grist post illustrates, calls for 'seriously engaging the content' are exactly right. I am a big fan of the ideas that Breakthrough offers; keep it up, but don't be afraid to reach out.
By Jon Isham on 2009 03 19
Apart from hydropower, virtually all of the new renewable energy technologies suffer from one serious problem. A problem that, to my knowledge, there is no solution in sight.
We simply do not have an efficient, low cost technology for storing large quantities of electrical energy for periods of hours, days and months. Until this is invented, no intermittent renewable energy technology can be used on other than a relatively small scale.
The only available technology for storing large amounts of electrical energy is hydropower pumped storage. A pumped storage station costs in excess of US$1000/kW and the overall losses are about 25%. Most pumped storage stations store sufficient water for 6-10 hours of operation. The ideal operating head is between 500 and 700 m (1500 -2200 ft). To build a pumped storage station you need to find, in one place, a source of water, a hill at least 400 metres high and topography suitable for building a large pond at the top of the hill and another large pond at the bottom of the hill.
As an example let us examine a pumped storage scheme associated with a 1100 MW solar power installation. The solar power station would have a capacity factor of 20% or less. Most power systems have a capacity factor close to 60% . If we assume 90% efficiency for pumping losses, the 1100 MW solar power station plus pumped storage would be equivalent to a 330 MW conventional power station. (1100 * 0.9 * 0.2/0.6 = 330) The pumped storage station would have a capacity of about 900 MW (so that it could absorb the surplus solar power when the sun was shining brightly and the system load was at its average value of about 200 MW). It would have to be able to store electricity for at least a week to allow for cloudy periods or for 5-6 months to be able to use surplus summer electricity during peak demand periods in the winter.
If the solar power station cost $1000 per kW (a ridiculously low figure at the moment) and the pumped storage station costs $1500/kW (because it needs to have additional storage) then the total cost would be $2.45 billion. As the effective output at 60% load factor is 330 MW, this works out at $7400 per kW.
A nuclear power station - which is also clean and produces no carbon dioxide - would cost about $4000/kW. But it could generate at a capacity factor of 90% so it could generate 50% more power. If it operates at 60% capacity factor, a 330 MW nuclear station would do the same job as the 1100 MW solar power scheme, would cost $1.32 billion and, as a bonus, could provide 50% more energy. The value of this extra energy would more than compensate for any additional costs for fuel and operation. So, even if the solar power installation cost a ridiculously low $1000/kW the delivered power is nearly twice the cost of nuclear. If the solar installation cost a more realistic $3000/kW then cost of the solar scheme is $5.8 billion so the cost of the delivered power is 4.4 times the cost of nuclear.
For wind energy the only difference is the the cost is now about $2000/kW and the capacity factor is about 25%. So we need 1000MW of wind power plus 600 MW of pumped storage costing $2.9 billion. 2.2 times the cost of nuclear!
The answer is clear: until the cost of these renewable technologies reduces by a very large amount and a low cost, efficient method of storing large amounts of electricity is invented, solar and wind power and other intermittent renewables cannot compete with conventional power generation. It is crazy to spend money on new renewable technology while ignoring the need for large scale, low cost storage. Alternatively, it is crazy to squander large money on subsidizing wind, solar and marine power rather than spending money on improving existing technologies such as High Temperature Gas Reactors and research on fusion power.
By Bryan Leyland on 2009 01 22
Thanks for your comment and your feedback John. Criticizing friends is always a delicate task, one that is not always appreciated even when it is done carefully. Yet, as you have admirably noted in the past, open, critical discourse plays a vital role in both building an effective movement and identifying strategies to transform our energy future and address the climate crisis that might actually succeed.
Attitude and tone are quite subjective perceptions, experienced through the eyes and ears of the beholder. You and other climate activists hear us saying "we are smarter than you." We see climate activists consistently dismissing and misrepresenting the issues we are raising with the current prioritization of caps, pricing, and emissions oriented policies and often attacking our character and motives rather than seriously engaging the content of our criticism.
Calls to both/and not either/or do not constitute a serious engagement of questions regarding the proper role, mix, and prioritization of pricing, regulation, and investment. The controversy over USCAP is revealing as to the real priorities of green groups both supporting and opposing that proposal and tells us much more about where different players are heading than theoretical support for caps or investment or anything else.
You have played an important role John, in attempting to bring the best of the activist and the academic sensibility together in pursuit of solutions to the climate crisis and attempting to create space to engage serious questions about both political strategy and public policy. I hope you will continue to embrace the role of an honest broker for so many of these critical discussions.
ted
By Ted Nordhaus on 2009 01 21
Breakthrough is certainly to be commended for advocating large-scale investments to make clean energy cheap. The logic of this argument is dead-on right, and Breakthrough's advocacy of this idea has been effective.
But the argument for putting a price on carbon, either via a tax or cap-and-trade, is just as solid. Yet too often, Breakthrough seems to fall into surprisingly reductionist reasoning when it comes to climate policy: that progressives can only champion investments or, say, cap-and-trade, but not both. Furthermore, Breakthrough's we-are-much-smarter-than-you attitude to us climate activists is palpable and, frankly, self-defeating.
For as I told folks in the Breakthrough Generation gathering last summer, a stance of intellectual superiority rarely wins; a stance of openness, humility and pragmatism usually does. As a fan of so much of Breakthrough's content, I hope that they will develop the wisdom to adopt a winning stance for the things that they believe.
By Jon Isham on 2009 01 16
Gasoline is one of the most important factors that we need in order to continue our daily activities everyday. It is very useful when it comes to transportation because if theirs no gasoline it seems that our lives also will stop and its not a normal situation to people. Predictions rarely come explicitly true, and the predictions for 2008 weren't on target all the time, either. Gas prices dropped like they were going out of style, and it turns out that Barack Obama is going to be President. No one really knows the future, but 2009 ought to be an interesting year.
By Rhett P. on 2009 01 07
The problem with energy/gas inflation/ fuel mileage is that real wages have not kept up with it, and it is doubtful that they will begin to catch up when even the big Wall Street players are feeling the hurt right now. While we
By khooper on 2008 10 21
The problem with energy/gas inflation/ fuel mileage is that real wages have not kept up with it, and it is doubtful that they will begin to catch up when even the big Wall Street players are feeling the hurt right now. While we
By khooper on 2008 10 21
Jesse, I completely agree with you, but here's the thing. The technology for electric cars already exists. New battery technologies have been developed that last much longer and are more reliable than the batteries developed for the EV1.
In California at least, even the infrastructure is there. There are "electric vehicle" stations at the library and on the street that are gathering dust.
And I think more and more, people are ready to take the chance on electric. There is a demand.
So here's my question for you. How do we get the car companies on board? For whatever reason, they're not jumping on the electric bandwagon, but are slowly and reluctantly shuffling towards it instead. For heaven's sake, they're still trying to unload SUVs promising to pay the next two years worth of gas!
So here's the question. Once the technology is pretty much there, what then?
I like to joke that if Apple made an electric car, called it the iCar, and made it white, silver and futuristic looking kind of like the cars from the Jetsons, everyone would buy one! Is the answer that we need to convince Steve Jobs to build cars? (I'm only semi-joking here.)
Lastly, it was great to meet you and the fellows Monday. Seems like a pretty great group you've got.
By arduous on 2008 06 18
There are many reasons your analysis is not correct. One of them is the world lacks the oil, coal, and gas to sustain 3% growth (let alone 3.3% growth) in carbon through 2050.
http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/24/is-450-ppm-politically-possible-part-26-what-is-the-impact-of-peak-oil-and-peak-coal/
We need a serious price for carbon to keep the coal in the ground, and we need 12 to 18 wedges by 2050, possibly a tad sooner. No time for breakthroughs, I'm afraid, as I'll blog on shortly.
By Joseph Romm on 2008 04 25
Re: A positive feedback loop for solutions?
Yes it can look quite complex. But lets start with one technical solution, the solution for cheap, abundant, nonpolluting energy.
This would undoubtedly be pervasive and feedback with many positive results for all on the planet. While at the same feedback would be catastrophic to many business interests. Imagine your joy if the next car you purchase never needs a ?refill? because of the internal power plant, no more gas stations! However everyone from the gas station to the people in the Saudi Arabia oils fields will not share your joy. Thats what change does. Thats what we need. Sorry Saudi Arabia.
Albert Einstein published his Breakthrough Change 102 years ago and today France is powered 80% by nuclear power. You are welcome France. But Einstein chipped his teeth on his quest for the Unified Theory. From a mathematics standpoint, Einstein could not account for the weak forces such as gravity. However when man finally does attain the breakthrough of the Unified Theory it will usher that pervasive Breakthrough Change of artificial gravity fields.
Imagine a plate with a rod through the center. Cast a small heavy gravity field on the right side of the plate. Then make the left side of the plat lighter. This would cause the plate to spin clockwise as the right side of the plate is always heavier. The plate spins the rod. Put some armatures on the rod and one has a generator that can feedback the power needed to perpetuate the gravity field.
A square box 2ft by 2ft could generate 500,000 watts and rarely need servicing. This would be a power plant that could power several large homes or power the first electric NASCAR entry! Can you imaging the Step Function change this would create? Come to think of it, it would be more like a Leap Function!
All we need is that one simple technical solution. We have been searching for 100 years now for the Unified Field Theory.
Sooner or later this change will hit us with all the feedback it can muster.
By Kris Wilson on 2007 12 02
Ooops. Somehow a whole section my text was dropped from the comment. Here it is again in full.
Yes, yes, YES. Technology was always the key to the relationship between humans and nature. But now, with so many people, it holds the key to the relationship between the human race and the planet. There can be much much good -- what we view as progress. And there can be problems -- terrible ones. Much depends on the positive feedback loops. Warming means there will be a longer growing season in Canada and thawing permafrost will release even more greenhouse gases.
The question is not really to have technology or not, but whether a particular technological approach gives us new and larger problems or new and larger solutions? A positive feedback loop for solutions? Hmmmm, I hope that got your attention. But is such a thing possible? I believe the answer is YES and it takes the form of an ancient-future soil technology called Terra Preta do Indio (Portuguese for Indian Black Earth).
Recent research emerging from the Amazon basin is locating large deposits of an extremely fertile and resilent soil called terra preta. Examinations of it are revealing both pottery sherds and charcoal which suggests that it was made by the indians long ago (carbon dating says much of it is 2500 to 4000 years old). Amending soils with charcoal has long been known as a way to increase crop yields. The soil is so productive (up to 800% increased plant growth) that it could have easily supported an agriculture capable of feeding hundreds of thousand (perhaps millions)of people living in great cities along the river, which is the legend of El Dorado.
But do we have to embrace a mythic vision, a conquistador's dream of gold? Is there some solid science involved? Might there actually be a modern soil technolgy whereby faster growing plants would draw more CO2 out of the atmosphere and the unused plant waste turned into charcoal (through pyrolisis) to be returned to the soil for increased productiviity, more carbon capture and long term sequestration, more food and fuel for increasing populations, and more. In other words, might there be a positive feedback loop for healing ourselves and the earth? A technologically supported relationship for bringing human beings and nature into a mutually supportive marriage? A sustainable technology of abundance?
The data are not in but the research is being conducted and the hopes are great. Please check out the following links to discover more about this exciting possibility.
The ABC 11 minute video about the the modern version of terra preta called "Agrichar" is here.
A lay person's introduction to terra preta is here.
Research confirms that char added to soil boosts crop productivity -- discussed here.
The BBC transcript of TheSecret of El Dorado" is here".
Ken Salazar has introduced a bill in the US Senate that would fund research on agrichar (the modern name for terra preta). It is discussed here.
I report the story unfolding from Brazil here.
By Lou Gold on 2007 11 21
Yes, yes, YES. Technology was always the key to the relationship between humans and nature. But now, with so many people, it has the key to the here.
The ABC 11 minute video about the the modern version of terra preta called "Agrichar" is here.
Research confirms that char added to soil boosts crop productivity -- discussed here
The BBC transcript of "TheSecret of El Dorado" is here.
Ken Salazar has introduced a bill in the US Senate that would fund research on agrichar (the modern name for terra preta). It is discussed here.
I report the story unfolding from Brazil here.
By Lou Gold on 2007 11 21