Group items tagged

From the Chief Economist at the Clean Economy Development Center. Also a Grist article (clearly the first Jevons they ran got readership), one of three (I'll post a link to the next one as well), this is a fairly lengthy article on Jevons' that basically comes down to this: "So you'll have to pardon my incredulity when I hear people like Owen claim that Jevons effects are everywhere, because everywhere I look, I can't find them." He then argues that contrary to Jevonian logic "All that's really clear is that for significant periods, energy efficiency has not increased fast enough to cause energy use to go down." Another case for persuing more energy efficiency, not less. One fair critique is that both this fellow and Lovins have vested interests in efficiency efforts. But they do the math right before your eyes, so I'm fairly comfortable with what they're saying. Beyond the math, there are a bunch of theoretical arguments that also force Jevons to take a far humbler stance in environmental and economic theory.

This is for the ENVS 160 discussion we had today. And for the New Yorker reading on Jevons' Paradox we're doing. Jevon's is one of those economic ideas that seems to get necromanced by some combination of economists and the media every once in a while. I run the risk of sounding like I give it no credit with my critiques, but I truly think it needs to stay back in pre-industrial/industrial England where it belongs. Yes, its real. But no, it is not the end of efficiency measures, and especially not conservation. This Grist article was a response to the New Yorker article. But be careful - the article isn't stunning, but the comments are pretty impressive. The article more or less sides with Jevons, using case studies that are convincing to various degrees. But the comments draw some big names in economics and environmental thought, among them Amory Lovins, head of the acclaimed Rocky Mountain Institute. He gets into the numbers, and gives his own insight to the Jevons Paradox. If you're concerned about Jevons, this article/comments combo - and one other article I'll post - is a must read.

This is a fairly direct critique of the Owen's piece from the New Yorker by the same fellow as my last article, the Chief Economist at the Clean Economy Development Center. Its a harsh one. In the comments he also addresses issues of population being the real problem with increasing energy use, for any interested in a little bit of that debate.

Another article discussing the "Jeevon Paradox" of energy efficiency, consumption and possible dangers that arise from the two.

What sounds like an alarmist heading on nuclear power post-Japan scare is actually a rather nuanced discussion of how nuclear power could be safer.

"Rampant unemployment, rising food prices, a collapsed housing market, ballooning debt -- to Jeremy Rifkin, the American economist and president of the Foundation on Economic Trends , these are not simply symptoms of a temporary economic malaise. Rather, they are signs that the current world order -- long infused with and defined by fossil fuels -- is collapsing around us."

A company called Vadxx in Ohio is taking the "picked-over" scraps of plastic and converting into a low-sulfur crude oil. I don't know how feasible this would be large scale but its nice to see this stuff out of the landfills and being put to use.

An interesting piece that highlights the need for sustainable fisheries. This article discusses the damage deep-sea fisheries have done to ocean life; sea life at the bottom of the ocean is significantly slower than other forms of fisheries.

This is straight out of the matrix - you know how the whole AI system runs of humans producing energy like batteries? These guys are seriously looking at doing just that. This story comes from GlobalPost, a new site that has great international reporting (when a lot of big papers had to fire their journalists as the industry started to decline, GP picked a lot of their international folks up as freelancers, so they developed a good set of connections around the world fast). They're doing a series on power and energy around the world, "Powerland", which this is a part of. Very cool news organization. In a new twist in the progress of the global energy system, Japan is now looking to reduce its energy dependence on Nuclear Power (a source so many other places are looking to for reducing their energy dependence on oil, coal, etc...) So the company featured in this video comes in with an interesting mix of waste diversion/energy production at the same time. The little, marginal bits of energy thrown about when ever anyone does anything - taking a step, talking on a phone, sitting down and chilling - is harnessed to power things in its surroundings. It is sort of like using exercise equipments rotations to generate energy, which some colleges have gotten major press for. I know the military was also looking at putting something in the soles of boots that would create energy when compressed, so that marching or walking could actually power some of a soldier's personal electronics. There are no numbers to see how scalable this is, but looking at the energy margins is interesting. They do add up - one step is nothing, but if you're in Tokyo and there are millions of collected steps all the time, that is a lot of energy-producing floor vibration. One has to wonder as to how serious an alternative this sort of technology is to other types. Almost like being able to paint solar panels onto things, and just take advantage of wherever the sun hits. Its almost desperate, b

For a different thing to pay attention to, listen to the street activist (I think - not clear what the source is) message at the very beginning of the video. Interesting the stance Japan seems to be taking, at least within some parts of its culture, in response to the Fukushima incident.

I noticed that the Powerland series on GP is being sponsored by Shell, which raises some interesting questions. Multinational energy corporations may be turning to energy alternatives because they know that oil is going down the proverbial drain. Paying attention to where companies like Shell, BP, and Chevron-Texaco might yield some worthwhile information about our energy future.

Thorium, a naturally occurring radioactive metal can be used to generate nuclear power without most of the problems associated with uranium reactors (i.e. high cost, toxic waste, and danger of meltdown.) Lately, it's been heralded as the solution to climate change and energy crisis concerns and some new start-ups are experimenting with reactors in the hope that thorium will be at the forefront of an energy revolution.

The ramifications for biology and ecology of life on other planets is neat - a science until now fundamentally based in one overarching context finding a whole new one? That's crazy. But the question I always hear from folks concerned about environmental issues when something like this pops into the conversation is "shouldn't we figure out how not to destroy our own planet before we start looking into moving onto others?" And so, technologically unfeasible tasks aside, presuming we could do this, I'm curious as to whether or not others think we should. Should we?

A Massachusetts biotechnology company claims it has found the means to produce fuel with a type of cyanobacteria that secretes diesel. They state that they can produce "15,000 gallons of diesel full per acre annually, over four times more than the most efficient algal process for making fuel. And they say they can do it at $30 a barrel." Do you think this is feasible? Could this be a step back from moving away from high emission fuels?

Do we buy this upbeat take on localizing not just the service-sector economy but the manufacturing sector as well?  What sorts of goods, and what sorts of consumers, would/would not it encompass?  What sorts of ecological benefits may/may not be obtained?

This article discusses how hundreds of Japanese residents sought refuge in a nuclear power plant after the tsunami hit. 240 people remain, all of whom are supposedly enjoying a relatively luxurious life compared to their fellow citizens.

From Anti-Matter to floating wind farms, these are some practical and not-practical-yet energy alternatives. Many are well known, others are not, and some are new twists on older ideas. The question I still have is speed - can we implement these fast enough?

In 160, Elijah asked about some of the plus sides to climate change. Now, this isn't talking about the plusses, but it is a fundamentally different approach to the stories we tell about climate changed, and the future we see ahead in a changing climate. Particularly interesting given this, from the same site: http://www.good.is/post/why-climate-change-ads-should-cheer-up-a-little/

People love talking about wind and solar. For good reason, too. Geothermal, hydro, and other renewable energy sources are valuable, but ultimately only sun and wind (and mostly sun) have the heft necessary to power the nation. That leaves us with two big problems! Night time and windless days. Enough power has to be produced to meet minimal needs at any given time, which is related to the idea of baseload production. When the wind is really moving, or the sun is particularly bright, wind and solar plants can generally overproduce. But all that is for naught when night rolls around, unless things like pumped hydro or NaS batteries fill in the gaps. Of course, there is always nuclear. Tempting as it is to say you can either argue for nuclear, or read about Japan, the nuclear option is still on the table - largely because of its ability to provide constant energy. But if wind and solar are indeed more desirable, storage is an absolute must, and worth being informed about.

This article discusses the government's recently launched research on how anaerobic digestion, "a renewable energy technology that generates heat and electricity from waste organic matter," could possibly replace manufactured nitrogen fertilizer. They hope this will save money for the farmers and increase yield.