The Green Energy Fantasy: Green energy policies would hobble

[Riprion]

Yes, but with few exceptions, people are not bacteria.

I found this classic riff on Malthusian disaster to be very disingenuous. I have to admit that I skipped around after the first few minutes because I have hear these arguments before. The exponential growth argument with regards to Boulder is a load of crap. People can change their growth rate. This has been shown time and time again in industrialized nations where the growth rate either hovers at replacement or has fallen below replacement. Can bacterium willingly lower their reproduction rate? With regards to energy use, by using the bacteria analogy, he makes the matter seem far more emminent that it may be. "OMG we only have 1 minute. That won't be enough time to adopt solar." This is very disingenuous. Renewable technologies are already being adopted, and these are not finite resources. The fact that resources such as solar are infinite short circuits the exponential argument. Since we have time in the market afforded by new discoveries and technological innovation, renewable technologies can continue to be devloped and become economically competitive as non-renewable energy becomes more expensive. I find this type of pseudoscientific environmentalist fearmongering to be extremely distasteful.

[musashi]

There are many points here and I want to give attention to as many as possible.

Yes, but with few exceptions, people are not bacteria.

True, but the smaller system can serve as a model. And while humans do have logic and innovation on our side I thought, Dr. Bartlett’s point was nice. In an arithmetic growth situation, even if technology delivers multiple increases in resource availability, it still represents a very minor stop gap. The need in a sustainable system is at minimum equilibrium and contraction of resource consumption would be preferable.

People can change their growth rate. This has been shown time and time again in industrialized nations where the growth rate either hovers at replacement or has fallen below replacement.

Aye they can, but globally we haven’t figured that one out yet. Yes locally as standard of living increases rate of population growth declines but in very few instances does it reverse(only Singapore comes to my mind as declining). The global population has been marching upward for centuries now. Population has doubled many times since the industrial revolution. In fact I would claim that mankind lacks the fortitude to self-regulate. However like over population in a closed system of bacterium, the expansion of human kind can not escape things like resource depletion or waste product toxicity.

This is very disingenuous. Renewable technologies are already being adopted, and these are not finite resources. The fact that resources such as solar are infinite short circuits the exponential argument. Since we have time in the market afforded by new discoveries and technological innovation, renewable technologies can continue to be developed and become economically competitive as non-renewable energy becomes more expensive.

Yeah they call these new technologies renewable, but they are not permanent either. Take the PV system that I’ve installed on my house the panel efficiency declines 0.5 to 1.0% per year. They have 25 year warrantee and an expected lifetime of 50 years. Then you have to make a big capital investment to replace the panels. Nothing lasts forever, and while these green-granola types might claim these systems are renewable every system in the market place has a finite lifetime. So green technology is not coming to save us.

[Riprion]

On the population growth rate, check out this site that shows about 30 countries showing negative population growth. There are some anomalies in Africa showing negative numbers because of AIDS so disregard the presence of Swaziland for this argument. If you navigate back in the site there is a page explaining the decreases, most are declining birth rates.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_p ... rowth-rate

As far as the renewable technologies are concerned, I'm not to worried about a 50 lifespan on PV's because I expect PV's to continue advances in efficiency in the years to come. This really isn't an argument about finite resources though. Of course machinery that extracts energy is going to fail at some point, it is machinery after all. It doesn't matter whether it is extracting from a finite source or infinite source. However, with the exception of eventual supernova, solar power is effectively infinite in long term duration but intermittant in the short term and limted by surface area in total amount available at any given time. Which means it is easy to argue either side of the infinite/finite debate on solar with semantic tricks. Other sources such as wind and tidal are effectively infinite sources in duration since the wind isn't going to stop blowing and the tides will keep going in and out. Of course there is only a finite amount of energy that is available at any given time from these sources. The estimates however are that the energy available from these sources are quite large, and far surpassing current needs. This may not always be the case as per capita energy use continues to increase. Of course there will be options, there is a company right now that is trying to send a solar satellite into orbit which will beam energy back down to California. This is an old idea, and one that has the potential to vastly increase the energy available to solar extraction. Plus, though it is finite, nuclear has the potential to provide a vast amount of energy without dumping out CO2.

As to my first sentence on people not being bacteria, I guess no one caught the "Young Frankenstein" reference.

[Riprion]

The new population doomsday scenario is that we are not going to have enough young workers to support an ageing population. We've been hearing this argument from time to time regarding Social Security, but now it is being made on a global scale. A good reason for an industrialized nation to have liberal immigration policies. These numbers are relatively new. It has only been in the last ten years that birth rates in the industrialized world have fallen off a cliff. I found a better link on that site that lists total fertility rates with anything less than 2 being below replacement and ultimately leading to decreased population growth barring immigration. It shows 93 countries at 2 or below.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_t ... ility-rate

heck, there are only 73 countries above a 3.0 fertility rate.

[musashi]

Nice link, but I think it proves the rules of expanding world population more than contraction. The countries and areas with massive populations (Africa, India and China) all have large numbers.

African countries range from 5 to 7 children/woman
Bangladesh is at 3.1
India is at 2.8

And while China is below 2 at 1.8 children per woman this is in essences China is treading water, and pressing very hard to get there (pressing to the point of revolt). If China’s prosperity continues to expand there will be high pressures to spend this new wealth on more than one child. And from a free market perspective why in the heck shouldn't they be allowed to do so?

They should...

... and then global population continues to expand.

[Riprion]

My argument was that we should be more focused on the economic advancement of lesser developed nations because as nations and specifically their economies advance we see a stark trend towards declining fertility rates. This would also seem to indicate that as China's economy advances and becomes more prosperous (India as well) we will see a move toward declining fertility not an increase because they have more money. One of the main reason that China has to fight for the low fertility level they have is that the vast majority of the country (60%) is in poverty (less than $1/day) coupled with a mostly rural agrarian population (37% urban)

We should be jumping for joy that a shithole like Bangladesh only has a fertility rate of 3.1. We don't have that far to lower it and boy do they have a long way to go developmentally.

Also, I remember debating this 20 years ago and those numbers, across the board, were much higher. Sure we are going to see population increasing for the near future, but if those numbers continue on their current trend downward, the rate of increase will continue to slow and eventually reverse. Even the wikipedia graph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World ... n_(UN).svg(if you eliminate the constant fertility rate line) shows world population maxing out around 2040-2050 at around the 9billion level.

Don't get me wrong, that is a lot of people. We will need a lot of food and especially a lot of energy in a developed world for all those people. This is one of the reasons why I just shake my head in incomprehension at the environmentalists fighting against GM crops. GM crops have caused major advances in real-world productivity gains for food crops while allowing temperate forests to increase-sucking up CO2, pesticide/herbicide use to decrease-cleaning the waterways, no-till agriculture to become viable-decreasing topsoil erosion, and of course feeding those pesky starving poor people. But no, they have to instill fear of Frankenfood.

[musashi]

So it seems that the free market approach, (to this point) has favored unrestrained population growth. So the market place for energy is growing arithmetically. To bring this thread back on to one of the original points..

But there is another issue that I think Keith is missing. Massive markets, like the energy market, do not turn on a dime. You can’t run out of petroleum one day, and run your car from a windmill the next. The development cycle for alternate energy sources is deep and long. In a purely free market where maximization of owner’s equity is the main concern. How can the development of alternatives be seen as anything other than a competitive idea to be suppressed in deference to maximizing short term profits?

Given what Dr. Bartlett has claimed these resource constrained - growing demand situations, reach a crisis stage very abruptly. What character of the free market prevents this train wreck?

He made the point that alternate supplies and innovation can only provide a brief respite. In order to address this issue the only answer appears to be contraction of demand.

BTW Bartlett has me thinking that perhaps that will be an issue in my life time…

[Riprion]

First I am just going to pick apart the posted quote.

Massive markets, like the energy market, do not turn on a dime. You can’t run out of petroleum one day, and run your car from a windmill the next

This is completely disingenuous. We are not going to run out of petroleum in a day and then have to turn to wind et al. There are a lot of fossil fuels out there, some we can't extract yet, some are really expensive to extract so we don't do it right now. As the easy reserves run dry due to demand, the price moves up. As the price moves up it becomes financially feasible to both extract the difficult reserves increasing supply, and also to develop alternatives such as wind and solar. We are already seeing these shifts occuring in the marketplace. The plug-in hybrid will, in fact, invalidate this statement. The ability to tie into the electrical grid in order to supply energy to your vehicle will mean that you will be able to power your vehicle from any source of electricity that supplies the grid whether that is coal, solar, nuclear, or wind. Sure, we are not there yet, but we are moving in that direction.

The development cycle for alternate energy sources is deep and long

Yes, and we have been devloping alternatives in the form of nuclear for 70 years and renewables for 50. We are in the process of advancing all of these forms currently as well as devloping new forms such as tidal. Let's not forget that humanity has been using hydro for millenia.

In a purely free market where maximization of owner’s equity is the main concern. How can the development of alternatives be seen as anything other than a competitive idea to be suppressed in deference to maximizing short term profits?

In a free market, competitive ideas are not supposed to be suppressed. But I guess if you think the free market is our current system of corporatism where powerful corporate interests use the power of government to grant special favors and destroy competition to the detriment of the actual market, then sure suppression of alternatives could be a problem. But it really has nothing to do with the free market. In a free market, what would happen is that the cost of petroleum would rise as demand increases and supply decreases. It would then be in the short term interest to find alternative sources of energy that cost less or are less volatile in the price movement than the current source of petroleum. We saw this with the price spike in gasoline and the shortages of hybrids. A lot of people want to see a nice orderly progression towards sustainability and think the market fails when they don't get that. Markets simply don't work that way. They move in fits and spurts. Hybrid sales have fallen off a cliff along with the price of oil. Oil however is not going to stay at 50 forever. As it moves higher, so will the price of gasoline and more people will find it fiscally responsible to buy a hybrid. IMNSHO, I see hybrids as being the form that the electric car takes, especially with the plug-in. The plug-in really becomes a car powered by a battery and a battery that, if necessary, can be charged by an internal combustion engine to increase range. As battery technology advances, the engine will become less and less important until it eventually disappears. Of course this doesn't change the fact that most of our electricity is created by petroleum based power plants, but at least those plants are far far more efficient than the internal combustion engines we use in cars currently. This would seem to be a factor that would push a possible crisis furthur into the future.

Also, let's not be naive and think that the CEO's of SunPower and other renewable companies are doing what they are doing out of altruism. They are in it to make profits. As petroleum becomes more expensive, more people will start business ventures trying to take advantage of this and compete with the development of new energy technologies. So in the future, who is doing the suppressing? The big multinational petro-corp or the big multinational solar-corp, or will this distinction be completely meaningless as corps like BP shift from being petro corps into general energy corps. They seem to see profit on the horizon with regards to renewables.

Given what Dr. Bartlett has claimed these resource constrained - growing demand situations, reach a crisis stage very abruptly. What character of the free market prevents this train wreck?

My first question is what is the definition of abruptly in this context? Bartlett wants us to think that is going to be very quick. That is why he uses the analogy of bacteria. But if we directly apply the analogy of bacteria to humans, and I don't believe that we should because of my previous arguments, we are still talking about a generation or 30-40 years. That would actually put us around to 2050 mark when world population is predicted to turn around. If we look at the timeframe of energy development that may even push the crises out furthur than that, and if the population is decreasing, the crises may never even occur. As to the character of the free market that prevents this, I would argue that the constant testing of new avenues of profit would be one. Others would be resilance and adaptability, neither of which are present in a command system. Does this mean that the free market is a panacea that can prevent catastrophe? Absolutely not, just that I would rather have an agile system in place if and when a crisis does hit. So maybe I should have said that the free market can't prevent but can mitigate. I believe however that if we have a command system in place and it doesn't prevent the crisis, we would be totally screwed.

He made the point that alternate supplies and innovation can only provide a brief respite. In order to address this issue the only answer appears to be contraction of demand.

A brief respite might be all that is required in order to get over the population hump. Although, I am not entirely convinced that a decreasing population will necessarily equate to decreasing demand for energy. I guess that respite could be the extra 50 years or so that could lead to the necessary efficiencies for renewables though. Also, if an infinite source of energy can be developed, then demand is irrelevant. Of course that opens the infinite/finite semantic argument I alluded to previously with regards to wind, solar, and tidal.

[Petyr Baelich]

Riprion, I just want to say that I really admire your stamina. Excellent arguments as well.

[Riprion]

So I have been giving this discussion a lot of thought today. I think that the distinction between a free market, corporatism, and command economies is very important to the understanding of the issues. Especially considering this quote.

In a purely free market where maximization of owner’s equity is the main concern. How can the development of alternatives be seen as anything other than a competitive idea to be suppressed in deference to maximizing short term profits?

As I have mentioned before I think this misunderstanding is a big problem faced by proponents of the free market. As I have said, many people consider what we have in the United States to be exactly what is meant by a free market. The left certainly means the current system of corporatism when they disparage the free market and so it seems to have become the common usage. I don't want anyone to think I am positiing the argument that you can't use empirical evidence of problems in the US economy to criticize the free market because we have never truly had a free market economy. Although I believe that is somewhat true, I also believe that we can have a discussion of degrees.

So let's consider some of the issues on the different sides of the energy argument. I think we can summarily rule out the proposition of a pure socialist solution where the government creates a government owned corporation and they produce the machinery of the new green economy. There are very few people proposing this and I think that my previous arguments about the distinction between this and the free market solution might be a red herring.

When the energy industry is said to squash competition by the green energy industry, what is meant? I think what is meant is that the old energy corporations are very powerful and they use their influence in government to squash legislation that would use the power of government to grant competitive advantage to their competitors. First we have to understand that if we took government favor out of the equation petroleum wins in the market. It is cheap. The technology is mature and there is the massive CO2 externality. IOW the advantage goes to the status qou in this case regardless of any lobbying they do. What then is being proposed but more corporatism? The green energy lobby is not upset that petroleum energy is cheap but rather that government won't step in and grant them favors that would artificially raise the cost of petroleum. If you take the climate out of it, it would be like banana producers saying that the rice producers are squashing competition because the rice producers are resisting government tariffs that would raise the price of rice to equal or greater than the price of bananas. Let's think about what might happen if we choose to grant competitive advantage to the solar industry. Does anyone think that once they have a government granted advantage that they will let it go easily? Let's say that tidal starts to look really promising. Do you think that the solar industry will willing give up all those subsidies to their competition, or might they parade out their own set of experts to argue that tidal is an immature or completely unfeasible technology? This is ultimately the problem that is encountered when corporations benefit more by lobbying government than actually producing things.

The solution to this type of rent-seeking is the free market. It is not a perfect system. Most importantly the free market defies planning or direction. It just finds its own way like water running down a hill. This is a very big problem for people. They seem to have not so bad a time with spontaneous order emerging out of the mists of time in the form of evolution, but that doesn't really impact them directly. It is not ultimately seen as that important. They may even be able to grant that spontaneous order can emerge in a flock of birds or school of fish. Again, really there is no impact to their life here and as such no loss of control. However, when it comes to the economy or to world security because of climate change, that must absolutely be controlled. It is simply too important to just let happen. But it doesn't just simply happen. There are people out there constantly searching for ways to make a profit. Most of those people despite what some may think are fairly moral. Those people exist in all industries, including the energy industry and they are constantly trying out new methods to make a profit. Like evolution, most are total failures. These attempts should be judged on their merits, and the objective method for that is whether or not they can turn a profit. The government really shouldn't get involved because once they start granting favors, more people come begging for favors, and how is one to judge an attempt on its merits if it has an artificial leg up? That attempt might not be turning as big a profit as a competitor merely because the competitor's congressperson has more seniority on the House Energy Subcommitte, so they get a bigger subsidy. If Sunpower gets a bigger subsidy than First Solar but First Solar makes a better PV cell, that cell may take an extra 5 years to reach a wide market because investors keep funneling money to their competitor Sunpower because they are returning better profits. But the only reason they are returning better profits is because the government decided they should. How does this help the world?

The free market helps the consumer not corporations. The free market allows for competition. When there is competition prices go down, and this is good for the consumer, but obviously not for the corporation. In this case, all the world is the consumer. If we want the cheapest energy we should go with the free market. If we want the cheapest green energy, we should still choose the free market, because cut-throat competition in that sector will provide the cleanest cheapest energy. This will be less likely to happen if the government starts playing favorites. We might get clean green energy, but there will be a price to be paid.

Mistakes will, without a doubt, be made with the free market solution. They will, however, be discarded quickly. It's sort of like deciding who your bodyguard will be by using a cage match. The skinny weakling is going to die quickly. The rest of the match is going to be bloody and appalling, but in the end the guy you want as your body guard will be the only one left standing. That may offend some people's sensitivities, but it works.

[Riprion]

thanks petyr.

If you haven't guessed, I really like to argue.

[musashi]

Indeed I admire and appreciate your stamina as well. Unfortunately I think our ideas are pretty far apart.

The plug-in hybrid will, in fact, invalidate this statement.

The plug-in hybrid would mitigate, but are you aware that the battery technology is insufficient at this time?

Lead acid is highly polluting, has low energy density to weight. And the element lithium is extremely rare. If you think OPEC and the Islamic world wield too much influence today… wait until lithium is king! My little buddy in Venezuela, and his sidekick in Bolivia have got the majority of the world’s currently known supply and they only estimate the South American reserve at about 30 million metric tons – that does not make too many batteries.

Developments in battery technology will help, but they will not allow global population to continue to grow at 5% per year in perpetuity. So unfortunately until the replacement technology exists and is deployed we still have the very high possibility of major disruption and social upheaval.

Yes, and we have been developing alternatives in the form of nuclear for 70 years and renewable for 50. We are in the process of advancing all of these forms currently as well as developing new forms such as tidal. Let's not forget that humanity has been using hydro for millennia.

All of the segments you refer to are minuscule in comparison to the total energy market. According to the US DOE renewables including nuclear, account for less than 20% of total energy production. Nice history of renewables in that link. We are a long way off from displacing fossil fuels and demand continues to grow.

In a free market, competitive ideas are not supposed to be suppressed.

How do we get this to happen in a free market? Sans regulation if you and I are competing in a free market place, I am doing everything I can to eat your lunch. No Marquis of Queensbury rules - biting, kicking, eye gauging are perfectly acceptable in a free market. If the law of the jungle is survival of the fittest, then in a free market each competitor should expect no quarter from his rivals and persistantly seek dominion or be dominated. Any regulation to the contrary would be a market constraint.

In a free market, what would happen is that the cost of petroleum would rise as demand increases and supply decreases.

Again this is the steady state, unconstrained macro economic idea. But again using Bartlett’s presentation a simple growth rate of 5% per year results in a doubling every ten years! Let’s make the wild assumption we have ¾ of the total amount the earth ever had of fossil fuels still remaining in the ground, we would smoke it in 20 years. Do you still think the supply/demand curve is a flat line?

My first question is what is the definition of abruptly in this context? Bartlett wants us to think that is going to be very quick. That is why he uses the analogy of bacteria. But if we directly apply the analogy of bacteria to humans, and I don't believe that we should because of my previous arguments, we are still talking about a generation or 30-40 years.

Uhmm… On the projected need I think we agree. My definition of abruptly is a doubling of demand in a 50 year time span. US demand alone more than doubled in the last 50 years. This is an assumed growth in demand of 1.5%. Seems highly possible to me, and I believe the actual could be much higher.

I don’t think we agree on population growth I am thinking 5% per year, or a doubling of population every 10 years. And while most of these people will be born out in the cold so to speak, they represent a vast under satisfied demand.

I believe however that if we have a command system in place and it doesn't prevent the crisis, we would be totally screwed.

I agree here as well. A full command system (ala the USSR) would totally screw us.

But I also believe that a free market screws us too, just not as fast. We would not be expanding the limited amounts renewable energy as we are now if it were not for market interventions. I can tell you that I would not have pulled the trigger on my small deal without the state and federal subsidies I received. Even with the subsidies the deal was upside down. Without market intervention, even at this late date alternatives do not make sense.

[musashi]

The solution to this type of rent-seeking is the free market. It is not a perfect system. Most importantly the free market defies planning or direction. It just finds its own way like water running down a hill.

This is a beautiful metaphor. But if I may extend it, streams do not flow constant to the ocean. Obstructions sometimes arise and cause the flowing waters to pool.

In this instance running out of fossil fuels would hinder the market, and you are correct that at some point, some form of equilibrium will be restored. But what if the alternatives do not arise in time to avert catastrophe? We have a truly massive market, and the corrections will wash away the very foundations of society.

If we want the cheapest energy we should go with the free market.

I 100% agree with this point, but I believe it provides a short term benefit and a long term harm – I might characterize it as an addiction.

If we want the cheapest green energy, we should still choose the free market.

Here is where we differ. If we have your free market why would I even buy the more costly alternative? I wouldn’t. I would only buy once the alternative becomes a value. In this instance once the cost of fossil fuels is greater than green. What if we needed more time to make the transition? There would be a market gap, and this type of phenomenon has occurred before. I think about the shortage of whale oil before petroleum and fractionating distillation were introduced.

And another point, all the green alternatives take large energy investments up from to create. Once the fossil fuels are gone where do we get this upfront energy? As we drink from the well, should we reserve some water so that we can prime the pump the next time we would like to drink?

[Emedan]

There have always been people to claim that their own pet catastrophe theory justifies the suspension of individual rights, and specifically the free market. They look scientific, they speak the scientific language, they may even be scientists, but what they are doing is not science and a wee bit of digging often reveals that they are selecting their evidence to fit their view, intentionally or not.

At some time in the past, there has been the exact same argument about food. Repeatedly very respected people claimed that their country could not sustain its population growth and that there would be famine if nothing was done - ie, a bigger budget for them and to allow them to plan the brave new dictatorship. Many people fantasize about "changing the rules of the game" and give themselves nice altruistic reasons to do it - but we all know what is behing altruism. It's an objectivist forum here, isn't it? Or at least I hope so.

Of course history proved again and again that even when the population was doubling, the production of food would double even faster, to the point where people were eating better than before while being more numerous.

We heard the same shit about coal. But guess what? Oil came and mostly replaced it.

The mistake some people are making in this thread is to only consider oil. What is our global reserve, not of oil, but of human talent? As Ayn Rand wrote herself, oil has no value by itself. All its value come from the fact that talented people invented an engine that allowed to convert it into mechanical force. So, what is our global reserve of whatever we could be burning? What is our global reserve of hydrogen for nuclear fusion, not only here, but in outer space that technology will allow us to reach cheaper and cheaper? What percentage of it are we using? I'd say not even one in 10^25.

You want to stop your own consumption of oil? Do it, it'll make oil cheaper for me. But if you try to stop me from being free, then I will have to defend myself, and all the altruistic pretexts in the world won't stop me from shooting in self-defense someone who infringes on my property or try to regulate how and with whom I exchange it.

[Kushan]

give themselves nice altruistic reasons to do it - but we all know what is behing altruism. It's an objectivist forum here, isn't it? Or at least I hope so.

Your foul ideas will likely to damage fragile human minds! We must silence you - for The Greater Good!

*grabs pitchfork*

[Emedan]

give themselves nice altruistic reasons to do it - but we all know what is behing altruism. It's an objectivist forum here, isn't it? Or at least I hope so.

Your foul ideas will likely to damage fragile human minds! We must silence you - for The Greater Good!

*grabs pitchfork*

You know what? In the big bad capitalist country just over the ocean, they use a better pitchfork.

*grabs 12/16 machine gun*

Come to me, "the people". I'll show you some greater good.

[Petyr Baelich]

Hot Fuzz was an awesome movie.

[musashi]

It's an objectivist forum here, isn't it? Or at least I hope so.
....
What is our global reserve of hydrogen for nuclear fusion, not only here, but in outer space that technology will allow us to reach cheaper and cheaper? What percentage of it are we using? I'd say not even one in 10^25.

It is an Objectivist forum here, and I do apologize for testing your humor. I do realize that it would be far easier on everyone if I were to simply bleat “Freeee Marketttt” like any other irrational sheep in a herd. But I do wish to understand what a free market is since I’ve never really experienced one in real life.

Interesting that we’ve now got fusion on the table. One of my Judo buddies is designing the liquid helium cooled, high vacuum, 4-story tall super conducting magnetic containment structures in the ITER prototype fusion reactor (right in your backyard - Thx BTW). I agree fusion is where we need to be long term; it appears to have the greatest abundance of potential fuel.

Nuclear power kind of tricked us. The first fission thermopile came together so simply – a pile of bricks under some stadium bleachers? Really? That simple? Really!? It was practically barnstorming. Then we started trying to do this fusion thing. In 70 years, with billions invested – we haven’t been able to make a single working prototype. I think they just might pull the chain reaction off with ITER in the next decade. Only time will tell about many significant questions regarding fusion. And do understand, that any one of these questions could in essence close the door on the commercialization of fusion power.

Governments (like the EU, US and Japan) are providing the huge amounts of funding for this project rather than private industry. This is tax money coming out of our pockets Emedan. Do you think we should shut it all down?

After all if we didn’t... then the fusion power that it may someday produce would be fruit of a poison tree.

[Riprion]

Riprion wrote:
The plug-in hybrid will, in fact, invalidate this statement.

The plug-in hybrid would mitigate, but are you aware that the battery technology is insufficient at this time?

I didn't say plug-in hybrids would solve the problem, I said it would invalidate the statement that you can't shift to wind overnight to power your car. It absolutely will invalidate that statement because if you power your car by electricity, it won't matter where the electricity comes from whether coal, natgas, or wind.

Battery technology is insufficient at this time for a total electric vehicle, but that is mainly because of range. This is solved by the ancillary engine. These strategies might only mitigate, but how many mitigations are required before the problem is solved. You can't simply look at each mitigation in isolation and summarily claim "Oh well that alone won't solve the problem."

As far as pollution, yeah you'll have that. What are we trying to prevent? Are we trying to prevent economic collapse because of peak oil, climate change due to CO2 emmissions, or all pollution? Even geothermal causes arsenic pollution, but most would claim that is still better than AGW. IOW, there is always a tradeoff.

The fact that Bolivia has the world's largest reserves is a little disconcerting, but China is increasing production through brine extraction and there is actually a lot of lithium in seawater, just at low concentrations. Good thing there is a lot of seawater. This may not be economically viable at this time, but as demand increases SW extraction will become more viable.

All of the segments you refer to are minuscule in comparison to the total energy market. According to the US DOE renewables including nuclear, account for less than 20% of total energy production. Nice history of renewables in that link. We are a long way off from displacing fossil fuels and demand continues to grow.

Yes they are miniscule, but increasing. All you are saying is that there is a problem. We wouldn't have this discussion is nuclear supplied 80%. There are now 6 reactors being built with more in the works (that's about a 5% increase in capacity). The same thing with geothermal although it's not nearly close to supplying enough power yet. The fact that they are now increasing is yet another mitigating factor pushing the crisis furthur into the future.

How do we get this to happen in a free market? Sans regulation if you and I are competing in a free market place, I am doing everything I can to eat your lunch. No Marquis of Queensbury rules - biting, kicking, eye gauging are perfectly acceptable in a free market. If the law of the jungle is survival of the fittest, then in a free market each competitor should expect no quarter from his rivals and persistantly seek dominion or be dominated. Any regulation to the contrary would be a market constraint.

This is a gross mischaraterization of the free market. It's like saying that in a free society you can go around shooting people. Even in a market entities have rights and it is the role of government to protect those rights from infringement by others. That doesn't invalidate the concept of a free market.

Again this is the steady state, unconstrained macro economic idea. But again using Bartlett’s presentation a simple growth rate of 5% per year results in a doubling every ten years! Let’s make the wild assumption we have ¾ of the total amount the earth ever had of fossil fuels still remaining in the ground, we would smoke it in 20 years. Do you still think the supply/demand curve is a flat line?

I never said it was a flat line, but it is also not a clean exponential line either. That exponential line is actually a saw tooth of surges and dips trending up exponentially. Besides, I have already explained why Bartlett's analogy is flawed, and the current economic crisis has drastically reduced energy consumption which would seem to invalidate his hypothesis because it reveals that the relationship between population growth and energy use is not a constant.

I don’t think we agree on population growth I am thinking 5% per year, or a doubling of population every 10 years. And while most of these people will be born out in the cold so to speak, they represent a vast under satisfied demand.

Doubling of population in ten years is flat out wrong. The world has never seen anything near 5% growth which also invalidates Bartlett.
"The fastest rates of world population growth (above 1.8%) were seen briefly during the 1950s then for a longer period during the 1960s and 1970s (see graph). According to population projections, world population will continue to grow until around 2050. The 2008 rate of growth has almost halved since its peak of 2.2% per year, which was reached in 1963. World births have levelled off at about 137-million-per-year, since their peak at 163-million in the late 1990's, and are expected to remain constant. However, deaths are only around 56 million per year, and are expected to increase to 90 million by the year 2050. Since births outnumber deaths, the world's population is expected to reach about 9 billion by the year 2040"

I can tell you that I would not have pulled the trigger on my small deal without the state and federal subsidies I received. Even with the subsidies the deal was upside down. Without market intervention, even at this late date alternatives do not make sense.

No offense, but I think the subsidization of residential PV is probably one of the worst government energy policies yet. If the gov't is going to subsidize renewables, why should they piss money away on the most expensive option? All of the subsidy dollars that are spent on residential PV would be better spent on technologies that are at least in the ballpark of grid parity. I would say start with nuclear then wind and lastly solar concentration collectors (which are planned to reach parity in the next ten years). But instead the spend the money on PV and the PVs that are installed are the cheapest least efficient PVs that cost more than 5x grid and that is with ideal insolation. Then they are placed where the insolation is not ideal, maybe a tree casts an intermittant shadow or the inclination is not ideal or not directly south-facing. All of which increases the cost/kWh. The argument that you are saving on transmission losses is also bunk because those losses average 7% and the losses from DC->AC conversion range between 4-12%. The majority PVs being installed are already obsolete in the 15% efficiency range, while 24% is the current maximum (residentially available) with 40% being the top efficiency that they put on spacecraft (much closer to bringing PV to parity) Those 40% should be readily available in the next 10 years, but that will only be halfway or a third of the way through the lifecycle of the crappy PVs so adoption will be slowed because of the previous government intervention. If you haven't completed your ROI would you rip down the ineffcient PVs for new expensive superefficient PVs, or would your wait until they needed to be replaced? This is exactly the kind of unintended consequence that government interventions cause, that are avoided by the market.

In this instance running out of fossil fuels would hinder the market, and you are correct that at some point, some form of equilibrium will be restored. But what if the alternatives do not arise in time to avert catastrophe? We have a truly massive market, and the corrections will wash away the very foundations of society.

We already have the alternatives available to avoid disaster; the main one is nuclear. Sure there are problems, but what is worse, a little nuclear waste or the collapse of society. Hmm, I think I'll take my chances with nuclear plants. Here again the rapidity with which the catastrophe approaches is based on inaccurate population predictions or the notion that we will be blindsided and wake up one day to an announcement that there is no more oil, coal, or natgas. We have over 200 years of coal reserves in this country alone.

Here is where we differ. If we have your free market why would I even buy the more costly alternative? I wouldn’t. I would only buy once the alternative becomes a value.

Actually you yourself have disproved this statement. Even with the subsidies you were underwater so to speak with the solar installation. This leads to Mises and his claim that every transaction in the market is rational, but only to the people involved in the transaction. This holds true even if the transaction doesn't seem rational to me. The value gained isn't simply and economic one but also one of self-satisfaction or w/e. Either way, you incurred a cost because there was some non-tangible value.

The other instance would be the adoption of expensive energy technologies in remote places. The reason solar is not economically viable in cities is because of the grid, but in rural Africa where there are no power lines solar looks like a good idea. I just don't see why the government should encourage the adoption of expensive technologies in areas where there are less expensive alternatives even within the realm of renewables.

I think about the shortage of whale oil before petroleum and fractionating distillation were introduced.

Ahh the old whale oil chestnut, this is completely inapplicable because kerosene was an incredibly new technology at the time of the whale oil shortage whereas we currently have mature alternatives such as nuclear that simply need to be adopted in a more widespread manner. We aren't sitting around waiting for fusion, which would be far more analogous to the whale oil shortage.

Also, if you think you can regulate your way out of shortages of anything......

[musashi]

This is a gross mischaracterization of the free market. It's like saying that in a free society you can go around shooting people. Even in a market entities have rights and it is the role of government to protect those rights from infringement by others. That doesn't invalidate the concept of a free market.

Ah the Achilles-heal of Objectivism, the legal double standard has risen once again . ”Laws will protect me. But no regulation shall be allowed to abridge my rights.” And how does the government protect your rights in the market place? Ayn Rand used the “anti dog eat dog” slogan; shall we use this one or come up with a new one? The truth is if government is involved - you have something less than a free market.

Besides, I have already explained why Bartlett's analogy is flawed, and the current economic crisis has drastically reduced energy consumption which would seem to invalidate his hypothesis because it reveals that the relationship between population growth and energy use is not a constant.

I would not call the approach flawed in the slightest, and it is far from invalidated. Agreed consumption has slacked slightly, but consumption marches on and we are still on the same road. And when economic expansion begins once more, we will be back at the same velocity.

No offense, but I think the subsidization of residential PV is probably one of the worst government energy policies yet. If the gov't is going to subsidize renewables, why should they piss money away on the most expensive option? All of the subsidy dollars that are spent on residential PV would be better spent on technologies that are at least in the ballpark of grid parity. I would say start with nuclear then wind and lastly solar concentration collectors

No offence taken. Of all the current options Solar is politically the safest. The enviro-fascists are going to go off-the-hook when they begin building more fission reactors (and they will build more). Plus nuclear seems nice, but it has some real hang ups too like;

• You have to move a lot of dirt to get a little U235.
  Toxic by products that remain dangerous at low levels for tens of thousands of years.
  Expanding the availability of fissile weapons grade materials creates an ever larger rise in the risk of a nuclear holocaust.
  And believe it or not water. Those reactors and cooling towers require huge amounts of processed water. Water that we may not have.

Wind is sporadic, and kills birds (see enviro-fascists above).

If you haven't completed your ROI would you rip down the inefficient PVs for new expensive superefficient PVs, or would your wait until they needed to be replaced? This is exactly the kind of unintended consequence that government interventions cause, that are avoided by the market.

Actually it is not as bad as it might seem. Half the costs are in installation and wiring. If a better panel/inverter comes along it would be a plug and play upgrade. I’d be able to exploit much of my sunk costs and probably do it without a permit.

Here is where we differ. If we have your free market why would I even buy the more costly alternative? I wouldn’t. I would only buy once the alternative becomes a value.

Actually you yourself have disproved this statement. Even with the subsidies you were underwater so to speak with the solar installation. This leads to Mises and his claim that every transaction in the market is rational, but only to the people involved in the transaction.

I admit in this instance I have gambled (the capital risk was not significant for me). I expect the cost of capital to remain low, and the cost of electricity to increase in time. Plus I expect inflation to erode a significant portion of the value of my monetary assets, so a transfer to real property seemed like a good idea to me. The project did not meet my IRR goals, but it did achieve payback and at current conditions a modest 2% ROI over 25 years. I have some tricks left in the bag to bring my ROI up to where I want it, and if my gamble pays off I could net 10% ROI if electric rates double.

Seemed like a better odds than betting on cards.

I think about the shortage of whale oil before petroleum and fractionating distillation were introduced.

Ahh the old whale oil chestnut, this is completely inapplicable because kerosene was an incredibly new technology at the time of the whale oil shortage whereas we currently have mature alternatives…

They knew about kerosene, just didn’t have the industrial scale production and wide spread distribution infrastructure in place to exploit it.(Thank you for slashing all those throats JD Rockefeller!). Much like today they had an option, but it was not mature enough to be a full replacement. Why do you think there are abandoned whaling stations on harsh and far flung places as Antarctica? They were so desperate for whale oil they went extreme and life -threatening lengths to get it.

Also, if you think you can regulate your way out of shortages (Musashi insertion – depletion) of anything......

That is precisely what I think.

• I think regulation can be used to encourage development alternatives.
  I think regulation can provide legal protection for intellectual property.
  I think regulation can provide a standardization framework for distribution.
  I think regulation can be used to retard depletion
  I think regulation can be used to prioritize access.

[Petyr Baelich]

Musashi, I don't know what kind of personal problems you're going through right now, (well actually I do know a little, but that's neither here nor there). Your obvious trolling needs to come to a stop. I think we've played out this topic enough and it's clear to me that you don't wish to listen to reason, you merely want to find some little corner of Objectivism wrong so you can peel it off and feel better about your apparent inability live as a rational human, or to find happiness for yourself.

Anyone who has been around Objectivists as long as you have would know that we are not anarchists or libertarians. Obviously government has its place in the free market by being the overwhelming force to use against those who would use force to subvert the free market. Government should be a policeman, a judge, and a soldier. And that's it.

Your posts are overwhelmingly negative and add absolutely no value to these forums. You bring up only problems without any solutions of your own; and when someone eloquently solves those problems for you using reason, you simply ignore them, or bring yet more negativity and problems. I think that's absolutely worthless.

[musashi]

I don't see it that way Boss. I don't think I've been negative in the slightest. I believe your reaction to the conversation is extreme.

Musashi, I really don't understand the diatribe of negativity you have been pouring out on the forums lately. I really don't think you're as blind to reason as you make yourself out to be with your posts, so I think you're consciously trolling us in an attempt to "prove objectivism wrong" for some reason. Even then, it seems you'd rather simply find one thing wrong with our philosophy than add anything positive of your own (which I could deal with).

I'm removing you from the BoD and all applicable offices in-game and on the forums. I hope you deal with your personal issues that are apparently causing you such distress and can experience a good and happy life by accepting reality and working productively to use it for your own advantage.

Regards,

If you can not have a free market of ideas, you certainly can not have free trade. In effect you are censuring me.

[Emedan]

I don't see it that way Boss. I don't think I've been negative in the slightest. I believe your reaction to the conversation is extreme.

Musashi, I really don't understand the diatribe of negativity you have been pouring out on the forums lately. I really don't think you're as blind to reason as you make yourself out to be with your posts, so I think you're consciously trolling us in an attempt to "prove objectivism wrong" for some reason. Even then, it seems you'd rather simply find one thing wrong with our philosophy than add anything positive of your own (which I could deal with).

I'm removing you from the BoD and all applicable offices in-game and on the forums. I hope you deal with your personal issues that are apparently causing you such distress and can experience a good and happy life by accepting reality and working productively to use it for your own advantage.

Regards,

If you can not have a free market of ideas, you certainly can not have free trade. In effect you are censuring me.

No he is not. This forum isn't a commune. It's private property. You still can start a blog and say whatever you can about objectivism. This website may just not be the place for it.

By the way, I am not an orthodox objectivist either, since I am of the neo-objectivist libertarian kind, so this is absolutely not a reaction from a close-minded person who thinks reason is whatever Ayn Rand said. I understand that Ayn Rand was an imperfect human being as well as a genius. Your argument that if there is government there is something else than the free market speaks to me, and to it I answer "let's just privatize government". And "The Machinery of Freedom" by David Friedman, which argues for stateless institutions, is my fith or seventh favourite book. But I understand that I do not have a right to use the means of others to speak my views.

[Petyr Baelich]

If you can not have a free market of ideas, you certainly can not have free trade. In effect you are censuring me.

You're free to say whatever you want to; I'll not censor it. The ideas you've expressed and the manner of their expression is not in keeping with what I want on my Board of Directors, or as one who is in a leadership position in my corporation. That's it.

[musashi]

You're free to say whatever you want to; I'll not censor it. The ideas you've expressed and the manner of their expression is not in keeping with what I want on my Board of Directors, or as one who is in a leadership position in my corporation. That's it.

Understood.

I’ve always considered the leadership role of TTI as fully invested in a single person, to choose council as he or she sees fit, and then to act in the best interest of TTI past, present and future. I support your choice Petyr even if I do believe it to be completely without merit and misguided.

My role was merely ceremonial at best any way, and clearly my opinions were not needed at this point.