tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6295167997046485177.post5869634122810985715..comments2023-08-16T02:24:35.465-07:00Comments on Phoebe's Jottings: Energy Demand - Just because we want it, doesn't mean we are going to get it!Phoebe Brighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14305668192166302241noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6295167997046485177.post-25908774845247187632008-08-07T09:55:00.000-07:002008-08-07T09:55:00.000-07:00wag the dog, I agree with where you are coming fro...wag the dog, I agree with where you are coming from on this. I think that there is a huge amount of inertia to overcome to change the way we generated, distribute and use energy but when people have a personal need to make changes and have the ability to do so, we can do so incredibly quickly. Response during previous oil crisis was rapid and inventive, but once the need had gone, people quickly slipped back into their old ways.<BR/><BR/>Re nanotechnology. I don't wish to sound as though this technology is just around the corner, but progress is being made and it certainly holds promise for the future - how long depending to a great extent on the state of the economy and funding available for research which does not deliver immediate benefit.<BR/><BR/>If we can deliver demand response (real time electricity pricing coupled with automated swithing on and off of devices according to price) we could see very rapid gains in efficiency without any changes to the grid infrastructure. I have some ideas on how to do this a low cost which I will publish soon.<BR/><BR/>Micro-generation, if you include solar thermal and ground source heat pumps, is already spreading rapidly, though I would be interested in seeing studies on how much is actually being saved in terms of fossil-fuels. Windmills and micro-turbines are starting to appear as well. I agree with your view on people just using more with increased efficieny in a business as usual scenario, but with prices rising rapidly we may see the opposite effect. As people start to include efficiency tools and micro generation in their own homes and businesses they become more aware of how much energy they are using and are much more likely to waste less. <BR/><BR/>Re Rapairs - again, in a business as usual scenario I think you are spot on, but all that can change very quickly if people cannot afford to replace goods. If new businesses spring up offering the ability to repair items, the old stalwarts are not going to stand by a lose their market. They will adapt to produce whatever will sell and that business model might be very different from 'pile it high and sell it cheap'.<BR/><BR/>Re the journey, Later this year I will be working with Richard Douthwaite to update the work we did at www.energyscenariosireland.com, and look at three scenarios to do with the timing of transition. One where we move rapidly and can maintain a positive economy. One where we leave it 5 years before making serious change and one where we leave it so long we have few resources with which to adapt. More later...<BR/><BR/><BR/>Thanks for your thoughtful comments . It's great to be challenged!Phoebe Brighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14305668192166302241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6295167997046485177.post-63561526930176911572008-08-06T05:13:00.000-07:002008-08-06T05:13:00.000-07:001. Production from power plants will be used more ...<I>1. Production from power plants will be used more efficiently.</I><BR/><BR/>This requires an infrastructure upgrade which itself uses up energy but this is a one-off. Then there's the rebound effect to worry about. If this boost in efficiency saves people significant amounts of money, they will spend it on more energy intensive activities (trips around the world, big screen plasma TVs, etc)<BR/><BR/><I>People will be actively looking for ways to reduce their energy use by reducing waste and using costly energy more efficiently</I><BR/><BR/>But it is a bit of <A HREF="http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/5/26/132130/563" REL="nofollow">a Prisoner's Dilemma</A>. The early adopters of efficient technology incur a significant penalty since the price of new technology is expensive (only mass adoption brings down the price), but thanks to their reduced energy demand the price of energy drops for everyone who in turn feel less pressure to switch. The energy system has a lot of inertia.<BR/><BR/><I>The promise of nanotechnology is to create minute motors that use far less energy and increase the efficiency of energy generation.</I><BR/><BR/>You're starting to sound like a one of <A HREF="http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/singularity" REL="nofollow">those Singularity believers</A>. Ray Kurzweil loves <A HREF="http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/01/magazines/fortune/kurzweil.fortune/index.htm" REL="nofollow">to cite nanotechnology whenever he downplays global warming</A>. It's basically <A HREF="http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4231" REL="nofollow">a race between peak energy and the geek rapture</A>.<BR/><BR/> <I>4. Micro generation is becoming affordable, reducing demand from the grid.</I><BR/><BR/>Renewable energy accounts for a small percentage of total energy usage and microgeneration only a tiny percentage of that. Will microgeneration allow this to be scaled up at a rate to match declines in oil/gas? Can nuclear? There are a number of issues to look at: cost per kilowatt hour, commissioning time, and amortised cost of installation over lifetime, cost of decommissioning.<BR/><BR/><I> 5. Repair rather than Replace.</I><BR/><BR/>Again you're dealing with a consumerism based economic system with lots of inertia. <A HREF="http://www.storyofstuff.com/" REL="nofollow">The Story of Stuff</A> explains this well -- a repair based society is completely antithetical to what we have now. Such a transition cannot happen overnight, but how much time do we have, really?<BR/><BR/>Recall that Peak Oil is less about the end goal not being possible. The scenario you outline is definitely feasible. It is more about the journey to get there and the many hazards along the way.Wag the Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06523201507972211984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6295167997046485177.post-14279329930772639372008-07-18T04:14:00.000-07:002008-07-18T04:14:00.000-07:00Interesting article from Tom Raftery at that relat...Interesting article from Tom Raftery at that relates to both this post and the one from OC BBQ.<BR/><BR/>Talks about how ITC can reduce carbon emissions. Quoting from a Climate Group Report:<BR/><BR/> 1. Smart motor systems - optimised motors and industrial automation would reduce 0.97 GtCO2e [0.97 giga tons CO2 emissions] in 2020, worth €68 billion ($107.2 billion)<BR/> 2. Smart logistics - global savings from smart logistics in 2020 would reach 1.52 GtCO2e, with energy savings worth €280 billion ($441.7 billion)<BR/> 3. Smart buildings - smart buildings technologies would enable 1.68 GtCO2e of emissions savings, worth €216 billion ($340.8 billion) and<BR/> 4. Smart grids - smart grid technologies were the largest opportunity found in the study and could globally reduce 2.03 GtCO2e , worth €79 billion ($124.6 billion)<BR/><BR/><BR/>See http://greenmonk.net/ict-could-deliver-approximately-78-gtco2e-of-emissions-savings-in-2020/Phoebe Brighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14305668192166302241noreply@blogger.com