Topic
A great energy transition is coming. Will it mean a better day for humanity, or turmoil? First in a series.
Governments should be 'educating their citizenry of the risk of contraction to minimize potential future social discord,' says Swedish expert Mikal Hook. Photo: Shutterstock.
Canada's acclaimed energy journalist tackles The Big Question October 3 in Vancouver. Here's a taste.
Fantasies of a renewable future obscure our biggest responsibility in the climate battle, says Ozzie Zehner in 'Green Illusions.'
An energy transition has begun, but it's probably not the one you imagined.
It might have an ugly financial face, an authoritarian political mask or come in the guise of geographic disunion.
But it probably won't look like a solar panel or a windmill. And it won't include flying cars or undersea homes.
Although no one really knows where the globe's energy mix is headed or how it will shape our lives in the future, energy experts now offer a diversity of forecasts, stories and warnings.
Their pronouncements are both myth busting if not startling.
When economies shrink
Jeff Rubin, the former chief economist for CIBC, argues that "the new green" will not be endless arrays of solar panels or windmills but less oil and smaller economies.
Mikal Hook, an analyst at Sweden's Uppsala Depletion Group, goes further and argues that any orderly energy transition might now be impossible because renewables simply can't grow as fast as oil.
He also warns that all citizens should prepare for "high and likely volatile oil prices," and that governments should be "educating their citizenry of the risk of contraction to minimize potential future social discord."
Chris Turner, Calgary's sustainability journalist, believes that an orderly energy leap can be made but political leaders and the status quo aren't showing much interest in public transit or renewable forms of energy at least in North America.
Joseph Tainter, the U.S. anthropologist and historian, suggests that civilization has climbed a tall spiral staircase of energy complexity without knowing how far we can go with the resources we have at hand.
He warns that it takes energy to solve complex problems and he doesn't think society can voluntarily cut back on fossil fuels.
Vaclav Smil, a University of Manitoba researcher and one of the world's great energy analysts, believes that energy obesity is the moral problem and proscribes a diet consisting of low-hanging fruit such as efficient furnaces and high speed trains.
Douglas Reynolds, an economist and engineer at University of Alaska Fairbanks, calls the collapse of the Soviet Union a dark energy transition and one completely unforetold.
When oil production collapsed from 12 million to five million barrels a day after 1989, the Berlin Wall fell, the rich got richer, the Eastern Union dissolved and the Warsaw Pact crumbled.
And that's just a sampling of the voices and ideas you'll read in this series on energy transitions. In the next couple of weeks we'll take a hard look at the myths, the facts and some enduring truths about dirty oils, uncertain renewables and contracting economies.
Where we are now
But before we can talk about change, evolution, innovation or just plain dissolution, we need to appreciate where we are in the energy world.
The basic global energy picture is what Nobel laureate Richard Smalley once called the "terawatt challenge." And it comes with no comfortable answers.
What's a terawatt? It is the average rate at which energy is released in the burning of five billion barrels of oil during a year.
The world uses on a continuing basis about 17 terawatts of energy in the form of coal, gas, oil and nuclear power. Eighty-five per cent of that work comes from fossil fuels. In fact, oil provides 37 per cent of the energy mix and accounts for 90 per cent of all transportation fuels. It's the lynchpin of the global energy system.
Renewable or green forms of energy such as hydro and wood contribute slightly more than one terawatt. Wind, solar and biofuels barely appear on the chart. (One terawatt, by the way, is the amount of energy the world consumed in 1890.)
Terrawatt challenge: Chart shows where our energy comes from now. Where can we go from here?
Now the relationship between economic growth and energy consumption is pretty direct, if not fundamental. Countries that spend lots of energy, and particularly oil, tend to be wealthier than those that don't.
"Just as higher metabolic rates are required to sustain and grow larger, more complex bodies, so higher rates of energy consumption are required to sustain and grow larger, more developed economies that provide greater levels of technological development and higher standards of living," explains a group of scientists in the journal BioScience in 2011. Even GDP is strongly linked to oil spending.
In an article entitled "Energetic Limits to Economic Growth" the scientists add that a global energy diet would likely constrict the economic system. "Gradually reducing an individual's food supply leads initially to physiological adjustments, but then to death from starvation, well before all food supplies have been exhausted," say the scientists.
Changing the diet
Now everyone who buys gasoline knows that the era of cheap oil is over and that is already feeling the pinch. Business as usual is not working.
Difficult hydrocarbons such as bitumen and deep sea oil are now replacing easy oil, and that shift alone represents a dramatic and little heralded energy transition.
The carbon, capital and environmental footprint of these difficult or low quality crudes are bigger and more complex than light oil.
At the same time most citizens also recognize that investments in renewable forms of energy remain small, costly and dispersed. Moreover they produce electricity, not liquid fuel.
So that's the first challenge. How does a society maintain an expensive 17 terawatt diet when the cost of its primary energy supply hits triple digits and the so-called replacements are neither as versatile or portable as oil?
But here's another twist. If the rest of the world were to adopt the lifestyles of the average North American who now consumes 24 barrels of oil (and lots more electricity) civilization would require a fivefold increase in energy consumption. That's 77 terawatts.
To entertain a global population of 9.5 billion in 2050 on North Americans standards multiplies the challenge again.
Such a policy would take another 268 terawatts or 16 times the current level of energy spending. (Just to energize nine billion people living at current Chinese standards would take at least 34 terawatts or a near tripling of current rates.)
Utopian dreams: French postcard from the late 19th century portraying how our master of energy would allow us to be living now. Source: Messy Nessy.
These ungainly figures invite several more conundrums. The amount of energy that can be harvested from the planet on an annual basis is about 77 terawatts. So any business as usual case based on exporting North American energy lifestyles to China and India totally busts the world's energy bank.
A third problem arises from the atmospheric pollution created by the burning of fossil fuels over more than 150 years. To avoid catastrophic global warming and runaway ocean acidification, scientists calculate that society requires a massive energy conversion to renewables beginning yesterday.
Such a program means converting the current energy budget of 17 terawatts from mostly fossil fuels to 14 terawatts from renewables within 25 years. Such a revolution would reduce the fossil fuel share of the energy mix to about three terawatts a day.
Wind farm continents?
But is such a feat even possible given renewables low profile energy in a debt-ridden world?
The U.S. inventor and engineer Saul Griffith calculates that that world would have to industrialize a landmass the size of Australia with wind farms, solar arrays and algae biofuel factories to achieve such a climate stabilization goal.
He calls this unmade alternative geography "Renewistan," and compares the scale of the endeavor to getting all the combatants in the Second World War fighting on the same side for 25 years in a row. Few environmentalists appreciate the magnitude or the cost of this challenge.
In the end, there are several different ways of answering the terawatt challenge. The politically correct and dominant approach is denial. But one way or another the globe must increase either renewable energy supplies, decrease fossil fuel use or lower population levels. Or achieve all three simultaneously.
But whatever nations choose or deny, ordinary citizens face years of political and economic volatility in the years ahead.
And the first thing we need to acknowledge and understand about energy transitions is that they do not arrive fully formed or in polite clothing.
The long switch from wood to coal was driven by the systematic deforestation of Europe while the difficult shift from human slavery to inanimate slaves energized by steam took one of the world's most dramatic protest movements: abolition.
Realism and hope
History shows that energy transitions are invariably a utopian's worst nightmare or a novelist's best idea: they are protracted, difficult and unpredictable.
And one more thing: energy transitions are often ripe with conflict.
All the more reason to begin today thinking and talking about that transition, and so this is the first of many articles to come in a series we are calling "The Big Shift" -- a clear-eyed exploration of what limits we face in our fossil fuel energy supplies, the potential of green energy, the resilience of our societies, the fragility of our political systems.
This series seeks to provide merely the most realistic information and well grounded analyses available. There's no usefulness in sugar coating that produces false optimism that in turn might lull us into complacency at a moment when critical technological and political shifts must be anticipated and navigated. At the same time, hope begins with recognizing the challenges we face and the opportunities they present. Once gauged with clarity, we can get on with the task at hand, minimizing the risk and hardship that any big shift necessarily entails.
Look for Andrew Nikiforuk's reports on "The Big Shift" every week in The Tyee from now to summer.
Next week: Vaclav Smil on transitions. ![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
Read more: Energy, Labour + Industry, Environment
74
Login or register to post comments
Otto Rant
12 weeks ago
VIrtual reality will replace possessions and activities
The energy crunch will be largely solved by people retreating into small rooms with computers. Instead of incurring the energy costs of actually owning large houses, furnishings, and vehicles, or travelling to visit other people or have new experiences, these things will be replaced by a virtual world.
Much of the current value of these things already lies in the ability to feel the satisfaction of ownership, rather than actually use, and to brag about them on Facebook.
Soon, people will be buying merely the right to pretend to own certain things, or to have had certain experiences. This has already happened to some extent in Second Life. The savings in energy achieved by cutting back on real world goods and activities will easily match the dwindling of fossil fuels.
Fiat lux
12 weeks ago
Chinese economic miracle in
Chinese economic miracle in action..
A new wave of smog descended on North China's Beijing, Tianjin and Hebei Province on Sunday, while the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) announced that large amounts of poisonous chemicals were found in last month's heavy smog that choked the region.
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/762114.shtml
Story
12 weeks ago
Talk the talk Mr. Big guys!
I am a solo, opinionated, grumpy old octogenarian with a busted back and a strong constitution. I have not owned a car since 1984: I live in the downtown of a small coastal city on the tenth floor and I walk, walk to all my life amenities.
I appreciate families who cannot follow my example as they must live according to their means relegating them to the ubiquitous sprawl requiring them to own and drive a car: school drop-off, groceries and medical appts, etc. Our council seems oblivious, wedded to realtors pals who wont do a thing to help.
However, I will not subscribe to your AGW hysteria and I do not appreciate your comment, "To avoid catastrophic global warming and runaway ocean acidification, scientists calculate that society requires a massive energy conversion to renewables beginning yesterday." because . . .
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/climategate.php
What catastrophe? Who are these scientists Mr. Nikiforuk? Are you into scare-mongering too?
Do you own a car? Do you, like David Susuki, David Beers and Rafe Mair, pontificate from on high while indulging the very habits that feed your perceived catastrophe.
Of course we must have clean air, clean water and properly designed urban conurbations free of corrupt speculators and their dependent politicos.
I lived in Mexico City in the latter years of the '90's. IMECA readings declared schools closed when readings reach 200. Now IMECA . . .
http://www.calidadaire.df.gob.mx/calidadaire/index.php
. . . readings, air quality, are averaging 70 this morning: of course they vary. Still, Chilangos are doing something right!
Yes, the Alberta tar sands are a very bad ldea along with the inevitable pipelines and tanker traffic. The tar sands, along with the shills promoting them, are disgusting.
We must join with Idle No More, they have awakened which is more than I can say for us.
Yes, there is a catastrophe brewing. Big time! We are headed, sir, into a socio/economic blind the world has never seen: caused by a corrupt international, banking, financial ponzi purposefully ignored by decision makers who benefit from its largess.
Time to hear that on Tyee!
bcwoodcarver
12 weeks ago
story
i checked your link regarding climate change as a farce, but stopped reading after the opening line--"In late January 2013, CNN admitted on-air that temperature across the United States were ten to twenty degrees colder than average."
Fiat lux
12 weeks ago
I suppose it is global
I suppose it is global cooling that keeps giving us +4C etc. here in the Cariboo for weeks now, whereas we used to have -30 and -40 every day, also for weeks 20-30 years ago.
The millions of acres of dead trees must around here have been killed by the -5C we had this morning.
"Scientists confirm: Arctic Sea collapse...."
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/02/15-6
Ed Deak.
Fiat lux
12 weeks ago
More on the effects of
More on the effects of "global cooling", sent to me by a professor friend in the sciences
2
.
5
,
Fiat lux
12 weeks ago
Try again 2 . 5 ,
Try again
2
.
5
,
Fiat lux
12 weeks ago
Sorry about this, the magic
Sorry about this, the magic doesn't work for some reason.
Ed Deak
Jim Baird
12 weeks ago
Terawatt Challenge
Smalley suggested as much as 60 terawatts would be needed by 2050 by 10 billion wishing to live as comfortably as we do. Currently we produce 16. Global Warming is accumulating 330 TW of heat in the oceans each year causing them to expand and the icecaps to melt. Ocean thermal energy conversion to produce Smalley's 60TW would reduce this by 60TW in accordance with the First Law of Thermodynamics - energy can not be created or destroyed but it can be converted from one form to another, e.g. heat to mechanical energy.
Nuclear power produces twice as much heat as power. Produce 60 TW with nuclear and you end up with 450TW of heat going into the ocean every year.
Produce it with OTEC you get a net 270TW.
We have everything to gain by filling the clean energy void.
Story
12 weeks ago
Blinkers just don't work . . .
@ fiatlux and bcwoodcarver.
Yes, fl I too remember the -30's and -40's back in the good old days: but that was Fahrenheit remember . . .
"but stopped reading after the opening line" that's right keep your head in the sand bcw
If you don't see the ponzi as the bigger threat then I have nothing more to say to either of you.
bcwoodcarver
12 weeks ago
story
the opening line of your link has no connection with reality. 20degrees colder on average is more than enough to start the next ice age . We have had -30c as recently as 5 years ago in S. B.C., and winters with no snow as recently as 15 yrs ago. Cycles come and go.
Feverish
12 weeks ago
The global ponzi scheme is
The global ponzi scheme is indeed a huge threat to our freedom and well-being. The architects of the system are out to steal all they can. Any and all acts of defiance to the status quo will help to tear down the wall. Our dilemma is how to rebuild it once we are living in the rubble.
http://www.movie2k.to/Four-Horsemen-watch-movie-2001182.html
If we are to regain self reliance as a way of life then we must continue to question all things and take steps to ween ourselves from the systems that enslave us.
As a small example; if you really want to reduce your ecological footprint, for whatever reason, then stop relying on mass transport on a global scale, stop purchasing goods wrapped in copious packaging, start thinking of recycling as more than your blue box left on the curb for someone else to take responsibility for, grow some food, ride your bike, walk, do more with less, etc.
A bunch of small steps done repeatedly impact your personal consumption level. Becoming less reliant on finite energy sources is something to work toward, whatever your motivation. Not only will resources be preserved, but you will stop feeding the ponzified parasites that are attached at the rectum.
Booker
12 weeks ago
the politics
I think that one dangerous assumption of those who are trying to fight global warming is that oil will become unaffordable and inaccessible -- the "peak oil" hypothesis. As we are seeing in the U.S. and elsewhere, the current price of oil is more than enough incentive for companies to create the technology to get at the large, though difficult, oil and gas reserves. We have to assume that the oil shock is a fairly long way off, and will not come in time to save us from AGW. I don't see any alternative to major governmental regulation to preserve the environment, and that means we need grassroots pressure. We need to counter the extraordinarily rich astroturf groups that the oil industry has been supporting (and whose talking points get parroted by denialists on comment threads here and everywhere).
http://desmogblog.com/2013/02/18/how-spot-fake-grassroots-movement
Public opinion polls have shown that those astroturf groups have had significant success in denying that there is even a problem that needs to be addressed.
Kooks and science-illiterates are always going to be with us, but we need to expose who, and what, they are.
It's great The Tyee is doing its part.
Fiat lux
12 weeks ago
Story.....Canada has been on
Story.....Canada has been on Celsius for almost 40 years, I grew up with C it in Europe and have some idea of the differences.
The cold water used to steam as it was coming out of the well, when I was watering the cows, and we had no pine beetle epidemics killing the forests, because it took -40 C for a week to kill their eggs. Haven't had any since 1995.
Of course, it is difficult to argue with the faithful......
By the way, what do you think, on which side has Allah ordered the suicide bombers to blow up themselves and the "infidel"? The Sunnies, or the Shiites" to get into the 7th level of heaven?.
Very important.
1,000 US business leaders have signed a letter to the President asking to cancel the Pipeline.
http://www.csrwire.com/press_releases/35215-Why-the-American-Sustainable-Business-Council-Is-Against-the-Keystone-XL-Pipeline?tracking_user=hbreen@shaw.ca&tracking_source=email
Ed Deak.
mission impossible
12 weeks ago
The world can change
It merely takes political will, corporations must be removed from our political offices.
http://www.abbotsfordtoday.ca/what-do-you-think-canada-enablers-of-stagnation/
Hugh
12 weeks ago
Debt
We have a lot of debt. If we go on an energy diet, there will be less or no more economic growth.
If there is no economic growth, we won't be able to sustain the debts.
That means debt default. Could be done as a debt jubilee, which has been done before.
Story
12 weeks ago
Watch what they do, not what they say . . .
"the opening line of your link has no connection with reality." @ bcwoodcarver condescension does you no credit. Try reading beyond the first line. There are many, many scientific references. You may learn something.
"Kooks and science-illiterates are always going to be with us" @ booker try not to name call: it reflects back on you . . . very, very unbecoming.
"Of course, it is difficult to argue with the faithful......" @ fiatlux indeed cuts both ways doesn't it.
This is obviously going nowhere. The trenches are well and truly dug as I watch the snow build on the mountain from my window.
Thanqu Feverish and Hugh. With your input we may yet have a life . . .
dave0ferg
12 weeks ago
Minus Forty
Minus forty degrees is the same temperature in Celsius and Fahrenheit.
And, yes, global warming is one of the more insidious effects of Global Ponzi.
Gary123
12 weeks ago
Good Job
Thanks for the article.
Fiat lux
12 weeks ago
The more "growth" the higher
The more "growth" the higher the debt, because it gives the deregulated banks the incentive to "create" more and more money from the air to licence resource waste and enslave people.
Canada and BC had virtually no debts when money "creation" was strictly regulated and controlled by governments.
People had small debts before deregulated money creation opened up the floodgates with credit cards, where our limits are increased every year, thanks to the imaginary money forced on people to get deeper in debt and get enslaved by a criminal class.
This is all part of the plan for dictatorial world control.
Ed Deak.
wiley
12 weeks ago
shifting coastlines
It's not just acidification that will become an insurmountable problem. Sea Level Rise is now speeding up thanks to the methane and CO2.
Albertans may not care much about this issue, but this recent video from BBC explores the inundation of coastal cities and the world's best farmland:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0sq9nrvF0
We have our mitigation work cut out for us alright.
Not only are we crazy monkeys burning unprecedented amounts of coal and oil, but we're also burning unprecedented amounts of wood and biomass ALREADY! So fuel switching is a pipe dream too - it would take logging and burning an Amazon rainforest each year just to replace global coal consumption.
Easter Island redux.
Hakuin
12 weeks ago
Always worth a repost, wiley. :)
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=R-tgpzixe3M
schultzy
12 weeks ago
Get real Joe.
In the meantime pipelines will be built..
I see that Ottawa are proposing new environmental fines http://o.canada.com/2013/02/15/harper-government-proposes-new-fines-for-nuclear-and-pipeline-industries/..for pipelines and nuclear industries.Fines to be $25,000 for individuals and $100,000 for corporations(trivial,even laughable!)...to ensure resource development is ‘safe and responsible’ says Joe Oliver,Natural Resources Minister.
FINES don’t stop pipeline leaks—PEOPLE stop pipeline leaks.
Start with Corporations that implement sound operations,maintenance and training plans for their all their PEOPLE that operate and maintain pipeline, facilities.
See ‘Summary of Enbridge Organizational Deficiencies’(per final U.S. NTSB report).
“Although these deficiencies involved different elements of Enbridge’s operations, and
may appear unrelated, taken together they suggest a systemic deficiency in the company’s APPROACH TO SAFETY”
Our lawmakers must insist that pipe liner organizations include an organizational structure that addresses ‘system operations safety’ as a public responsibility. The board provides STEWARDSHIP we’re told . Enbridge’ recent history suggests that there’s lots of work to be done to clarify who should be looking after pipeline operations.
Suggestion: Create a Corporate Technical Officer (CTO) and let the CTO sit at Board meetings to keep the Board apprised of ‘areas of concern’ and what actions are required to maintain a sound,safe system—on new AND older systems.The CTO, (along with a team of operations and technical experts),becomes responsible to monitor and report and the Board then becomes accountable to LISTEN and then ACT—by approving and implementing necessary action.That’s what I would call Stewardship.
Come on Enbridge show us the new Corporate Mission Statement that spells out exactly how your Board and Organization has changed –particularly your new APPROACH TO SAFETY.
Then the public and decision makers may start to look favourably at your Northern Gateway proposal.
Get real Joe—try TELLING these all wannabe pipe liners(Enbridge and Kinder Morgan,etc.) to commit fully to the safety culture WE REQUIRE.
OR, call for new proposals!
Hugh
12 weeks ago
BC Hydro
I think this article is showing how incredibly important BC Hydro is, in a world where we are apparently going to rely less on fossil fuels.
BCH is about 95% renewable and non-CO2 power.
What's not good is the way BCH has been partially privatized and put into debt.
I would like to see BCH recognized as a valuable public asset, not as an ATM machine for private interests, ie IPP companies.
RockyRacoon
12 weeks ago
We went from cars to airplanes in six months where war was
concerned. As J.P. Morgan told Tesla where do you put the meter. That is the biggest problem right there.
RR
Hakuin
12 weeks ago
ayup
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAPIlsxxxsc
Feverish
12 weeks ago
Hakuin
I appreciate many of your links, thanks. (A title or quick summation, rather than "Ayup" would mean more views, IMO.)
The KXL decision is going to have a huge impact on how much of our blood will spill on the land in BC. If KXL is rejected, Northern Gateway will be white hot on the front burner. While I would love to see the tarsands grind to a halt, for the health of the planet & people that are being poisoned, our subPrime Minister Adolphen Harpler (with the help of all addicted consumers) is going to ensure that does not happen.
David Huntley
12 weeks ago
please get the units correct
Great article but please get the units right.
A watt, kilowatt, terawatt etc is a rate at which energy is used. Thus this definition of a terawatt provided "What's a terawatt? Well, it's equal to the energy released from five billion barrels of oil yearly, one billion tons of coal, or 1.6 billion tons of wood." is incorrect.
One should say instead "a terawatt is the average rate at which energy is released in the burning of five billion barrels of oil during a year."
Likewise the following is incorrect "Every day the world consumes about 17 terawatts of energy in the form of coal, gas, oil and nuclear power."
A correct statement would be "The world uses on a continuing basis about 17 terawatts of energy ....". The amount used in a day would be 17 terawatt-days or 24,000,000,000 kilowatt-hours in more familiar units.
A second point is that one does not and can not 'consume' energy. One can only convert it from one form to another, which is why I said 'used' above.
David Huntley
Professor Emeritus
Physics Department
Simon Fraser University.
spark
12 weeks ago
population growth
You glossed over one of the most important factors in the consumption of energy- population growth.In my lifetime the world population has nearly tripled to around 7 billion. In another lifetime from now it is estimated population will increase to around 10 billion. Those extra 3 billion people will all want to consume energy; so bye-bye to all the savings in energy your article foresees.
Hakuin
12 weeks ago
Fair nuff
Feverish. :)
rangerkim
12 weeks ago
Thanks Professor Dave
... and that's an example of what is going to take to move forward on this issue; clear, accurate and precise usage of the concepts applied.
There has also been some expression on the effect of energy on economic growth. For many of you this will be the first time you see this; Economic growth will have to end and in fact be considered as a measurement of decline and a danger to human health.
Fiat lux
12 weeks ago
Professor Dave is absolutely
Professor Dave is absolutely correct that we can not "consume" energy, or resources, only convert them into other forms, which can be garbage, pollution and poisons.
Which brings me back to my often repeated definitions that:
"Wealth is the temporary control of energy"
"Wealth can not be created, only taken from others, the environment and future generations"
Which then brings up the question: Where are our professors and universities to debunk the ignorant and criminal claims of the priesthoods of so called "economists", misleading the world into self destruction with their imaginary theories and monetary system?
Ed Deak.
ireckon
12 weeks ago
Nuclear Heat
Jim Baird made a solid point. If nuclear power plants produce twice as much heat as power that would defeat the logic of using them.
I suspect that when we're all panicky enuff we're supposed to stampede into nukes which are branded the "new green". Might be smart to amble off another way and wait this one out.
jrminator
12 weeks ago
BC Hydro
Here in BC, we used to have an incredible advantage and safety net in the form of low cost, abundant electricity....this, as a result of some very forward thinking by W.A.C. Bennett. Our citizens have benefited handsomely for years, and still are, from his vision. Now we have a crown corporation tattered and bruised after having been raped by the BC Liberals for the benefit of big energy companies (primarily U.S.) and their shareholders...that leaves us and our grandchildren on the hook for billions of $$ for decades to come. We have a lot more potential in our province and, yes, although it would require more reservoirs and dams, we must return to that vision under BC Hydro control and stop the madness of run of river projects. And at least guarantee provision of a safe, stable energy system while humanity sorts out the fossil fuel mess. Of course, it all begins with tossing out the bloody BC Libs asap.
edges
12 weeks ago
Cultural changes
Not sure it is even worth it asking the question from the perspective of what energy is needed if the rest of the world were to be functioning from North American standards energy wise. We deeply need to be examining the lifestyle of the dominant North American. In my mind, this is where the biggest problem is - yes, technological and political changes are needed, but even more so massive cultural shifts that really examine how and why we are using energy are required. Looking forward to the rest of this series!
Hakuin
12 weeks ago
You caught this Alberta nuke, Reckon?
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/01/18/toshiba-oil-sands-reactor_n_2505738.html
Bailey
12 weeks ago
Oh, yes indeed. This is going to be a good one.
Congratulations Mr. Nikiforuk, and the Tyee. A perfectly timed and focussed series, on a topic that could not be more important.
Are we going to talk about the economic growth that would result from the conversion over a shortish time from oil to renewables? The boom that would result from that would be greater than war, I believe.
The Germans have done very well developing solar strategies, and could do better with better financing and marketing. In Canada, I think we should concentrate on tidal runs. God knows we have a lot of coastlines.
How many potential terawatts from just the Bay of Fundy alone, do you think? Plus, benign animal friendly turbines appropriate to tidal run projects should work in free running rivers as well, on any scale from tiny to huge.
Big money spent on many thousands of jobs makes economic growth without any downside, when the jobs are creating a future our grandchildren can survive
Cynic
12 weeks ago
The arbitrarily imposed debt
The arbitrarily imposed debt burden that people suffer is what keeps us chasing after the Almighty Dollar, pursuing "growth" at all costs with no alternatives offered in the prevailing conversation. The state of the planet is the result, and our masters intend to keep it this way. As long as they create and control our money supply there is no hope. The hope is in our awareness of the money scam. http://www.positivemoney.org/
mijnheer
12 weeks ago
Thank you, David Huntley, for
Thank you, David Huntley, for correcting the author. I'm no expert, but the units describing energy use didn't make sense to me when I read the article. I hope the author will correct the text because the topic is important.
David Beers
12 weeks ago
Prof. David Huntley
We are making the changes you suggest. Many thanks.
the crucible
12 weeks ago
Nuclear Heat
Heat is energy. Nukes that waste heat, are wasting energy.
Don't confuse technology with economics.
The base technology isn't the problem, it's the poor implementation. In "big nuke" designs, there is so much energy available that it is cheaper to design things to throw away that heat than it is to capture/convert it.
Small nukes waste less heat per GW produced.
Jim Baird
12 weeks ago
Shifting Coastlines
We can reduce sea level rise 6 ways.
Two we can capitalize on are explained here
http://theenergycollective.com/jim-baird/187336/rationale-movement-fluids-between-canada-and-us
ilumin8
12 weeks ago
"Economic growth will have to
"Economic growth will have to end and in fact be considered as a measurement of decline and a danger to human health."
I have to loudly disagree. This claim is widely used without challenge, and generally is used to frighten people from considering any of the changes we MUST make.
As fiat lux suggests, reconfiguring "economics" to properly value what's important puts "economic growth" in an entirely different light.
Maintaining and expanding gluttony of energy, in the name of economic growth is what got us into this mess. As it stands, the "economy" will continue to swell as we frantically build dikes, reinforce and move infrastructure, and fix damage.
Instead, low-energy practices must be awarded the economic value they deserve. Riding a bicycle to a job researching ways to reduce energy has to be rewarded with vastly "value" than commuting in a big private vehicle to a job selling snowmobiles.
We have to turn our thinking around to recognize that "value" and quality of life is not consistent with crude consumption of energy and stuff and resources. Instead, application of intellect to raise quality of life without such gross consumption has to be promoted by re-written economic theory.
Saying that such a change will entail economic collapse and subsequent mass suffering is a lie that all too many propagate and believe.
pmagn@yahoo.com
12 weeks ago
lifes getting interesting...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/15/us/looking-for-new-ways-to-pay-for-roads-and-bridges.html
Hakuin
12 weeks ago
Tax the shit out of Stupid Consumption first
And there will be enough revenue to pay for environmental programs. Start with abominations like Humvees and luxury muscle cars. Then work through the rest of the really Vain and Stupid like golf, professional"sports" and tasteless imbecile mansions.
ireckon
12 weeks ago
Teconomics
Thanks for the link Hakuin, news to me. I can see the nuclear debate is underway, maybe Andrew will delve into it in coming articles.
We’ve been producing nuclear waste for 70 years and still haven’t figured what to do with it. We’ve tried a few things; enriched it for bombs, cast it into bullets and warheads for shooting brown fellas, poisoned our own troops with it, all the usual nonsense. Mostly we just let it accumulate on site, when it first comes out of the reactor we stick it in a bathtub in the attic for 5 years so it don’t melt down. There ya have it, high technology and economics = state of the art planning.
Hakuin
12 weeks ago
Repost: (but radioactively apt)
http://www.intoeternitythemovie.com/
Story
12 weeks ago
Ed, Dave, just thought you'd be interested!
" Canada has been on Celsius for almost 40 years, I grew up with C it in Europe and have some idea of the differences."
Ed, 40⁰ F = 4.44⁰ C
dave0ferg " Minus forty degrees is the same temperature in Celsius and Fahrenheit."
Dave, check again!
The big lie: it amazes me how easy it is to corral public opinion: bizarre!
Fiat lux
12 weeks ago
Story....I`d suggest you look
Story....I`d suggest you look at any thermometer.
In any case, we`re talking about - (minus) not + and we`ve been using Celsius since it became official, instead the nonsense of the "white man's" Fahrenheit, as some people still call it.
Ed Deak
rangerkim
12 weeks ago
not so
lumen,
The end of economic growth does not equate to "economic collapse" and the subsequent mass suffering will certainly be felt by many who rely on the fiction of something for nothing.
As you say much of what we value of economic activity will have to be replaced by (likely) low tech and human scaled activities. A very high quality life can be had without the requirement of profits, savings or investments, as has been demonstrated by human societies all over the world for the last 10,000 years.
That is not to say we should go back to caves and a subsistance lifestyle. Liberal application of human ingenuity and judicious use of energy could allow for a modern lifestyle for about 1 or 2 billion souls.
Booker
12 weeks ago
Energy/Economic groth
There has historically been a correlation between economic growth and energy use, but it is not a physical law. I think it will be possible to have growth in a low energy economy. It will be different, but it will still be growth.
Fiat lux
12 weeks ago
The vast majority of energy,
The vast majority of energy, today, is not used for real economic, but for imaginary monetary purposes that have replaced colonization and enslavement by weapons.
The textbook definition of economic is:
"The science for the management and distribution of scarce resources."
Not "wealth creation" and the incredible wast of the transportation of resources across the world and then bringing back the products that could and can be made locally at a fraction of the energy use and waste.
The same goes for long distance commuting for "jobs" that, again, could be done locally, as they have been for thousands of years, even within the lifetimes of many of us who have grown up and lived in such systems. Especially now with the rational and logical application of modern technology.
The main solution is to remove ideologies from economics, and replace them with logic, based on physical laws and realities.
Anybody who claims that sending resources to Asia and then reimporting the products is "cheaper" is either an idiot, or a crook, or a "conservative".
Ed Deak.
Story
12 weeks ago
Ed, you can twist the truth. Why can't I.
I guessed you'd take the bait [OFFENSIVE COMMENT REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]
The earth warms. The earth cools and it ain't your fault.
And it certainly is not mine!
QED
rangerkim
12 weeks ago
a religion
It's amazing to me how much religious zeal and orthodoxy we have around economic beliefs.
There is absolutely no imperitive that a 'good' economy or a 'functioning' economy have as one of it's characteristics, growth. For millenia human societies has zero growth economies that worked perfectly fine.
There is a physical law however that precludes anything, energy, economics, number sets, populations, anything from continous growth in a finite field. And if we have learned anything at all in the 21rst century it is just how finite and singular our planet Earth is.
If we expect to survive as a species for the next 7 generations we are simply going to have to learn to thrive within our planets limits.
ireckon
12 weeks ago
Population
Ranger Kim what is your proposal for the other 5 billion souls?
ireckon
12 weeks ago
Unclear Disposal
Hakuin your link provides the perspective so often ignored yet crucial to the debate.
ireckon
12 weeks ago
Cynic's Haven
Story I checked out your link - http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/climategate.php
Basically a condensed history of government/media manipulation, great read but too heretical for the faithful. No wonder you’re so cantankerous!
rangerkim
12 weeks ago
ireckon
... that's the 'cold' of a cold and sober reality.
As Nikiforuk says above we only have energy for 1/5 (77/384) of the population at our current standard. And you've heard that many times before from many other sources.
Fact is we have only 1 planet and we all go out in a mass extinction event or we change things around and do something smart so perhaps 1 or 2 billion can have a chance at some sort of high tech higher evolved life.
That's the cold hard reality facing us today.
Hakuin
12 weeks ago
when nuclear comes knocking you better be ready
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/19/eon-lobbied-miliband-sentences-kingsnorth
Remember, it's not just about the tech, safe or not, it's mostly about the money and the politics.
Hakuin
12 weeks ago
what do you think Ranger?
if you were a billionaire what would YOU be dong to secure your future and your children's futures?
Hakuin
12 weeks ago
remind you of anyone?
https://gs1.wac.edgecastcdn.net/8019B6/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_lf1ua9RiKg1qbkfyho1_400.jpg
rangerkim
12 weeks ago
Hakuin
that's a very good question.
I'm not so I haven't given it a great deal of thought. Even with all the resources that a $billion brings I don't think the solution lies with 1 person. Much to the dismay of those hard-bitten individualist Albaturdans, Consevatives and Republicans this will require collective action.
I suppose if I had the wherewithall, I would focus on higher education, applied physics and space. It seems the easier way. Convincing 7, soon to be 9, billion people on a course of action, even if it saves their sorry asses, is an impossible task.
Not having those resources I'm prepared for a meager and local existence, if I survive the event, when it comes.
What of YOUR future, Hakuin?
ireckon
12 weeks ago
Tradeoff
Jim I read your article- http://theenergycollective.com/jim-baird/187336/rationale-movement-fluids-between-canada-and-us
The idea that over 40% of our sea level rise can be atributed to deep well pumping had never ocurred to me. That suggestion alone is worth considerable thought and debate.
As to your solution, frankly I dislike it. I see it as trading a self regulated natural/proven system for a technical one that requires responsible oversight, megatons of both energy and resources plus long term maintenance. We would sacrafice Salmon to gain lettuce. Reminds me of the Salton Sea debacle.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/09/salton-sea-saga/all/
wiley
12 weeks ago
Baird's 6 ways to keep the seas at bay?
Pumping fresh water from wet lands to dry lands seems like a rather distracted way to slow climate change and SLR. Irrigation is always expensive, so not that much water flows to the sea. Yes, some evaporates into the atmosphere, but most of it ends up in our urine, and we have to stop pissing in rivers. We'll only solve some of this massive SLR problem by going directly to the root of it : too many hyperactive monkeys setting too much stuff on fire. The Big Shift must be a 180 - about recognizing that our human economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the ecosystem.
From that perspective, Jim's just proposing another insatiable cash cow from a redesigned planet.
Fiat lux
12 weeks ago
The Canadian and the world's
The Canadian and the world's banking system from the lips of a 12 year old little girl.
So, how can the grownup crooks get away with this fraud exploiting and stealing people blind ?
How about some good "conservatives" explaining it to us ?
Amazing message from an amazing messenger.
Ed Deak.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyBYjL1hsC4&sns=fb
Stewart MacKenzie
12 weeks ago
our human economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the ecosystem
This fact seems to be lost on many, like those who believe people won't change if they don't want to.
We will change or be changed is closer to the truth. Our only choices are to change intelligently and consciously, or to be swept up in drastic changes over which we have no control.
"Story"'s claims have little credibility given a misunderstanding of basic arithmetic. What else is this poster misinformed about?
Here's the math:
A temperature of 32 degrees F = 0 degrees C
1 degree C = 1.8 degrees F
40x1.8=72
Zero C - 40C = -40C
32F - 72F =-40F
Does that make it clearer? Or as Ed asked, has "Story" looked at a thermometer lately?
My grandparents saw winters in the early 1900s when they could travel across the Fraser by sleigh, from Langley to New Westminster.
Nowadays polar bears cannot walk on pack ice in the Arctic, and Greenland glaciers for one example are at their lowest level in millenia, and melting faster than ever. Navigation through open water in the Northwest Passage isn't far off, and already being looked forward to by shipping companies.
I live about 50 miles from Ed Deak (sorry Ed, I get metric but still think in miles), and his take on Cariboo winters is bang on. I would add that the last really cold winter here was 1984-85; we have seen occasional dips below -40 since but never for any extended period.
The coldest temperature we have had here this winter is -15, the first winter I've seen where it hasn't hit -20 at least for a day or two!
Temperatures in winter and in the North have risen much more in proportion than in summer and in the rest of North America. The severe storms we see more of are part of the disruption all this is causing in weather patterns.
Like the shills for the tobacco companies, climate change deniers are mostly speaking for Big Oil or Big Coal That is generally where their money comes from, and they will say whatever those interests pay them to say, like any other flacks or propagandists.
They are not fanatics but merely hired help for big money interests.
Fiat lux
12 weeks ago
Stewart... You're right about
Stewart... You're right about the winter of 1984. We had, officially, -54 C degrees.
In 1993-94 we had a major tent caterpillar invasion, by the billions. Not a single leaf left on the aspen trees, all the fenceposts, walls, covered with them, the roads were black from the smashed worms, popping under the wheels.
They were wiped out by the -40 C in early '95 but never again that cold since. If we had another invasion, there wouldn't be an aspen or other leafy tree left in BC.
But, according to the faithful, we have "global cooling".
Ed Deak.
Bob the Postman
12 weeks ago
Le mot juste?
"proscribes a diet" or "prescribes"?
"ripe with conflict" or "rife"?
Hakuin
12 weeks ago
My future?
It's hopeless. So fight.
Geoff Dean
12 weeks ago
It might not be quite so bad...
Four sources that I hope this discussion can draw on and that readers can share with others: For starters, Jorgen Randers' book "2052". Jorgen was one of the authors of 1972's "Limits to Growth"; "2052" is his take on where we're going to be 40 years from now, based on his observing and studying trends over the past 40 years, with comments and elaborations by a wide variety of other experts included. Here's my simplification of his various conclusions: we might be able to make it; population won't grow as much as we think, and thus energy consumption etc won't be so high as we fear. Next, Amory Lovins' book, "Reinventing Fire", which lays out in thoroughly researched technical and economic detail how we can profitably make the transition away from fossil fuels over the next few decades. Third, geologist Richard Alley's PBS movie "Earth: The Operators' Manual" and its follow-up videos and websites, which makes it real clear that climate change is something we're causing and that we can fix. Finally, Climate Interactive, the website hosting the modelling software and workshop materials used by IPCC and others to see the effects of various kinds of carbon-control agreements by various nations and groups on climate change. And, after all that, whatever the details, BC better invest in wind, tidal, hydro and solar, not more oil and gas mining.
Feverish
12 weeks ago
If the status quo persists
If the status quo persists (provincially, federally, globally) until the centenary celebration of the start of the first world war, we better all sharpen our swords 'cause you know how fundamentalists like a commemorative & symbolic call to action!
freebear
12 weeks ago
Remember the tv show: Jericho?
Towns fighting over corn stores and wind turbine parts and expertise !
ultranorthwest
12 weeks ago
Vehicles
In a dream I had about Vancouver once, the streets were filled with wheeling and walking people; bikes, chairs, longboards and roller blades. The streets themselves were full of activity - vendors and street markets with patios, sunshine, people.
When I woke up I was at a loss for words. I wanted to be back in that dream. It made me wonder what could be possible - what if? What if we could limit our activities with vehicles to long distance travel? What if our tax dollars went into creating more projects like the NY Highline, or the Comox-Helmcken Greenway? What if our governments actually took this work as seriously as we do, and took a role in enabling these transitions, as opposed to what it does now: environmentalists are radicals and anti-Canadian.
Lies. I had a dream!
the crucible
12 weeks ago
LENR
Still a ways out, and unproven, but:
http://www.gizmag.com/nasa-lenr-nuclear-reactor/26309/