What You Need To Know About Blackouts

[kristopher]

What You Need To Know About Blackouts
Our electricity system is likely to fail, but here's how we can make it more resilient
By Amory Lovins | November 8, 2011 | 1

Electricity is the lifeblood of modern society. It runs practically everything — except when it doesn’t. The regional blackouts that roll across America and other industrial nations about once a decade are getting costlier. Each time, operators fix the specific causes. But a deeper fix is needed than building more and bigger power plants and lines — a habit as outdated as treating fever with bloodletting.

The underlying cause of cascading blackouts, like the one the Northeast experienced in August 2003, is an inherently brittle, overcentralized grid. But what many people don’t realize is that this isn’t just a problem of aging infrastructure. The grid is also flawed because its design is vulnerable to solar storms, cyberattacks and terrorists. These three threats could not just interrupt power but physically destroy specialized equipment that would take years to rebuild.

...Most of America’s electricity is now wasted. Rocky Mountain Institute’s Reinventing Fire: Bold Business Solutions for a New Energy Era shows how a robustly growing economy can need less electricity — despite electrified autos, whose flexibility and storage also help the grid integrate solar and windpower. Those sources are easier to manage than coal or nuclear energy because their variations are smaller and less abrupt and can be forecasted.

Needing less electricity will ease and speed a big shift in how we make it. By 2050, today’s giant coal, natural gas, and nuclear plants will be mostly retired. At comparable cost but far less risk, we can replace them with generators the right size for the job, especially renewables. Half the world’s added capacity in the past three years was renewable, because it’s now competitive and swiftly getting even cheaper....

http://ideas.time.com/2011/11/08/what-you-need-to-know-about-blackouts/?xid=gonewsedit

Lovin's goes on to bust one of the more popular myths spread by those opposing renewable energy - that the high electricity rates in Denmark are a result of the high level of electricity from renewables there (36%). In fact, Lovin's explains, Denmark not only has the most reliable power in the region, but the pre-tax price is on par with the lowest prices in Europe.

Great article.

[bananas]

1. k&r nt

[TheWraith]

2. Unrec for the Walmart/BP shill Lovins. nt

[kristopher]

4. You are a hoot. Let's talk about his work with Walmart...

He helped them establish achievable standards of performance that doubled the fuel efficiency for their trucks. Walmart then used their purchasing weight as a lever to demand that manufacturers deliver the equipment to do this.
This is resulting in the adoption of those levels of performance across the entire trucking fleet of the US thereby reducing US oil consumption by 6 percent (and that doesn't count what might happen elsewhere in the world).

Let me repeat that since you seem to have trouble understanding what is actually important in the effort to fight climate change:

He - Amory Lovins, the guy that you hate because he says nuclear is BAD - helped them establish achievable standards of performance that doubled the fuel efficiency for their trucks. Walmart then used their purchasing weight as a lever to demand that manufacturers deliver the equipment to do this.

This is resulting in the adoption of those levels of performance across the entire trucking fleet of the US thereby reducing US oil consumption by 6 percent (and that doesn't count what might happen elsewhere in the world).


What have YOU done to eliminate or reduce the use of fossil fuels?

[jpak]

21. LOL!!!!111

:rofl:

[txlibdem]

3. UnRec for "free market will solve energy crisis" Lovins

... as seen in this video on THIS author's other recent OP

http://rmi.org/reinventingfire

[kristopher]

10. As you can see in post #4 above motivating positve change with market tools is effective

You are not going to change a market based system that is stacked in favor of business as usual without playing on that game-field. You are confusing the "free market ideological beliefs" held by those who seek to preserve the vast pools of accumulated wealth with the "actual facts of free market principles".

We've gone over this many times, but maybe it will finally get through if we go over it again.

The "free market ideological beliefs" held by those who seek to preserve the vast pools of accumulated wealth are nothing more than rhetoric that translates into "we want the system rigged for us". The reality of this ideology is best characterized by the phrase privatized profits, socialized costs.

This is, in fact, the exact opposite of what Lovins is suggesting, which is the application of functional free market principles where no company is allowed to stack the deck in its own favor. His is a call to enforce democratically established values on these corporate entities by using market tools that will negate their bought-and-paid-for legislated market position.

The difference is profound and can be seen in another phrase - this one from several decades past, "what is good for General Motors is good for America".

The beliefs behind that phrase hold that the values of the nation itself are SET by whatever actions ensure the profitability of the corporation. Everything Lovins has ever written is about how to CHANGE that upside-down view of how democracy should work. That is, in fact, why the nuclear industry hates him. He made the unarguable case in his writings on "soft energy paths" versus "hard energy paths" that the control of energy gave the corporations freedom destroying levels of power that could only work to make this world a far worse place to live than it needed to be. Part of the case he made in 1976 was that we needed to dispense with centralized generation - both coal and nuclear - because we were facing the (then) little known problem of global warming.

Were you trying to address global warming in 1976?

[txlibdem]

11. Anyone who calls for an end to solar subsidies while leaving fossil subsidies is NOT my friend

Nor the friend of anybody's children or grandchildren.

[kristopher]

12. Since you are a closeted nuclear supporter

who routinely and grossly understates the nature of your support for nuclear, I'd suggest that people take 10 minutes to listen to this discussion where Lovins proves without question that your ongoing false characterization of his efforts is based on a dark affection for nuclear power rather than a quest for either accuracy or the best solution to climate change.

Amory Lovins Nails Renewable Energy Costs, Energy Subsidies, & Myth of Baseload
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=amory-lovins-nails-renewable-energy-2011-11

http://cleantechnica.com/2011/11/12/amory-lovins-nails-renewable-energy-costs-energy-subsidies-myth-of-baseload/

[txlibdem]

13. Anyone who has read any of my energy posts can easily see that I am not closeted

I am pro zero-carbon energy sources... and that includes intelligently moving toward Generation IV nuclear and doing away with Gen I, II, and III/III+. It is easy for anyone to research and see that I am pro solar and other renewable energy sources.

It is also easy for any DUer to research Kristopher's posts you can easily see that he is against solar projects in the desert, the only place that gets the most solar energy in the country.

I stand by my posts. Other posters love to spread inuendo and insults but don't have the paper record to back it up and want to walk quickly away from their own posting history.

[kristopher]

14. I did phrase that poorly...

It would be more accurate to say that you are a nuclear supporter that uses renewables in an unsuccessful attempt to greenwash nuclear power. There is a reason that no climate action NGOs call for this kind of idea:

txlibdem Wed Nov-16-11 12:36 PM
29. The UK climate commission's 40% nuclear, 40% renewable, 20% fossil sounds familiar.
I've been touting an American energy plan that calls for an initial 40% nuclear and 60% renewable energy mix for years, followed by a 30% nuclear/70% renewable energy mix and then a steady increase in renewable energy while closing down the nuclear power plants starting with the oldest and/or least safe plants first then progressing toward 100% renewable energy as more and more nuclear power plants are phased out.

The only way this will be possible is if all renewable energy sources store excess power in the most efficient way possible and use that power when their resource is no longer available (eg. when the wind isn't blowing). Also, more solar will be needed during the months when wind resources dwindle and additional wind farms will be needed to make up for times when storms decrease solar output beyond their storage reserves.

Also, your last paragraph is false. It is a good example of the same kind of false statements Lovins addresses in this video.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x635596

ETA: Since the US is curretnly getting less than 20% of its electricity from nuclear you are advocating that we build more than 100 new, current generation nuclear plants (not considering the aging existing fleet).

On a global scale such an approach is a call for building at least 2000 new current generation nuclear plants.

[txlibdem]

15. Zero carbon energy sources need no "greenwashing" - unlike Coal and Natural Gas

We should focus our national resources to getting rid of the use of coal ASAP, then getting rid of Oil use, and finally getting rid of Fracking Natural Gas -- I don't want my sink water to catch on fire... does anyone really???

The real enemy of Mankind and therefore of America and our grandchildren is the use of Fossil Fuels -- we must put an end to them.

Google the following "How many toxic chemicals in coal", "How many toxic chemicals in oil", "How many toxic chemicals in natural gas"

[kristopher]

16. So which is it?

In one post you claim you are not here promoting policies that serve the interests of the nuclear industry, and in the next you are calling for us to build - right now - thousands of today's nuclear plants. Which face are we to believe?

[txlibdem]

17. "thousands of **today's** nuclear plants???" - False, false false

Generation IV. Generation 4. That is what I called for.

Generation 4 plants are inexpensively mass produced - today's plants are custom built at great expense
Generation 4 plants take very little time to build - today's plants are custom built and so take far too long to build
Generation 4 plants are passively safe (cannot melt down) - today's plants are prone to it
Generation 4 plants are generally small, enabling smaller cities to afford them - today's plants come in one size only so only huge cities can afford them or huge areas

You are guilty of falsehood. It is a despicable and childish tactic.

[kristopher]

18. There are no "Generation 4 plants" now or for the next several decades and you know it.

txlibdem Wed Nov-16-11 12:36 PM
29. The UK climate commission's 40% nuclear, 40% renewable, 20% fossil sounds familiar.
I've been touting an American energy plan that calls for an initial 40% nuclear and 60% renewable energy mix for years, followed by a 30% nuclear/70% renewable energy mix and then a steady increase in renewable energy while closing down the nuclear power plants starting with the oldest and/or least safe plants first then progressing toward 100% renewable energy as more and more nuclear power plants are phased out.

[txlibdem]

19. Nowhere in that text can you quote me as saying I am for "today's" nuclear reactors - NOWHERE

To build a strawman I guess you need to start with a good base of BS for the straw to stick to.

I'd rather use those ingredients to make a cob house for someone... but you choose your purpose, I'll choose mine.

[OnlinePoker]

5. Big Deal

The taxes are paid to subsidize the renewable market. As a result, Danes pays the highest of any European country for electricity at 29 Eurocents/kwh for households and 19 Eurocents/kwh for industries (though the map in the following link says 21 Eurocents).

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/observatory/electricity/doc/qreem_2011_quarter2.pdf

[kristopher]

6. No, they aren't. They are CO2 taxes that are rebated to consumers.

Poor little nuclear lover....

[diane in sf]

7. Thanks Kristopher--glad this is from Time--lots of mainstream people will see it.

[kristopher]

You're welcome. Mainstream people largely support the move to renewables

It is the bought political influence that seems to be the crux of problem. That is why I particularly like the economic sector approach articulated by Lovins, it doesn't depend on permission from those that are going to be displaced, it harnesses the resources of those who stand to benefit by mutual success. After watching the way Kyoto was watered down and obstructed in the early part of the last decade, its the only path I see that has any hope of working. Although most here would disagree, I think the economic momentum that is developing gives cause for thinking the pace of positive change in how we do things is going to be far more rapid than it now appears possible.
If we can get the bulk of economic winners from change to match or exceed the bulk of economic losers from change, those winners will be able to accelerate the process by adding political influence to counteract that of the existing power structure.
This process of economic and political infrastructure building is well underway IMO, but the power of those seeking to preserve the present system is still nothing to be taken lightly.

[kristopher]

20. You're welcome. Mainstream people largely support the move to renewables

It is the bought political influence that seems to be the crux of problem. That is why I particularly like the economic sector approach articulated by Lovins, it doesn't depend on permission from those that are going to be displaced, it harnesses the resources of those who stand to benefit by mutual success. After watching the way Kyoto was watered down and obstructed in the early part of the last decade, its the only path I see that has any hope of working. Although most here would disagree, I think the economic momentum that is developing gives cause for thinking the pace of positive change in how we do things is going to be far more rapid than it now appears possible.
If we can get the bulk of economic winners from change to match or exceed the bulk of economic losers from change, those winners will be able to accelerate the process by adding political influence to counteract that of the existing power structure.
This process of economic and political infrastructure building is well underway IMO, but the power of those seeking to preserve the present system is still nothing to be taken lightly.

[Kolesar]

8. over half of responding utilities were getting some 150 “serious” cyberattacks per week, ...

... and attacks abroad had caused “multiple city power outages.”

Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2011/11/08/what-you-need-to-know-about-blackouts/#ixzz1duXXn359

SCARY!

[madokie]

9. I would happily pay twice what I pay now if I knew it was from renewables

Lovins has done more than most here put together to cut our energy use but yet he is scorned by some here. I don't get it other than its only the shills for the nuclear energy who shun his work and they have a lot to loose. I'd love to hang on to his hip pockets for a few days as I'm sure I'd have the opportunity to learn much. Once I read someone blowing on about how he's a shill for the fossil industry I have a hard time believing anything else they say. Lovins is a good guy who knows what he's talking about and the best part is he's on our side. Nuclear and the fossil industry be damned. I can't understand how some here hold the opinion they do when all they do is bitch about what he's doing, not out there trying to out do him, just being keyboard commando's. If anyone here is as good as he is then why the hell don't they step the fuck up and save us

I was going to rec but I seen I already had.
thanks for what you do for us here, Kris :hi:

[stuntcat]

22. yah. If we paid the REAL price of the fossil fuels, they'd cost like 20 times as much

:puke: on all the endless news of the worth of a gallon of gas.. which we're gonna burn right up.

And the power we get from coal is too cheap considering the cost of getting it out, then burning IT all up.

It drives me crazy how we don't consider the ACTUAL cost. We'll be paying so much worse for all the crap we dig up & incinerate. The younger someone is the more they'll pay. Actually money too, cash dollars, cha'ching, $$$$$'s etc..

[txlibdem]

23. Don't forget $50 Billion we spend every year to protect the oil shipping lanes

:puke: