Obstacles to The Energy Revolution

This post deals with the bureaucratic obstacles that will delay The Energy Revolution.  More importantly these delays will no doubt increase the economic cost of the revolution and heighten the reduction of standard of living that will occur while we are undergoing this process.  Under existing procedures it could easily take 10-15 years to build a major energy facility.  To transition through the revolution it will required to build thousands of such facilities.  Other countries could build such facilities in much less time, with far less bureaucratic obstacles and less concern for impact on the environment. This would result in further requirements for costly imports, rather than us becoming an exporter of products for which we have abundant natural resources. 

The ideas and suggestions put forth in this post may not be popular in some camps.  The urgency of aggressively resolving the problems that will occur during The Energy Revolution cannot be emphasized too much, we are facing a revolution with possible consequence as great as a war and it must be treated as such.  If we do not our society may have to revert to a lifestyle more typical of 19th century agrarian communities.  Is that what you want?

I must credit Hirsch, p46 for all of the ideas put forth in this post. 

"Not-in-my-back-yard" (NIMBY)  and "build-absolutely-nothing-anywhere-near-anything" (BANANA) attitudes have become standard obstacles for any large construction project.  The siting process for such projects is a nightmare to builders because the opponents, who certainly have the right to be heard, can drag out this process almost indefinitely.  Hirsch uses the example of the permitting process for small distributed energy systems requiring 18 steps, requiring approval from four federal agencies, 11 state government agencies and 11 local government agencies.  "For the U.S. to attain a lower level of dependence on liquid fuel imports after the advent of world oil peaking, a major paradigm shift will be required in the current approach to the construction of capital-intensive energy facilities.  Federal and state governments will have to adopt legislation allowing the acceleration of the development of substitute fuel projects from the current decade time-scales." 

In his summary and concluding remarks he states:  "Intervention by governments will be required, because the economic and social implications of oil peaking would otherwise be chaotic. ..... Expediency may require major changes to existing administrative and regulatory procedures such as length environmental review and length public environment."

Despite all the negative aspects of oil peaking, many opportunities could also arise.  Quoting from Hirsch "The U.S. could emerge as the world's largest producer of substituted liquid fuels, if it were to undertake a massive program to construct substitute fuel production facilities on a timely basis."  Because we have the world's largest coal reserves, combined with our financial and technological resources we have the basis to implement such a program.  The major powers in the far east also have the ability to build and operate such facilities, but they lack the coal to sustain such an operation over a very long time frame.  We could end up having to import substitute fuels as well as our share of the remaining conventional oil resources.

This the last of seven major posts that serve as an overview for The Energy  Revolution.  I hope they are of benefit to some.  All of these posts can be found by selecting the overview category. Future posts will examine details of the technology involved and news events tin the energy field.

Comments

[green libertarian]

Just read all 4 of your Energy Revolution posts, great stuff.

I do believe a massive effort, especially in the US, of conservation is necessary. Alternative/renewable sources will help, but we're doomed without reducing demand, which does NOT necessiate a reduction in standard of living, BTW.

I also belive point source production of energy, mostly from solar cells, will need to become commonplace.
Thanks for all your good work.

[Greg Woulf]

I agree with all you've said, but I'd add a couple obstacles.

I think the largest obstacle in our path is financing, not money. Many technologies are feasible and would provide clean plentiful energy, but will never be built because the pay back is too long or the return isn't as good as investing in the latest consumer gadget.

The other is more insidious and more difficult to overcome, and that's the natural resistance and skepticism that pervades the world. Nobody believes anything, even when it has been proven, they won't even take the time to consider the possibility.

[karl (dissenting)]

WHere is this argument to the public that the public isn't responding to filed?

Where are the mock jury trial results if it's so coherent a scheme?

There is a huge hunger begging to know what those who know othink we need to know. But no entity has come forward with such an offer. Not for a dime an hour, not for any charge to the learner.

Instead we just have offers to provide TV worse then CABLE does. Or a chorus of deafening overtures to kill fungi almost no one who hears them has the itch of.

SNL recently mocked what most of us spend our time entertaining; solicitation to cats who bequested billions need counsel.

And cable puts cspan on 24/7 mainly to those who refuse to pay there bills. The president gets broadcast only in standard definition if at all. Film school students are afraid to post any news in hidef on zudeo, and of course zideo requires all submissions to be about only the porn and frivolity already banded too much by them.

Wagging this tale was never fun. Dogging isn't fit for my son. Proof has a definition. Waste here and there, is uncontroversial. But for some reason changing the tank is unreasonable. Converting cars from commuting to cargo delivering composting toilet powered tools instead of chariots of folly could occur in less then an election cycle- in fact that's likely the only way progress can occur. The hand is dealt. When will we play it instead of just taking the dive smoothly?

[Gregor]

As Cheech and Chong would say, " Wow man, far out Karl".

[Electric Cars GAl]

Behind all these obstacles that you have so well explained, is an absence of collective intention. If there really was a wish amongst enough people to create a greener world, then it would happen---we would cut through the other obstacles. But in the absence of widespread demand from the people, there is political inertia and lack of leadership from those who could lead that change.

However,it is January 2009 now and I cannot help but feel a real sense of optimism about the green agenda. I think Obama has, to use his own word, the "audacity" to challenge the old vested interests and the political lobbyists who want to maintain the status quo. I believe he can shake us out of our inertia and inspire an acceptance of the changes we need to make as we transition towards a new era of green energy.

[Miami Information]

i'm totally agree with you, if we wait more and keep using electric energy, is going to be more difficult make the change to the solar energy....
keep writing about this theme I really love it!