 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
http://forum.atimes.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=10722
I can't resist (I told you so...):
quote:
Grist: Will Big Coal fall on its face?
Amory Lovins: It's already clearly happening in the global marketplace - although the U.S. lags a bit, having rather outmoded energy institutions and rules. Worldwide, less than half of new electrical services are coming from new central power plants. Over half are coming from micropower and negawatts, and that gap is rapidly widening. The revolution already happened - sorry if you missed it.
Grist: How might your notion of "brittle power" apply, not to developed countries but to countries that are developing in conditions in which resilience is at a premium? Iraq is the obvious example.
Amory Lovins: Some of us have made three attempts at [bringing decentralized power to Iraq] and there's a fourth now under discussion. The first three attempts, the third of which was backed by the Iraqi power minister, were vetoed by the U.S. political authorities on the grounds that they'd already given big contracts to Bechtel, Halliburton, et. al to rebuild the old centralized system, which of course the bad guys are knocking down faster than it can be put back up.
Grist: How could Iraq have played out differently?
Amory Lovins: If you build an efficient, diverse, dispersed, renewable electricity system, major failures - whether by accident or malice - become impossible by design rather than inevitable by design, an attractive nuisance for terrorists and insurgents. There's a pretty good correlation between neighborhoods with better electrical supply and those that are inhospitable to insurgents. This is well known in military circles. There's still probably just time to do this in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, about a third of our army's wartime fuel use is for generator sets, and nearly all of that electricity is used to air-condition tents in the desert, known as "space cooling by cooling outer space." We recently had a two-star Marine general commanding in western Iraq begging for efficiency and renewables to untether him from fuel convoys, so he could carry out his more important missions. This is a very teachable moment for the military. The costs, risks, and distractions of fuel convoys and power supplies in theater have focused a great deal of senior military attention on the need for not dragging around this fat fuel-logistics tail - therefore for making military equipment and operations several-fold more energy efficient.
I've been suggesting that approach for many years. Besides its direct benefits for the military mission, it will drive technological refinements that then help transform the civilian car, truck, and plane industries. That has huge leverage, because the civilian economy uses 60-odd times more oil than the Pentagon does, even though the Pentagon is the world's biggest single buyer of oil (and of renewable energy). Military energy efficiency is technologically a key to leading the country off oil, so nobody needs to fight over oil and we can have "negamissions" in the Gulf. Mission unnecessary. The military leadership really likes that idea.
That is the breakdown of "IT".
Central Power versus Liberty
It is an economic power struggle that can easily be seen from the physical perspective (an analogy) of how electric power works.
Monopolists (the guys who hate competition) are akin to resistance within the circuit (society) and this resistance is a ‘load’ or ‘cost’ that has no purpose whatsoever within the circuit.
The only reason for having the ‘load’ or ‘cost’ of the resistance within the circuit is to conduct the flow of power from the specific source of power to the work being done by that power.
Do you see this?
Resistance (cost) is the opposite of conductance (cost), where, the POWER must flow (currency) from the source of POWER to the WORK done. The idea is to lower the COST of transferring the POWER from the source of POWER to the WORK to be done. In other words; if the resistance is at a minimum, then, conductance is at a maximum and in that case ALL THE POWER is spent on getting the WORK done and NO POWER is wasted on transferring POWER – at all.
Resistance is GOVERNING the flow of power and Government is a cost.
How about this:
A Central Power plant is plopped down right in the middle of Iraq and this single power plant can generate enough Power to supply all the electric needs of the entire Middle East, parts of Europe, Russia, Asia (China), and have a little extra for Africa, the Americas, and Australia.
This isn’t too tough to imagine. Suppose it is the newest Fusion Technology and it works really, really, well.
The POWER supply is produced in one location – Baghdad.
How can that POWER be governed from the power source to all the places where POWER will be consumed to perform WORK?
How much POWER does it cost to govern all the directions, connections, switches, under-supplies, and oversupplies of POWER?
This is simple. The Cost is enormous. All the end points must connect to this one POWER source. Call this power plant GOVERNMENT MONOPOLY OF POWER.
Now pass a law that punishes anyone for using any POWER that is not produced by the GOVERNMENT MONOPOLY OF POWER PLANT that is located in Baghdad.
Contrast the above with a alternate approach called Liberty.
Suppose the cost of building the single POWER PLANT was spent on 1 billion miniature POWER PLANTS and the total costs were the same and the total output of POWER is the same.
Forget, for a moment, the problems associated with GOVERNING who gets one of the billion new POWER PLANTS and see the BIG PICTURE.
I’m using too many caps – sorry. I’m too lazy to go back and edit.
A. One big power plant
B. Many little power plants
C. Both systems cost the same
D. Both systems put out the same power
If you can see both systems side by side, then, you can see one big difference. The big power plant must have a connection, a resistance, and a cost of power, from every end point where work is done to the one power plant. That connection, in real terms, is wire and wire costs a lot in both physical costs (copper and aluminum for examples) and the load (cost) caused by resistance. If all the connections are added up as a total cost, then, you account for a huge cost that does not do any work compared to the other option.
The Liberty option does not connect each end point to the one power plant. Each end point is self-sufficient (autonomous) and able to operate independently. The cost savings (no load, no cost, no connection, and no tax) over time is enormous. As more time goes by the rate of savings increases because the savings can purchase more individual power generators.
You can see this even further, if you try, when considering the physical construction of the many individual power plants.
If the individual power plants are Wind and Solar (Lunar too), then, the resistance of transporting a common fuel (oil, coal, or uranium) is eliminated since the common fuel is shipped to each power plant by nature (Sun light and heated air).
In essence the cost of Government (making sure that the power flow goes from the power source to the end points where work is done) is reduced to a minimum.
When the cost of government is minimized, then, there is more power to be invested in getting constructive work done and even more importantly there is more power to be invested in producing more individual power generators.
Is it not obvious, now, that the single most important concern is the form of currency used? When the form of currency used is dictated (monopolized) by a central power, then, no competing currencies can thrive – on purpose.
Oil will be dictated as the only power used – on purpose.
Dollars will be dictated as the only power used – on purpose.
To resist against the government will cost a heavy toll in human suffering and death (on a massive scale).
When the central power plant idea (power) becomes too costly, then, the Liberty power plants (cost-less) power will be the only affordable option.
And: The greater the supply of energy currency the greater will be the purchasing power of energy currency because the costs of production will decrease.