[p2p-research] [Open Manufacturing] Addressing Post-Scarcity Pitfalls

[Ryan Lanham]

Stan, you are right that Lovins' recent work on the macro side is rather
cranky.  But his early stuff on vehicles, on the physics of energy, etc. was
some of the very early serious science on energy efficiencies in a number of
areas.  He is a genius...sadly not of the sort he is trying of late to be--a
macro-theorist.

Micropower (by which he means small production) is growing rapidly, but as
many are starting to note, it is often problematic--particularly
photovoltaic solar.

Nuclear, sadly, has not grown.  The greens have hurt nuclear a great deal
and therefore probably helped kill the planet more than the coal industry.
But they don't understand their error and they mean well.  Nuclear will come
back because it is obvious.  Peak uranium still is a problem...and fuel
reuse can probably extend the total energy available.

And you are right...passive does release energy...but certainly now
electricity.

It is obvious that geo-thermal and the oceans hold the answers.  Energy has
to be shipped via hydrogen or some other small molecule.  Nuclear is the
obvious bridge.  Wind and photovoltaics are helpers--maybe.  It's not that
hard of a problem conceptually...what is hard is execution.  Entrenched
interests in industry and the green movement are big problems.

Ryan


On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Stan Rhodes <stanleyrhodes at gmail.com>wrote:

> Nick, be honest: before sending that email, did you verify a single fact
> claimed by Lovins in that interview?  Did you even try?  Which claim did you
> find solid?
>
> Lovins establishes fossil fuels--particularly coal--as the fuel to beat at
> the very beginning of the interview.  That may be the only valid point in
> the interview.  He then claims that "efficiency" and "micropower" have been
> "whalloping" nuclear in the marketplace.  Fortunately, I don't have to write
> much on this: these strange claims have already been debunked.  The most
> well-known and well-researched criticism of Lovins' claims about nuclear and
> "micropower" is here:
>
> http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2008/07/amory-lovins-and-his-nuclear-illusion.html
>
> While that blog is decidedly and obviously pro-nuclear, Bradish's
> meticulous research in dissecting Lovins and Sheikh speaks for itself.  If
> you want a "liberal-leaning" source, compare Bradish to NNadir at DailyKos,
> who has expert-level knowledge as well, but is far more snarky.  You're
> better off with Bradish.
>
> That's the long answer to your question.  The short answer is, and always
> should be, "facts."
>
> I don't share Ryan's sentiments about Lovins--I became more and more
> disappointed by Lovins' research as I dug into it and attempted to follow
> his reasoning and citations.  He had no credibility after I finished Natural
> Capitalism, which I read upon recommendation, and wanted to like.  The more
> I learned of economics, the worse I found the book, but questioning the
> material taught me a lot (as questioning usually does).
>
> I agree with Ryan's response otherwise.  When he says passive solar
> provides no energy, I believe he meant electricity (versus heat).
>
> -- Stan
>
> p.s. although I am part of the openmanufacturing googlegroup, the emails
> are not set to come to my box.
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Nick Taylor <nick1181 at googlemail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>  Whether people like it or not, that's the reality of power consumption
>>>> and needs: it boils down to fossil fuels vs nuclear for the majority of the
>>>> world's power generation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Still, Amory Lovins appears to think otherwise
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WxreFrUHho
>>>
>>> Any particular reason why the "reality of power consumption" that exists
>>> in your head is any more credible than that which exists in his?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Amory Lovins is a great man.  One of the truly great energy minds.  I
>> think the reality of his statements are very much long term.  In the short
>> run, it is fossil versus nuclear.  So pick your poison.  One had better know
>> clearly which to prefer.  If you know and understand the issues...it isn't
>> close.  Nuclear is vastly superior.
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090612/e1718faa/attachment.html>