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

[Eugen Leitl]

Ryan, please try to not top-post.

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 08:18:52PM -0500, Ryan Lanham wrote:
> 
>    I agree with Stan's research in principle.  I would say that the

Unfortunately I missed Stan's email, because I killfiled him due 
to deliberate top-posting. 

>    single greatest action humans could take to reduce power use is
>    probably in the area of insulation.

In practice, there's a very large spread of insulation across the
industrial countries. Especially Japan and Germany lead here. The
real issue is ROI and EROI(E)I, which is a function of energy price,
culture, availability (zero-energy houses require special parts and
expertise), etc.

>    The Jevons paradox, I think, can be overcome by public policy given
>    sufficient education.  People can choose to use less natural resources

In practice high, monotonously rising energy prices as well as taxation
and subsidies can be a powerful motivator.

>    even though they have more transportation technology, for instance,
>    because they understand the moral value of reallocation. Of course
>    pressures to drill drill drill notwithstanding.
>    I've never much believed in economic "laws."  People can decide their
>    fate and change their patterns--Jared Diamond's depressing research
>    notwithstanding.  If they cannot, discussions are pointless.
>    I otherwise agree.
>    Ryan
> 
>    On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Stan Rhodes
>    <[1]stanleyrhodes at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>      Eugen, three points:
>      1) Negawatts are effectively nonsense because of the Jevons
>      paradox.  Bradish challenged Lovins to offer evidence against the

Stan, your objection is effectively nonsense because energy saving measures 
are quite popular in many countries, and objectively provide a saving
in comparison to those countries that don't. This is more than compensated
by the growth elsewhere, which I see as our challenge, duty and opportunity
to address.

If faced with peak resource, and especially rapidly falling ERO(E)I
the question is not how many extravagances we can afford, but just to stop
us from sliding into the past. Because we do, and our time to switch
to effectively infinite (~4 MT/s as compared to ~0.2 g/s matterenergy flux
we currently use) energy resources is rapidly running out.

>      Jevons paradox for power use, and it's never appeared.  The same
>      challenge goes for anyone mentioning negawatts.  Increasing
>      efficiency lowers relative cost but tends to increase consumption
>      (rebound effect).  It happens with coal, gasoline, and electricity,
>      to name a few.

Fossil are a limited resource, electrons are 100% recyclable.

>      2) Your claims of current PV viability "across the scale" included
>      no supporting data, and, having looked at the data for solar, I do

Given some 0.2 harvest factor of Wp and panel prices of 1 USD/Wp and falling
I'm sure you can do the math.

>      not believe them.  Solar cannot be used for baseload power,

Terrestrial solar can't, in absence of buffers. 

>      generally stated to be 30-40% of consumption over the year.  Seems

Baseline is some half to one third of daytime peak. Here's an incentive to
further lower it by dynamic electricity pricing.

>      reasonable given use graphs I've seen.  Solar generates very little
>      power per sq km, and efficiency gains in the technology cannot make

Thermal collectors have an efficiency of >80%, or even >90%. They are readily
bufferable over diurnal cycles, and with enough ballast even seasonal cycles.
The solar constant is 1.4 kW/m^2. If this is little power to you, be my guest.

Current commercial PV has about 15-20% efficiency, which is a factor of 2-3
from crossover of residential electricity. Existing roofs alone can provide an
effective excess in residential areas. The question is of scaling existing
technology and introducing novel thin-film and power electronics to lower
the price. 

>      up for variable weather, which is a ceiling the technology can

The sun never stops shining. Above the clouds, or somewhere else. 

>      never break.  Storage options attempt to get around this, but are
>      incredibly expensive.  The same applies to wind, although wind can

You see a problem, I see a challenge and a business opportunity.

>      produce more power per footprint (carbon or land) than solar.

Wind (which is quite big where I sit) is a hypervariable resource,
and complementary in location and duration to PV and solar thermal.

>      3) Kevin's point on industry power stands.  Industry power needs
>      are everyone's problem.  They're a part of the global socioeconomic
>      system, and I see no evidence suggesting that will change in the
>      years ahead.

If you see no evidence that the status quo will never change (the past
has proven you wrong already) I guess we'll just wait and see.

>      Kevin:
>      Reduced demand cannot be achieved through efficiency.  See above
>      regarding negawatts.  Crunch the numbers, look at the literature,
>      particularly more recent discussions of the Khazzoom-Brookes
>      postulate.  Energy economists are trying to figure out what the
>      hell to do without having efforts politically hamstrung.

All energy saving in Germany has been driven by legislation and regulation.
If it doesn't work where you sit you must be doing something wrong.

>      Lately you've made increasingly extraordinary claims, which require
>      extraordinary evidence.  Where are the data supporting efficiency
>      gains of 80%?  Surely you can understand my skepticism,

Solar thermal absorbers are 80-90%. Current top of the line PV is approaching
50%, and rectennas scaled into VIS/NIR range might reach 80%.

However, it's a red herring, since the issue is of ERO(E)I and ROI over
lifetime, installation grain cost, resource base and recycling rate.
The efficiency isn't really part of the equation. Plants do it quite
nicely with 0.5%-1% efficiency, and they manage to self-replicate
and suffer being harvested.

>      particularly when the statement is so general.  Renovating cities
>      isn't free: consider the power cost to do so in diesel alone.  Even

Legislation for new installations (roof alignment, inclination, solar thermal
designed-in) is effectively cost-free. If you're looking at diesel, then you
already know what you're doing wrong.

>      if the Jevons paradox somehow didn't apply, how much energy would
>      be required to renovate US infrastructure to reduce consumption by

US is not that important in the long run, so we should focus on new installations.

>      80%?  Now consider material and labor costs.  Now consider

Efficiency gains are only suitable until you start running into diminishing
returns. Clearly you must both conserve energy and move to renewable base.

>      transaction costs of renegotiating property laws and rights,
>      municipality by municipality.

Why should this be necessary? Zoning laws can be readily overruled.

>      The only solution direction I see is an increasing transition to
>      taxing resource use, built into the socioeconomic system, and thus

Some of us have been doing it for a long time. It really works.

>      most of my research since mid-2008 has focused on mapping that
>      concept space with the insights of behavioral economics.
>      Governance structures must include mechanisms to adjust for these
>      externalities, but when they do, they're likely to be out-competed
>      by entities that ignore those mechanisms.

We're clearly already observing that process in action.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE