Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: More than 68% of New European Electricity Capacity Came From Wind and Solar in 2011 [View all]kristopher
(29,798 posts)43. A Farewell to Fossil Fuels: Answering the Energy Challenge
A Farewell to Fossil Fuels: Answering the Energy Challenge
By Amory B. Lovins
March/April 2012
Article Summary and Author Biography
Nearly 90 percent of the worlds economy is fueled every year by digging up and burning about four cubic miles of the rotted remains of primeval swamp goo. With extraordinary skill, the worlds most powerful industries have turned that oil, gas, and coal into affordable and convenient fuels and electricity that have created wealth, helped build modern civilization, and enriched the lives of billions.
Yet today, the rising costs and risks of these fossil fuels are undercutting the security and prosperity they have enabled. Each day, the United States spends about $2 billion buying oil and loses another $4 billion indirectly to the macroeconomic costs of oil dependence, the microeconomic costs of oil price volatility, and the cost of keeping military forces ready for intervention in the Persian Gulf.
In all, the United States spends one-sixth of its GDP on oil, not counting any damage to foreign policy, global stability, public health, and the environment. The hidden costs are also massive for coal and are significant for natural gas, too. Even if oil and coal prices were not high, volatile, and rising, risks such as fuel insecurity and dependence, pollution-caused illnesses, energy-driven conflicts over water and food, climate change, and geopolitical tensions would make oil and coal unattractive.
Weaning the United States from those fossil fuels would require two big shifts: in oil and electricity. These are distinct -- nearly half of electricity is made from coal, and almost none is made from oil -- but power plants and oil burning each account for over two-fifths of the carbon that is emitted by fossil-fuel use. In the United States, three-fourths of electricity powers buildings, three-fourths of oil fuels transportation, and the remaining oil and electricity run factories. So saving oil and electricity is chiefly about making buildings, vehicles, and factories far more efficient -- no small task.
By Amory B. Lovins
March/April 2012
Article Summary and Author Biography
Nearly 90 percent of the worlds economy is fueled every year by digging up and burning about four cubic miles of the rotted remains of primeval swamp goo. With extraordinary skill, the worlds most powerful industries have turned that oil, gas, and coal into affordable and convenient fuels and electricity that have created wealth, helped build modern civilization, and enriched the lives of billions.
Yet today, the rising costs and risks of these fossil fuels are undercutting the security and prosperity they have enabled. Each day, the United States spends about $2 billion buying oil and loses another $4 billion indirectly to the macroeconomic costs of oil dependence, the microeconomic costs of oil price volatility, and the cost of keeping military forces ready for intervention in the Persian Gulf.
In all, the United States spends one-sixth of its GDP on oil, not counting any damage to foreign policy, global stability, public health, and the environment. The hidden costs are also massive for coal and are significant for natural gas, too. Even if oil and coal prices were not high, volatile, and rising, risks such as fuel insecurity and dependence, pollution-caused illnesses, energy-driven conflicts over water and food, climate change, and geopolitical tensions would make oil and coal unattractive.
Weaning the United States from those fossil fuels would require two big shifts: in oil and electricity. These are distinct -- nearly half of electricity is made from coal, and almost none is made from oil -- but power plants and oil burning each account for over two-fifths of the carbon that is emitted by fossil-fuel use. In the United States, three-fourths of electricity powers buildings, three-fourths of oil fuels transportation, and the remaining oil and electricity run factories. So saving oil and electricity is chiefly about making buildings, vehicles, and factories far more efficient -- no small task.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137246/amory-b-lovins/a-farewell-to-fossil-fuels
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
94 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
More than 68% of New European Electricity Capacity Came From Wind and Solar in 2011 [View all]
kristopher
Feb 2012
OP
The determinant is the operational characteristic within a generation and delivery system.
kristopher
Feb 2012
#6
If "fracking is severely curtailed" then I don't see much NG for electrical generation.
joshcryer
Feb 2012
#36
I want data, I want to see that it's actually being pursued, not fantasy plans that...
joshcryer
Feb 2012
#40
I did. I showed that greenwashing natural gas is not going to transition us away from fossil fuels.
joshcryer
Feb 2012
#52
Fracking is absolutely necessary to "meet the needs we might have during a transition."
joshcryer
Feb 2012
#39
Lots of sniping and ranting; absolutely devoid of substance related to the topic of transition
kristopher
Feb 2012
#42
I already told you, we don't. Convince me we do. We don't. The evidience is we don't. I gave it.
joshcryer
Feb 2012
#49
The chart is not flawed, the chart is specific. The EU and US will reduce coal consumption.
joshcryer
Feb 2012
#60
My interpretation of data is perfectly fine, as you've provided no evidence I am wrong.
joshcryer
Feb 2012
#63
Because he has a fantasy solution that isn't reflected in any real world trajectory.
joshcryer
Feb 2012
#68
Not at all, I think the magical robot factories are just as useful as any other "future planning"...
joshcryer
Feb 2012
#80
Erm, right wing garbage. Making people pay externalized costs is not a subsidy.
joshcryer
Feb 2012
#93
Uh, you do realize those electronics are so cheap because they're built in unregulated sectors...
joshcryer
Feb 2012
#86
Are you seriously saying that a snapshot of today supports your assertions about the future?
kristopher
Feb 2012
#91
Yes, because the data I provided is a "snapshot of today," it's not years of trending.
joshcryer
Feb 2012
#92
Explain how nuclear power enables a transition to a noncoarbon energy infrastructure.
kristopher
Feb 2012
#18
Why? As stated many times before, humans are not to be trusted with nuclear power.
Nihil
Feb 2012
#24
In other words you can't answer the question without showing you are being misleading.
kristopher
Feb 2012
#26
I'm not the one who is dodging the facts by constantly raising the "nuclear" red herring.
Nihil
Feb 2012
#47
You seem to be laboring under the impression that you're the only one being coherent here
XemaSab
Feb 2012
#67