Energize Europe brainstorm

by Jerome a Paris
Sun Sep 3rd, 2006 at 08:53:00 AM EST

C'est la rentrée... Au boulot

So I'm relaunching Energize America over at DailyKos (your support appreciated as always), but it's high time I put the same effort into European issues.

At this stage, I'd like ideas and suggestions on how to proceed, as well as (non-binding) offers to contribute/participate. Here are a few reference documents:

The EU Green paper and the consultation process which is our obvious target (due 24/9);
My take on the Green paper (as posted in March)
My first attempt at an overview of energy policiy issues

I'll add other relevant links as suggested in comments.


Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password

Display:
I am happy to submit anecdotal stuff I come across (see below)

But you chaps are far, far more use than me in our energy debate.

However, I do believe in the power of such groups as ET to collaborate in a new way, across borders. It is a model of the future. The point as always though, is how to promote the final document to a wider public and to the official debates going on.

That, to me, should also be part of this discussion.

My example of anecdotal evidence from today, is that a neighbour who drives a large diesel Land Rover from the early 90's, came over to show me an article in an 'obession'  magazine for owners of these older models. My neighbour is a touch obsessed.

I have been feeding him for months with little energy digs in the midriff about his 10 l pr 100 l choice of transport. He's been defensive. I recently told him about incidents of deliberate damage to SUVs and wondered how many more irate people would attack gas-guzzlers if petrol went up to 5€ a liter.

So today he proudly showed me a story in his magazine about a new UK conversion for the T5 diesel engine so that it can use vegetable oil. Also, an extra tank for the oil means you can use the mineral oil to start on cold days. It had a story on a couple who had installed it and were very happy with it. Prominently in a photo of their car, were 2 litre bottles of vegetable oil sitting on the bonnet with the bold red text "50p a litre".

"There you go", I said. "It's a win-win situation"

He smiled broadly and retired, "I'm going to google this - you'll see - I'll have the first one round here"

Drip drip drip - but you can slowly change the minds of people.


You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sun Sep 3rd, 2006 at 09:22:43 AM EST
I complained about the Green Paper Consultation process in this diary: ***EU Energy Green Paper Consultation.

I suggest a first thing is to draft a protest to Commissioners Piebalgs and Wallström about the method of "consultation" adopted. I'll try to get up a first draft for collective criticism/editing tomorrow.

Colman e-mailed the GP Consultation and (iirc, I can't find the comment) received a grudging reply that said we were free to submit a draft of our own without using their questionnaire.

So I suggest that's the second aim: produce a general paper on European energy and submit it as our contribution to the GP Consultation, by the 24th September.

I'm willing to join in suggestions and editing on that, though I lack the technical know-how to write on most topics involved. If biofuels/biomass is useful, I could pitch in on that.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Sep 3rd, 2006 at 09:48:37 AM EST
I'd like to help in some way. As you know, I am most into nuclear energy stuff. And oil.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Sun Sep 3rd, 2006 at 10:01:44 AM EST
I'll cross-post a comment of mine from afew's "biofuels consultation summary" diary:
I mentioned at the London meetup that I'd like to see a summary of the EU's primary energy production capacity, by source. Example:

Electricity [Solar, Wind, Hydroelectric]
Heat [Solar, Geothermal]
Fuel [Coal, Gas, Oil, Nuclear]

As well as the efficiencies involved in turning electricity into heat, heat into electricity, fuel into heat, electricity or fuel into motion...



Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 3rd, 2006 at 10:05:45 AM EST
This should help.

http://www.iea.org

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Sun Sep 3rd, 2006 at 10:21:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks, will look at that.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 3rd, 2006 at 03:10:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This factsheet comes with the Green Paper, and contains some of the answers.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Sep 21st, 2006 at 10:28:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm going give all the negative arguments, but then let me add that I think my points should be (mostly) disregarded and that your effort should move forward.

The left is always taken with producing "manifestos". Much time and energy is taken up with this, tempers flare, friends stop talking to each other, and groups split into factions.

What's the result: A manifesto is issued - and promptly ignored.

Everyone can come up with noble goals, the Energize America is better than most in that it also offers specific legislative ideas as well. The sticking point to all attempts to change the status quo is the power of vested interests. For change to happen those who control the levers of power need to be convinced that change will benefit them, otherwise they will oppose it.

Let's take the specific case of the oil industry. Any proposal which aims to lower oil consumption will affect their bottom line. There is nothing in the way of a compensating development. Only BP has even started to think about moving into sustainable energy sources, but the motivating force, CEO John Browne, is going to retire next year. It is not only the oil companies that resist change, but all the politicians who are in their pocket. Finally, oil sales provide a large amount of tax receipts to the government.

Business leaders and politicians think about the present and the immediate future. Appeals to them in terms of saving the planet for future generations carry no weight. Paybacks need to be short term, or they aren't interested.

So, if I were to make suggestions, I think programs need to be devised which will benefit the current major players. Call it a bribe if you wish, but they hold all the cards.

The next negative is the resistance of the general public. No one has suggested a model to replace the private automobile or the suburban lifestyle that will be acceptable. Voluntarily changing lifestyles can only come about if the alternatives are more appealing. Mass transit is not more appealing that a private auto. Cluster housing or urban living is not more appealing than "a man's home is his castle".

What this means is that alternatives need to be demonstrable before people will be willing to change. This means that new communities will need to be built that are more energy and land efficient so that people can see the benefits. No private developer will take the risk. The same goes for new types of private vehicles. Private firms are not willing to spend the amount on speculative ideas. Especially given the succession of failures over the past 30 years (turbine cars, electric vehicles, Hydrogen power, etc.).

Change will require massive government involvement. This is not a popular model in this era of laissez faire government (except for the military sector). People are not interested in funding new speculative ventures, they already feel taxes are too high.

Realizing all the problems that lie ahead is better, in my opinion, that unwarranted optimism. But, as I said at the top, don't let me discourage anyone from trying.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Sun Sep 3rd, 2006 at 11:31:47 AM EST
The next negative is the resistance of the general public. No one has suggested a model to replace the private automobile or the suburban lifestyle that will be acceptable. Voluntarily changing lifestyles can only come about if the alternatives are more appealing. Mass transit is not more appealing that a private auto. Cluster housing or urban living is not more appealing than "a man's home is his castle".

Is there a cultural difference between the US and Europe in this respect? Europeans seem to like mass transit, cluster housing and urban living. Having to park, maintain, insure, fuel your own car is a nuisance, and we don't like living in the middle of nowhere.

I generalise, and Europe has become more suburban in the last few decades, but it hasn't gone as far as in the US, and lots of people still like city life. Our cities have not been depopulated or turned into slums from which the middle class flees.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 3rd, 2006 at 11:40:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There has been a massive shift in the US over the past 40 years. The "rust belt" has been depopulated and the population has shifted to the desert southwest.

The usual argument makes no sense. OK, the heavy industry of the northeast and midwest closed down and hence there were no jobs. However there were no jobs in the desert before the recent population growth. Some how the jobs materialized. These are not the types of jobs that needed to be in the desert, so they could have just as easily been created in Cleveland as in Phoenix. Implied government subsidies in the form of infrastructure building made the shift affordable.

Places like Detroit have lost half their population. I think the imbalance in the power of the sparsely settled states over the dense ones has allowed for this biased policy to be adopted. Housing developers and land speculators had more influence than declining industrial centers.

This can be seen in my analysis of the imbalance of the US Senate:
The Small State Senate Bias

As for urban living, NYC is claimed to be the most energy efficient city in the world.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Sun Sep 3rd, 2006 at 11:58:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
These are not the types of jobs that needed to be in the desert, so they could have just as easily been created in Cleveland as in Phoenix. Implied government subsidies in the form of infrastructure building made the shift affordable.

This needs shouting out from the rooftops, again and again. Not only from the US context, but examples around the world.

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Sun Sep 3rd, 2006 at 01:10:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree, but rdf is still quite right !
Most of the green incentives on TV show individual houses (solar passive, building materials, etc.) and old/new cars with different gadgetry's...

A prospective "way of life" is still liked to what we call "brebis-tomates" (sheep-tomato) sort of "baba" ! While most kids want the star-wars, i-pod, wi-fi standard !

If you have the money you can get in Paris nice electric bicycle, small cars, electric or hybrid... But those are designed for people who have a garage !

I can't really imagine thousands of cables feeding at night those heavy batteries, dangling from the windows to the pavement... :-)

While techniques and technology does improve, the mainstream won't really move till greater comfort, easiness of use, fashion, kicks in...

"What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman

by margouillat (hemidactylus(dot)frenatus(at)wanadoo(dot)fr) on Sun Sep 3rd, 2006 at 12:24:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
From its deadly love affair with carbon and its spendthrift ways.

I love J a P's idea of "Energize Europe" and support it fully.  

My dream is that Americans understand better the energy-thrifty European way of life.  When we visit Europe, we do not feel that people live wretchedly.  In fact, the general impression is that you people are better off than we are. I mean, doctors make house calls in your countries!  Children have health care!  You get 6-week vacations! Without question you guys set a better table than we do.  And in countries where nuclear power and other emissions-free resources like hydro and wind supply most of the energy, the skies are cleaner.

It will be helpful to Europeans if they can think of ways to persuade the US to break the carbon habit.  Perhaps EU political pressure about imports from the US, that sort of thing.  Because one country's greenhouse gas emissions are every country's in terms of our collective fate.

by Plan9 on Fri Sep 8th, 2006 at 03:04:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The next negative is the resistance of the general public. No one has suggested a model to replace the private automobile or the suburban lifestyle that will be acceptable. Voluntarily changing lifestyles can only come about if the alternatives are more appealing. Mass transit is not more appealing that a private auto. Cluster housing or urban living is not more appealing than "a man's home is his castle".

Debatable. In most of America there are no real choices. Where they do it isn't at all clear that Americans reject public transport and urban living. Housing in upscale densely populated urban neighbourhoods is much more expensive than in upper middle class towns in the inner suburbs. Many of the middle income families buying homes in the exurban subdivisions are doing so because there is no remotely comparable option in densely populated areas - they're not choosing between a nice three bedroom in a pleasant middle class urban neighbourhood and the pretty four bedroom house fifty miles out.  If there were real choices then some would still want their slice of the suburban dream, but many wouldn't.  

Large numbers of Americans will also choose to commute to work by mass transit rather than car if the time and cost are reasonably close. That doesn't mean giving up car ownership, but it does mean using it a lot less.

If we want housing and commuting patterns to change we need to give people viable options. That means a lot of money (building decent mass transit infrastructure isn't cheap) and overriding local opposition to large scale residential development in many urban and inner suburban areas.

by MarekNYC on Sun Sep 3rd, 2006 at 05:40:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This gets into the "how much does the government have to do?" argument. For example, there is no particular need to spend a lot of money on "decent mass transit" until there is reasonable ridership, and that will not happen until the comparative costs of individual cars and mass transit become a lot closer. When ridership increases then the existing mass transit systems will expand their coverage. This can be done pretty quickly by using busses.

I know you're all tired of me relating stories about Colorado Springs (I'm fully aware that this is supposed to be mostly a site about Europe), but I like to use my city as an example of how America manages to do at least a few things right--and to dispell some notions of how it is to live under a 100% conservative Republican government. (Colorado Springs has NO elected Democrats (http://www.gazette.com/display.php?id=1321152&secid=1), and is the home of many of the much-feared fundamentalist Christian organizations.)

Anyway, in the transit area, the city pulled up all its streetcar tracks a long time ago. There's a bus system that has broad but sparse coverage and low ridership. BUT, now there's a proposal in the works to buy back one of the old railroad stations in town. It's been a restaurant for the last few decades (sort of a fun one, right on the tracks, your soup splashes when the coal trains go by), but is now suggested as a regional transportation hub. Busses will take people from the Colorado Springs suburbs to the railroad station, where they wil take the train to Denver, Chicago, or New York. Not this year or next, but on a time scale that's reasonable given a reasonable prediction of how demand will develop.

All this is just routine government activity, without huge investment, without lots of propaganda or dissent--just a recognition that there will gradually be an increasing demand for public transportation. No fuss needed, just let the bureacrats do their job.


http://www.springsgov.com/Page.asp?NavID=6137

by asdf on Mon Sep 4th, 2006 at 12:51:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
there is no particular need to spend a lot of money on "decent mass transit" until there is reasonable ridership, and that will not happen until the comparative costs of individual cars and mass transit become a lot closer. When ridership increases then the existing mass transit systems will expand their coverage. This can be done pretty quickly by using busses.

Sorry, no, when the bus service is not dense, frequent and dependable, there is no reason to use it as anything other than an absolute last resort. It's a vicious circle that must be broken by government policy.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Sep 4th, 2006 at 06:59:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
City planning plays a huge role in this. When you have city councils and planning departments who are terrified of young renters, mixed residential-commercial zoning, high-density residential...

Plus, a lot of people are just not used to mass transit.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Sep 4th, 2006 at 06:57:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Local governments are often ok with high density housing, mixed zoning, and young renters - as long as they're high income and have no kids. So they'll approve apartment complexes but only if they're high end and the apartments are one and two bedrooms. To be fair it's understandable - kids cost the local government a lot of money (education is primarily financed by local taxes in the US) and low income people don't bring in revenue.
by MarekNYC on Tue Sep 5th, 2006 at 01:33:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Interesting way to play the game.
by Laurent GUERBY on Tue Sep 5th, 2006 at 06:36:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
City councillor #1: we can't allow this rental development! Renters sint in their garages drinking beer!
City councillor #2: I sit in my garage drinking beer.

(as recounted by my assistant city planner ex-girlfriend)

How many city planners and city councillors from Suburbia do you know, Marek?

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Sep 5th, 2006 at 06:39:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I've done a bit of work on green energy and on the external costs of energy (mainly on the economics/politics side, don't ask me about physics), so maybe I could add something there.

The EU has done a huge amount of research on the externalities of energy, cf. the ExternE project and its current extension, NEEDS.

Interestingly, the findings from ExternE indicate that the main external cost of energy production is the cost to our health. I note that the green paper neither mentions health, and the word 'external' is only used in reference to external policy.

A clear case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is funding...

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Sun Sep 3rd, 2006 at 12:14:57 PM EST
This is good stuff. Your contribution will be greatly appreciated, I think, nanne.
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Sun Sep 3rd, 2006 at 01:12:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I've used Externe data in earlier diaries. Agree with your points.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Sep 3rd, 2006 at 01:58:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Remind me the EUCD directive, work by expert were mostly negative about DRM, but the commission said it was the solution to all problems...
by Laurent GUERBY on Sun Sep 3rd, 2006 at 02:09:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Great project, Jérôme! Sorry I can't participate in it much though.

In fact below will be my single, final contribution (reason: this is a field I am simply not qualified to talk on, so I might as well say all I've got to say, on it once and for all, regardless of how inappropriate it may be).

Chapter 1:

"All European nations will contribute 1% of their GDP for 20 years, towards digging a gigantic hole as deep as possible towards the Earth's core, in a highly stable geological area. <insert amazing computations here>. The tremendous amount of energy released <insert funky graphs here> will be enough to supply all of Europe with enough energy for millions of years. Sewage water will be sent back down the same hole."

by Alex in Toulouse on Sun Sep 3rd, 2006 at 05:57:28 PM EST
Sewage water would only work if vapour could be collected again, and this would only partially filter it. Not a good idea. Ok, that was my single contribution, now godspeed on this project, everyone.
by Alex in Toulouse on Sun Sep 3rd, 2006 at 06:01:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Then again, if there were some way to extract hydrogen from water at those depths ...

Maybe I'll watch a nice sci-fi movie tonight.

by Alex in Toulouse on Sun Sep 3rd, 2006 at 06:05:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
...We are living right now in the worst science fiction movie ever made.
by Plan9 on Fri Sep 8th, 2006 at 03:07:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In the conference of EU movers-and-shakers referred to above, it was proposed that the EU countries should formulate a joint strategy for dealing with their energy vulnerabilities.

I can sympathise with this to a certain extent, although I fail to see how this suggestion ties in with the deregulation nonsense that was launched by the EU Energy Directorate. I can also note that while Hannibal was the commander of a multinational army that defeated many foes, these outcomes might have been different if the same army had been commanded by his wine steward.

Let me put this another way. The commander of the EU Energy Army is a man who believes that `peak oil' is only a theory, and even worse, has announced that electric and gas deregulation makes good sense. Accordingly, I think that we would all be better off if we pretend that this high-flown and dispensable conference with its bogus deliberations never took place, and future calls for a joint energy strategy are either pointedly ignored or ridiculed.

- Ferdinand E. Banks

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Mon Sep 4th, 2006 at 05:03:02 AM EST
More funny quotes from Mr. Banks.

The main driving forces behind electric deregulation are ideology and carelessness.

[...]

It is impossible these days to avoid being told by friendly bystanders that economics is a non-experimental science, but in truth important experiments are taking place all the time. For example, the fully regulated and fully integrated Southern Company (with headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia) sells electricity at a much lower price and higher reliability than the major electric companies of Texas - a state that, only a few years ago, was often referred to as a role model of deregulation.

Let me put this the way that I enjoy putting it in the lectures that I have given on the present subject: electric deregulation has failed, is failing, or probably will fail in the near future in California, Pennsylvania, Texas and Illinois in the United States; Alberta and Ontario in Canada; Brazil, South Australia, Sweden, Norway, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. There are almost certainly many more candidates for this negative role of honor, but further inquiry into the deregulation tribulations of those given above should be sufficient for impartial observers to determine which way the wind is blowing.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Mon Sep 4th, 2006 at 05:14:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The man is an endless well of good quotes!

Gas deregulation is also on the EU agenda for Europe. I will not take it up here, but in many respects it is even higher on the crazy list than electricity, because what it will mean is a deregulated Europe on the buy side of the gas market having to deal with external suppliers that are monopolies or strong oligopolies. This could be a very unpleasant experience for the former, even if it might turn out to be trivial in comparison to the mental or financial discomfort that some of us are presently subject to because of things like the ignorant closing of two highly efficient Swedish reactors.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Mon Sep 4th, 2006 at 05:18:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Do you have a link?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Sep 4th, 2006 at 05:49:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
http://www.energypulse.net/centers/author.cfm?at_id=665

On deregulation: http://www.energypulse.net/centers/author.cfm?at_id=665

It seems the author is a retired economist, and he just happens to live in my city! I asked around at my economics department, and Prof. Banks seems to be a little eccentric. He obviously consider himself the greatest economist in the world, as he quite often seems to point out. Every year there is a lecture at Uppsala university held by the winner of the Nobel price in economy, and Prof. Banks supposedly always sits in the front row critizing the Nobel prize winner for his retarded opinions on economic matters in general, and on the paper that won the person in question his prize in particular. :D

These days I make it my business to take for granted that just about everyone understands the situation with oil. I assume that with the oil price occasionally exceeding seventy dollars a barrel, the more vulgar forms of optimism will be discarded. Amazingly enough however, there are still persons with a passable background in energy matters who are unable to deal with the new oil realities.

[...]

The elite of oil geologists and petroleum engineers now accept the peak oil thesis, while well over 90 percent of acknowledged climatologists have attached a high probability to a large part of present and future changes in climate having their origin in human behaviour. Where the latter is concerned, right or wrong, I prefer the opinions of experts to conjecture by the rank and file of sceptics working the other side of the street, most of whom are non-climatologists trying to make the most of a gut feeling. As for the matter of peak (conventional) oil, I fail to understand how we have peaks in e.g. huge land areas like North America or the former Soviet Union, without recognizing that a global peak is a distinct possibility, and perhaps in the near future.

[...]

When I lecture on this topic I say that it's possible to learn everything that you need to know about what is going to happen with global oil production by spending an hour or two examining what happened in the United States. Modern oil history is generally considered to have had its beginning in the U.S., and as you can find out from the topic heading `Oil Fields' in Google, oil was produced in many states. The really big strike in the lower '48 was in East Texas, and for many years a large percentage of the population of the U.S. did not believe that production in that rich basin would ever peak.

But it did peak, and so did production in the lower '48 about the end of 1970.

[...]

The simple and inescapable fact of the matter is that the money that the major oil producing countries have been making over the last year or so, and which will continue to roll in during the next few years (because of the actual shortage of oil in the ground in relation to the demand for this commodity), has provided them with some remarkable options when it comes to choosing strategies for the great oil game. I see no reason to speculate on this topic since almost everything we need to know about the trouble that we might be in was presented in unambiguous language by the petroleum scientist and executive Donald E. Carr (1978): "The clock of stupidity is attached to a bell, and it tolls for your descendants". It probably tolls for us too, but I prefer waiting until later in the year before thinking about that.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Mon Sep 4th, 2006 at 08:37:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Love this bit:

Donald E. Carr (1978): "The clock of stupidity is attached to a bell, and it tolls for your descendants". It probably tolls for us too, but I prefer waiting until later in the year before thinking about that.
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Mon Sep 4th, 2006 at 09:00:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Seems there are two things here: a proper Energize Europe working paper and a response to the EU Green Paper.

I'd suggest that we should do a preliminary outline of the first before preparing the second.

Does someone want to volunteer a working group for this?

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Sep 4th, 2006 at 09:06:09 AM EST
Good way to start "la rentrée" and bring your talents on energy policy and those of other ET members to bear in the EU context. I'm in full support but right now unfortunately can't provide much practical help as I'm already overcommitted on other projects. I'll follow the progress with great interest. Good luck!
by Alexandra in WMass (alexandra_wmass[a|t]yahoo[d|o|t]fr) on Mon Sep 4th, 2006 at 10:35:30 AM EST
Quick link to "robustness" discussion for future reference:

http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2006/9/3/164257/3617#6

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Sep 5th, 2006 at 07:57:41 AM EST
More: http://www.eurotrib.com/comments/2006/1/24/112920/581/51#51

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Sep 5th, 2006 at 08:00:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
is robustness. There are many potential solutions to our energy problems: the solution is to use all of those that are sustainable to the limits of their sustainability.

I repeat my views...

Reliance on monoculture solutions, such as the US transport infrastructure depending almost totally on oil, or Irish stomachs depending on the potato 150 years ago, or the ubiquitous and fatally flawed Windows OS, almost always lead to short term benefit and long term disaster.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sun Sep 10th, 2006 at 06:24:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
by Sven Triloqvist on Sun Sep 10th, 2006 at 06:12:38 AM EST
The real danger of biofuels, judging by the events of recent weeks, is apparently Willie Nelson being stoned on his biofuel-run tour bus.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Sun Oct 1st, 2006 at 08:02:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Willie Nelson smokes weed - if ever there was a 'Dog Bites Man' story this is it, surely?

Regards
Luke

-- #include witty_sig.h

by silburnl on Mon Oct 2nd, 2006 at 07:20:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ps: do we have anything yet on (re)affecting more research credits to carbon-sober energy research?
by Alex in Toulouse on Mon Sep 11th, 2006 at 07:19:41 AM EST
Also, how about slipping something about warranties in there. Such as making it compulsory for companies to offer a 5 (15? 50? depending on product) years minimum warranty on their product, so as to shift part of the responsability of building stout stuff that's made to last in their direction.
by Alex in Toulouse on Mon Sep 11th, 2006 at 02:12:55 PM EST
Just a thought, Jerome, in addition to America and Europe: Setting aside the small issue of gaining a foothold there, why not Asia, as well?  Eventually we've got to make this a global issue, and, being in its developmental infancy relative to North America and Europe, it would seem reasonable to suspect that there is the potential for countries like China and India to skip a generation and charge straight into renewables.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Sun Oct 1st, 2006 at 08:00:26 AM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]