Showing posts with label green energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label green energy. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 01, 2011

Energy self-sufficiency and externalities

This post was inspired by three inputs.

1. A couple of weeks ago--just a week and a half after we returned from southeast Asia--Sarita and I went out to Virginia to visit our daughter and son-in-law and listen to a man who has been pursuing a practical life philosophy of (what I have learned is called) Permaculture.

I actually first heard Mark Shepard back in early December when I attended the Acres USA 2010 Conference in Indianapolis. He advocated an approach to agriculture that resonated with me. Being somewhat of a marketer/editor, I proposed a slight reordering of the four words that captured my attention and offered him an acronym for how he summarizes his philosophy.

He said he tries to follow a policy of STUN: Sheer, Total, Utter Neglect. Once he has planted a perennial tree, shrub or bush, he wants it to survive on its own with minimal or, preferably, no further inputs or involvement on his or anyone else's part . . . except to harvest whatever crop it may produce.

Two months before I attended his lecture, I had mentioned to an apple tree nurseryman that that was my goal and he told me it was impossible. "John," he wrote to me, "farming, especially fruit-farming, requires heavy investment of oneself--commitment to the task and to the lifestyle. In all my years, I have known of only two operations that depended on 'part-time staff' that were successful. Growing fruit [successfully] requires attention throughout the year -- spraying, pruning, mowing, marketing, etc."

And here was Mark telling me how he has sought--at massive personal sacrifice, I might add!--to break that cycle.

I imagine I will say more about Mark, his philosophy, and, most importantly, his practice, in days to come.

What I want to mention here is his pursuit of energy and water independence. He and his wife have been living off-grid for 23-some years--8 years on their homesteads in Alaska, and for the last 15 years on a farm in Wisconsin. Last year, for the first time, in order to meet government requirements for a food processing plant they wanted to build on their farm, they hooked up the food processing plant to the grid. But for their own use, in their home, they work off of solar and wind energy. And, I imagine--though we didn't discuss it--some wood burning as well.

As I say, that was a couple of weeks ago.

2. About four days ago, a friend of ours, knowing of our interest in and movement toward a more "natural," farm-oriented life, gave us a copy of a special Mother Earth News Guide to Country Skills.

Inside, there was a fascinating/disturbing story called "Choosing Renewable Energy" by a couple who determined to make their home in Ontario, Canada, energy self-sufficient.

I was stunned by a couple of the things they said. Especially what he said about a significant mistake they made--he made--when they first started down the path.

"[M]y focus was on generating our own electricity at least partly because I was interested in the technologies," he said.
I resisted advice that the first thing we should do is analyze our electrical consumption, a task I found boring and unrewarding. I wanted to be the builder of an exotic system, not a parsimonious bean-counter with clipboard and calculator. This urge to obsess about electrical generating equipment rather than first changing our energy patterns was a mistake.

I console myself with the knowledge that it is a near-universal trait of home energy newbies. Any solar and wind power dealer will tell you that the first task with new clients is to talk them out of their preconceived and wildly incorrect impressions about living with renewables.
?????

His wife explains:
Conventional energy is ever-present, so easy and relatively cheap as to render it almost invisible. It takes no more effort than flipping a switch, spinning a dial or turning an ignition key. The upshot is that energy use has remained a largely unexamined activity in our everyday lives.
By contrast, when this couple switched to renewable energy, they found themselves
spending a lot of time thinking about energy, which seems to be the way of life for most renewable energy users. We check meters, adjust our tasks to the available energy and negotiate with each other whose task is more worthy of the power.
Yow!

And then this last item.

3. Last night I began watching A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash.

Early in the film--about five minutes in--one of the interviewees comments,
One barrel of oil, the refined product of which--42 gallons of gasoline--you can buy for a little over $100, will produce as much energy, as much work, as you will get from 12 people working all year for you.
Put another way, by another interviewee:
It would take an average man, performing physical labor for 25,000 hours, to produce the amount of energy that is contained in that one barrel of oil. That barrel of oil, if it is pulled out of the ground in Iraq, can be pulled out of the ground for $1. You invest $1 and you get back 25,000 hours of human labor! That energy source is so dense, it's essentially free energy.
Yeah. That's the way it appears. Except it's clearly not.

There are massive "external costs" or "externalities," as economists like to call them.

Conclusion. The problem with most modern agriculture--and all annual agriculture, according to Mark Shepard--is the externalities. Societies throughout history have consistently ignored them . . . to their own eventual destruction.

Look at all the great civilizations of the past, Shepard urges us. Take a look at the hulks of the great civilizations of Mesopotamia, North Africa, the Mediterranean. You see these remains of massive buildings sitting in the midst of deserts. Perhaps those hulks should serve as warnings to us.

Those buildings used to sit in the midst of the most verdant, fruitful places on earth.

What happened?

The soils became depleted. They became salted. They could no longer support the intensive agriculture that had been placed upon them. Why? Because no one was counting the full costs.

The same is happening today.

And it just struck me: What the couple in the Mother Earth News Guide to Country Skills say makes perfect sense. As a society, we need to begin spending a lot more time thinking about our food and energy. We need to begin "checking our meters," adjust our tasks and eating habits to match the real requirements, the real costs, internal and external, short- and long-term.

Friday, April 02, 2010

I thought he was "green." So what's with the sudden move to open oil fields?

Perhaps you were as surprised as I was when President Obama announced his intentions to open huge new oil fields off the coast of the United States.

You can be sure of this, writes Keith Fitz-Gerald of Money Morning, it "has nothing to do with oil. It's all about the U.S. dollar."

Fitz-Gerald reminds us of a little British history from the early 1900s--when Britain was the world's most powerful country--to 1939--at which point "England had spent itself into oblivion and the pound sterling was being abandoned en masse by the international banking community - not to mention by the Crown's own subjects. To prevent a complete breakdown in global markets, the government made it an act of treason to use anything but the pound sterling to settle debts, while simultaneously implementing strict exchange-rate controls designed to prevent an all-out currency collapse"--to the present:
By the start of the 1970s, Britain was all but bankrupt and unable to sell long-term government bonds. . . .

So what saved Great Britain from oblivion? Many historians attribute this rebirth to the leadership of the dynamic Margaret Thatcher, and the proliferation of "Thatcherism." But the truth is that the catalyst for the United Kingdom's turnabout was the North Sea oil fields, which began pumping in earnest in the latter part of the 1970s - producing a trade surplus that helped engender new support for the pound in international markets.
By the way, in case you didn't see my post of February 21, or haven't been following the story since that time:

  • Government bond auctions have continued weak and weaker and, as a result, interest rates continue to rise. Not yet front-page news, but don't be surprised when it gets there.
     
  • Then there's the story of the national debt.

    Some commentators keep pointing out that the U.S. debt is relatively small compared to several other countries' debts as a percentage of GDP. And that is true.

    However, we have to look not only at total quantity of debt, but when the debt is due. And a large portion of the U.S.' debt is due very soon. As Porter Stansberry points out, the federal government has about $7 trillion of debt it needs to sell in the next 30 months. It's nice that the government is so eager to "supply" all that debt. The question is, is there enough demand from the market in order to swallow it all? At what price? (After all, when there is too much supply and too little demand, prices inevitably fall . . . which, in the bond markets, means interest rates rise.)

    I think it's time to say goodbye to low interest rates!
     
  • And then, finally, what about exchange controls? (Did you note Keith Fitz-Gerald's comment about Great Britain in the early '70s?)

    Did you see this item in your local paper? Yep. The United States government is tightening the noose on freedom of commerce. As Tyler Durden suggests, the $17.5 billion Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (H.R. 2487) ought really to have been called the Capital Controls Act. Durden concludes,
    [V]ery soon the only option US citizens have when it comes to investing their money, will be in government mandated retirement annuities, which will likely be the next step in the capital control escalation, which will culminate with every single free dollar required to be reinvested into the US, likely in the form of purchasing US Treasury emissions such as Treasuries, TIPS and other worthless pieces of paper.

    Congratulations bankrupt America - you are now one step closer to a thoroughly non-free market.