Summing up a Green position on SSPS

--- In ssi_list@... "Paul D. Fernhout"

> How is it a "cop-out"?

Because you're not decentralized if you have to rely on propane.

> And, as PV and storage get more efficient, the level of
> supplementation needed will go down over time.

Have you ever considered that there are physical limts to all sorts
of processes? PV and storage will run into a limit. The question is
whether they can ever reach sufficient effectiveness and also
whether cost effectiveness of squeezing more efficiency will return
a postive economic result. You're blindly assuming a very rosey
future on both fronts.

> I have to agree that based on past history the grid has been
> reliable in general, but current trends in decreased investments
> (e.g. the recent grid failure potentially due to less tree
> trimming), security issues, and the economics of home power
> generation point to a precipitous potential decrease in grid
> reliability.

You have no evidence on which to base your assumption that a gradual
decline will continue to the point that the reliability of the grid
reaches calamitous proportions. Instances abound of degradation
being reversed. In broad stokes, this is the Hegelian Dialetic at
work.

> But, as I have pointed out, there is essentially no premium for
> decentralizing, because the conversion ends up paying for itself
> by reducing energy cost payments.

That's terrific then. That probably explains why so many people are
looking to be self-sufficient in energy. Oops, I have no evidence to
back up this last statement. Oh well, I wonder why it's not
happening if it makes so much sense?

> Still, it seems to me India and China have historically
> had high populations without quite the level of centralization or
> dependency in terms of energy supply the US has. There are other
> ways of living which can support lots of people on Earth without
> such vulnerabilities -- either voluntary simplicity or advanced
> technology (or using both).

Does logical coherence mean anything to you? Do you seek to score a
counterpoint even if the argument you use as a whole isn't germaine?

Yes you win the point by pointing out that China has a higher
population than the US and had less centralization of energy.

You completely undermine the point though by failing to recongnize
the inherent differences of a highly urbanized and industrialized
America against the historically rural China.

Look to the statistics I posted on China's increasing aggregate
energy use, and the concurrent increases in per capita consumption.

Take a look at the increasing amount of urbanization in China for
the same period. Since 1978 the equivalent of the population of the
whole of the US, has moved from the Chinese countryside to the urban
centers. 286 million people.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200108/07/eng20010807_76712.html

> Diabetics can typically have six months of insulin in the
> refrigerator.

Again that's not the point. The advocacy of decentralization is to
insure that one is not dependent on a central authority. The
diabetic is dependent on the pharmceutical company. It doesn't
matter that he/she can store the insulin. They still have to get it
from a pharmaceutical company.

> Yes! :-) And many people have wells and gardens. Hydroponics is
> catching on big time in Canada.
> http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/publications/en/rh-pr/tech/01-141-
> e.html

Not so. The very link you provide concludes "However, the lack of
greywater and reuse guidelines in Canada is a barrier to the
widespread adoption of the SHWS."

Further you miss the point again. You look to score a point in order
to gain a rhtorical victory with a rebound but lose all substance to
your rebuttal.

The question is whether people should also seek to decentralize from
a central water system. You completely ignore the question and also
seem to not understand why central water systems were even
implemented in the first place. The religion of self-sustainability
has thoroughly colored your world view. Reason can't penetrate your
religious armor.

> > One of the reasons policians hate answering hypothetical
> > questions is because the situation is no-win. You're basing your
> > rebuttal on magic technology. That's not a good and solid basis
> > for rebuttal.
>
> The technology I cite is no more magic than SSPS, for which you
> can't even point to a complete working SSPS system active in space
> with any track record of production over years.

Non-polluting technology isn't magic? There are numerous studies
that detail all of the technologies involved in transmitting power
via microwaves.

Again you look for the rhetorical slam and neglect the substance of
my point.

Also, as I've stated on numerous occasions, my argument with you
concerns the schema of massive decentralization as a national energy
strategy. SPS is used as a proxy for centralized power and only
stands on its own with respect to the pollution sub-argument.

> The burden of proof should be on the one arguing for a huge
> investment in SSPS which will take money away from this part of
> the status quo of incremental improvements.

Go back to the beginning of the debate. I took the question of
investment in SPS off the table by conceding that it may not be
economical. I simply don't know and don't have enough information to
be credible in any assertion on that matter. There is too much room
for error based on the modeling assumptions, i.e. launch costs,
amortization, etc.

The whole point of my involvement in this debate is to debunk the
scheme of decentralization.

I have no burden of proof.

You're advocating the complete elimination of centralized power
distribution and further saying that given enough funding for
research that a non-polluting manufacturing process will be
developed that will further improve the environment when considered
against a possible SPS implementation (considered only in pollution
terms, not economic ones.)

Don't spin it otherwise. Go back and look at how this debate started.

> The impossibility is more about your ignoring the liquid fuel
> alternative with inflated estimates of fuel tank size.

You know, here's the difference between how you and I argue. I do
the calculations and I show everyone how I reached a conclusion,
i.e. the fuel storage tank.

You just state that it is inflated but provide no basis for your
opinion. This is religious fantasy and I'm running out of ways to
respond.

> For example, the passive house I live in has a concrete slab, but
> is mainly wood . .

For the purposes of this argument I don't really care about the
details of *your* house. You keep referencing the Toronto house. The
Toronto house uses concrete to achieve its thermal mass. What your
house is constructed of is immaterial. My analysis is based on the
facts of the case you presented. Your rebuttal is anecdotal and
shifts the frame of reference all so that you can score a point that
is absent any substance.

> It's not clear to me how necessary concrete walls are to the
> design of that house.

The concrete isn't necessary, but the thermal mass is. How you get
that thermal mass is immaterial. Concrete happens to be a dense
material. You could use styrofoam but would need an unworkable
amount to achieve the same performace.

> So guess what -- ignoring demolition costs, it's probably just
> about worth it right now for every homeowner in the US to throw
> away their house and get a new Green one which is energy and water
> self-reliant, based on the CMHC's healthy home concept.

There you go - you've just figured out how to make millions or
billions of dollars for yourself. Why don't you put your money where
your mouth is and go and build these homes and market them?

You completely ignore data I provide to you on *New Home*
characteristics and energy use. People want those homes I referenced
and there is a reason why people are *not* rushing en masse to small
solar passive energy stingy homes. But you go ahead and build them
for people and try and sell them. Your co-religionists will
defintely be into the self-sacrifice. Afterall fasting is a part of
many religious movements, so energy and lifestyle fasting can be the
Green equivalent.

> And for example if there was a sudden outbreak of
> bioweapons-related plague it is much more likely a country with
> universal public health supported by the government could deal
> with it, whereas in the USA with 40+ million uninsured, the plague
> will likely be much harder to stop.

Oh, you mean something like SARS? Gee, it seems that Toronto didn't
do too well with its public system compared to the US.

Look, this is pure conjecture on your part and you don't even offer
logical reasoning to support your conjecture, never mind actual
evidence. Am I just supposed to accept this argument because you
write it?

> If the USA had decentralized in energy production, food
> production, manufacturing, leadership, and so on, then 911
> wouldn't seem so frightening, because it would be obvious those
> sorts of terrorist acts could not affect much of the population in
> any significant way.

You should revisit and tighten this argument for 9/11 didn't impact
on any of the examples you quote. The proper argument you should be
making is that people shouldn't congregate in large buildings so we
should do away with cities and all live dispersed across the
countryside.

> Nice to see we both agree that:
> http://www.prosperityuk.com/prosperity/articles/pae.html
> "the subject of economics has lost touch with reality".

That's not the same thing as saying that the basics aren't well
understood nor is it saying that there isn't good research being
done. What it is saying is that there is a rigid orthodoxy being
enforced that is stifling new, or different, approaches being
studied and this is detrimental to the development of new knowledge
and careers are aborted if people try to buck the orthodoxy.

Much of economics is useless spinning of the wheels in that what's
important is that the reserach results are internally consistent
with the logic that is used and not that the results are able to be
externally validated.

> > Would I be overstating your position by characterizing it as a
> > revolution of society? Our philosophies, economics, motivations,
> > desires and goals must all change to achieve your end-state.

> I'd characterize it more as I am trying to give people more
> options.

Great, don't shove the religion down anyone's throat and let them
make their own choices. The danger is when you try to tell them that
you're going to change the world for their own good.

> So, if we can cut energy use by 50%-75% (which I've show can be
> done in housing as in the Toronto house, and it can also by done
> with hypercars http://www.hypercar.com/) then we can get enough
> power from these sources. So, we agree: PV plus wind is enough
> power if used efficiently.

You're rhetorically twisting again. You can't just assume willy-
nilly that everyone is going to massively change their lifestyle and
then conclude that windpower will be sufficient. This is bizarro
logic.

You need to design your national energy strategy for plausible
circumstances. The most plausible criteria to count on is that
people's lives are lived the same way as today. The further you move
from this model the more uncertainty you introduce into your scheme.

Your scenario is akin to fanstasy for it requires wholesale change
on too many fronts all in order to implement a religious dogma on
the nation.

> I argue it is solvable with creating liquid fuels like
> propane or sugar water or ethanol through carbon sequestration
> from hydrogen as one approach.(I admit to some handwaving here on
> the actual conversion process...)

There is a difference between arguing a case and just writing
something down and then presupposing away all objections.

TangoMan