Tag Archive: sustainability


In an article posted by David Sydiongco January 20, 2013 on Slate.com it asks the question, Will American Embrace Clean Energy by 2050? The most direct and simple answer is, NO.

The article references a panel discussion that took place at Arizona State University titled, “The Future of Energy: Brown, Clean or In Between?” Good title but the gist of this panel that wasn’t mentioned is that industry expects the Federal Government to step in and pay, footing the bill while they end up reaping the  full benefit of clean energy on their bottom line. How did I come to this conclusion?

Panelists consisted of former Shell Oil President John Hofmeister, director of the Stanford University’s Atmosphere/Energy Program Mark Jacobson, and documentary filmmaker Peter Byck. Byck made a documentary film called, Carbon Nation.

Let me work backwards. Carbon Nation is a well intentioned documentary offering more solutions and much less finger pointing. Kudos to Byck. The film mentions pine borer beetles but what so many people fail to do is go back far enough to see what, not just a warmer climate, has lead up to the problem – lack of diversity in the forests. Here in Colorado where I live there use to be 58 native species of trees. Non-pine trees were cut down to build homes, for heating and cooking. What was left were pine trees who quickly exploited the opening in the canopy and took over creating a mono-crop of trees. Without diversity the beetle is able to exploit the huge amount of food available to it and now things are getting warmer it is able to do it for more months each year. Climate change started with the cutting down of the world’s forests which left next to nothing to take up the increasing amount of carbon being released.

The energy solutions he offers are the same ones that have been talked about for more than a decade – biodiesel, ethanol,  algae and so on. I will say this only once – We Can Not Grow Our Way Out Of Future Energy Shortages or Replace Oil! It is elementary math all you have to do is do it to see exactly the same thing. Carbon Sequestering is a joke and only a way to make schleps like you and me pay more for industries mistakes and waste (externalities). Plant trees! They are a far better answer to carbon sequestering. A number of other topics the film covers I won’t bother with because if part of the answers provided don’t work, the rest are not real answers to the pressing problem of our need for energy.

Next in line is Mark Jacobson. This professor has published on climate change and the topic of energy. In his website biography it mentions ideas like hydrogen fuel cells, air pollution from various sources, and on. What his biography sounds like is that he is pushing the same old industries and ideas that have not panned out. Hydrogen Fuel Cells will never make it mainstream. 1) Wherever you plan on getting the hydrogen from is going to be expensive, very expensive; 2) hydrogen is an energy carrier not an energy source(!); 3) fuels cells are expensive, not recyclable and need frequent replacement (have you heard of the million dollar fuel cell car – no, look it up). I would think a professor would have done his homework to find the same information I did but then again no one said a professor is smart just because they have a title.

Lastly we come to John Hofmeister the former Shell Oil President. He now has his own website and company promoting the same old, same old stuff – we need more affordable cleaner energy. whatever that means. What kind of energy? The website and his non-profit doesn’t get very specific when it comes to the energy choices. Yet it asks for donations. Looking at the tags I see biofuels, federal energy policy, oil as some of the main topics. Yet there is nothing new on the website since early 2012. Hm, makes we wonder what the real purpose of the website and company are about.

Why is it universities and colleges bring in industry speakers that push the status quo? Why isn’t there someone who thinks outside the box, outside mainstream – like me? I guess people like me rock the boat too much, get people thinking, bring things to light that industry would rather keep in the shadows (hydrogen economy that will never be).

I have never said that electric cars are bad or like RMI promoting carbon fiber for building cars shouldn’t happen. They are both very good ideas, just 30 years late. You see what people who promote electric cars or the use of carbon fiber never address is the other parts of the car still dependent on petroleum that everyone overlooks. People have so focused on the fuel that the rest of the car jus doesn’t seem to exist so no one sees the many items made from petroleum and that is why I say electric cars and cars made with carbon fiber are a failure. There will be a day in the near future when individual car ownership will decline and eventually disappear altogether.

The article ends with this idea: we need better national leadership. I say we need better, smarter more involved people, not leaders who are bought on the open market of corporate America. We need people who will turn off their TV, get off their behinds and do something to move us forward as individuals and collectively. We need people who act at the personal level and then come together under a cooperative to force the energy issue creating solar farms, small helix windmill farms and so on. As a cooperative people can buy at discount making it much more affordable. If local energy companies refuse to follow the lead people are setting then they should collectively take the energy company to court – maybe even taking over ownership.

It will be people not corporation or government that will move us forward. It has always been people in the past and is the only answer for a sustainable future.

People are slowly waking up – just a little too slowly. If you are interested in hearing what I have to say – hire me as a speaker on anything sustainable. Email me.

[ The referenced article was found here: Slate is published by The Slate Group, a Division of the Washington Post Company – http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/01/28/john_hofmeister_mark_jacobson_peter_byck_speak_at_the_future_of_energy.html %5D

This article does not intend to single out the University of California at San Diego (UC at San Diego). It is just one example of many like it across the country. What follows is my attempt to draw out weaknesses while demonstrating potentials.

UC San Diego is an example of good intentions with much greater potential than what has been set up so far.

The UC San Diego campus is powered by an on site natural gas-fired combined heat, cooling and power plant (CCHP). While this plant is able to produce 82% of the electricity the campus needs it also supplies 95% of the heating and cooling. An on site photovoltaic installation is able to produce a megawatt of electricity. That is not very much. The system is also equipped with a 3.8 million gallon water tank to hold chilled water until it is needed so the plant can continue operating at full efficiency at all times.

Overall the system is rated at 66% which is about double what most coal-fired power plants are able to achieve. Impressive but it does leave room for improvement. The campus through its localized smart grid is able to control demand as well as supply which helps cut costs while improving system efficiency. The question is how much human interaction is there with this smart grid? Even here there is room for improvement.

What I was not able to establish was if the campus had made other improvements such as super insulating buildings and the pipes that carry the heating or cooling so the overall size if the system could be cut down while raising efficiency. A smaller system would be more efficient.

Another suggestion would be to add more solar installations. First, adding efficient solar heating system would help reduce the size of a Combined Cooling and Heating Power Plant. Adding several concentrated solar stirling systems could further produce renewable electricity. Such a system is around 35% efficient which is more than double the output of current photovoltaic panels at a better price. For people who haven’t heard of a stirling engine it a heat engine but unlike an internal combustion engine heat is supplied from the outside and the entire engine is sealed which makes it more efficient prone to less failure. Such an engine could also contribute heat. Electric energy can be stored on site in a warehouse filled with storage tanks for the compressed air. By having several tanks of varying sizes the system again gains resiliency over one large tank or even a handful of large tanks. Compressed air is also an efficient way to store electricity over batteries that lose capacity and finally fail. The only way compressed air tanks fail is if they are punctured or other parts fail outright.

Natural gas is running out at a similar rate to petroleum (which reached peak oil in 2006) despite the fracking to keep up natural gas supplies. One problem with that idea is that much of the energy is wasted looking for and then fracking a site with super heated water and chemicals. If it were such a good idea it would have already brought down the price of natural gas, but it hasn’t done so in the decades it has been used. To hinge a system like UC San Diego on natural gas is not wise as first thought. Over time it would only raise the cost of energy not keep it stable like renewables could.

A suggestion I have is to install at least two, possibly more, biogas systems that convert sewage and campus food waste into methane (natural gas) and fertilizer that can be returned to farmers in exchange for a better price on food. Such a system if built correctly could produce most of the gas the campus needs. And with other improvements such as super insulation the biogas would be more than sufficient I believe.

I would hope that UC San Diego students and staff would see this as an opportunity to do better making the campus more sustainable and a true example that renewable energy sources can do to power the future. But then again I can hope, can’t I.

The whole system of money we have lived under for centuries is inherently not sustainable. You make an income. That’s good. Then you want to buy a house so you need a mortgage loan. Not good because on that loan you pay interest. At first glance people think, well that’s not so bad but they seldom take a close enough look to realize that by the time, if they ever do anymore, pay off that mortgage they have paid for three to four homes. That’s right. By the time a mortgage is paid off you have spent more than and original value of the home sometimes even four times as much. Not a bargain.

It is this idea of always paying more through interest or inflation, a tax you have no choice in paying not because things increase in value because someone at the top of the heap wants more out of you. Having to pay more every month, year, decade makes the system of money inherently unsustainable. It is a spiral that continues to go upward and outward at the same time and is right now reaching for the stratosphere. At the same time we are paying more incomes have not kept pace. In fact the middle class is disappearing and the lower incomes continue to go down. Every year in the U.S. a million more people drop into the working poor and the very poor often living below poverty.

Then when I think things can’t get worse I read about Mark Boyle who lived without money for two years. Good idea. Then after the two years he publishes a book and does speaking engagements and makes loads of money. Now if he were to have lived ten years or more without money and without outside support that would have been an achievement but two years is not as long. Could I have? Possibly considering I am living below the poverty level as I write this – under $9800 a year (living in Colorado, U.S.).

Money like the economic system that is based around it is inherently unstable and can not ever become sustainable. For it to continue to work there have to be people who live below the poverty level, then the working poor and finally a few middle class and then the wealthy above that. For the wealthy to continue to make their sums of money more and more people have to move down the economic ladder.

Now indulge me and close your eyes, after reading this next sentence first. Imagine a world without money. Close you eyes for a few minutes and imagine a world without money.

Eyes open. How did you imagine the world? Impoverished or an Eden? Reality is, if you take away the money there is nothing different. Houses still exist. Cars still exist. Food still exists. Clothing still exists. Nothing else goes away just because money went away. Everything that is here now with money will still be here when the money is gone. Some people would tell you no one would work. That people would just lay about and expect everything handed to them. If people didn’t work then how would they feed themselves, or others for that matter like their family, or friends. How would they have electricity if they didn’t show up to work to make sure electricity was being produced. The only people who would suffer would be the wealthy who don’t work. Who have never directly contributed anything. They produce nothing or contribute anything in any way. They couldn’t live without money and would do whatever possible to restart the system and the use of money. If people refused to use money then it is possible things would actually become better, without a master telling anyone that you had to work to earn a living. Without money there is no need to earn a living we could just live as people did a long, long time ago without money.

Money only exists to serve people who do not work. It has never served you or me and is not a sustainable idea. We can either chose to prepare for a world without money or we can wait until the system of debt and money collapses under it own inherent unsustainability. We can choose.

Sustainability can not be achieved without…

  • putting the planet before people
  • fully intact ecosystems
  • natural hydrology
  • restored river flows
  • restored wildlife habitat
  • restoring the world’s forests
  • smaller human footprints on the Earth
  • local food production
  • local energy production
  • working in cooperation with everything
  • loving thy neighbor shamelessly and with abandon
  • dismantling of current outdated economic & business models
  • dismantling borders
  • dismantling nationalism
  • destroying the ego
  • removing profit
  • taking several steps backwards, then standing still for a while and just observing before deciding how to proceed