L'Energie
It was a pretty long road, but I finally got my solar panels up and working. I'm not sure when or why I started getting excited about the idea. It was definitely when we still lived in Utah because I remember liking that our current home had a large south facing roof when we first saw it. As for the motivation I can't pinpoint the primary one, but it includes financial, environmental, as well as science geekiness. The financial benefits aren't huge, but I'll likely net about $20,000-$30,000 over the life of the system (given that we don't move, but I might recoup some of that even if we do). I don't really relate with environmentalism as I see much of the movement as wrongheaded and faddish. I think I do get off a bit on doing more for the environment than many environmentalist. The science geekiness might be the largest motive. I like the idea of physics put to use on my own roof. And the fact that over 50% of the energy produced at a power plant can be lost in transmission makes on-site energy production much more efficient. I like efficiency.On to a possible discussion point. We went the rounds a while ago on non-renewable resources, but I feel like I don't completely understand your position (yes Ryan, I'm assuming you're the only one reading this). It seems to go something like this: as a resource becomes more scarce, its price will increase. The higher price will lead to less consumption and more innovation to use the resource more efficiently or to move to a different resource to fill the need, thus the resource will never run out. Yes?
I see this hypothesis as somewhat persuasive, yet I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the assumption of assured innovation. For this to work, not only will there always have to be innovation, but it will have to keep pace with or exceed growing consumption. I don't see that as guaranteed. Additionally, doesn't it seem that innovation within a given arena would get more and more challenging as the low hanging fruit is consumed. As oil well stores diminish (not that I'm saying we're close to that), we have to move to oil sources that are inherently less energy dense (sands, shale, etc.). Now prices and technology will surely make harvesting those sources possible, but whatever comes after that would be increasingly more challenging to recover and even less energy dense.
To continue down this malthusian path, I guess we're heading toward minimum energy density and the heat death of the universe anyway.
Comments
Well, your low hanging fruit theory is shared by Tyler Cowen, in his new book. He speculates that our recent decrease in the rate of growth is because we've harvested the low hanging fruit. I don't know. I think recent history indicates that as the population grows we are more likely to innovate, not less likely. First there are more people around, meaning they are more likely to have good ideas. Also we are becoming more interconnected, which means new ideas are more likely to be shared. They are also more likely to be profitable. If you come up with an idea that is worth a dollar to everyone, it's obviously more worth pursuing if you have a potential market of 1 billion instead of 100.
What I think you're saying is, what happens if we don't innovate? Let's assume for a second that there will be no innovation that allows us to find a replacement for oil. Supply and demand should still allocate the the remaining oil efficiently, and force conservation through higher prices. I think this is superior to any top-down forced conservation.
I think something troubles you about that answer, but I'm not sure what it is.
I see becoming more interconnected as a stimulant to innovation, but I'm not sure about the growing global population. Aren't the less developed nations the ones that are growing the most quickly? I'm guessing these people are not in the best position to innovate. Even the chinese who are industrializing are focusing on production, not innovation.
Surely prices can drive innovation as we see with interest in fuel efficient cars correlating with gas prices, but this is what troubles me. Gas prices often fluctuate on non supply and demand issues. Also the technology for greater fuel efficiency, electric cars, etc., is more or less already there. If energy prices start spiking (due to supply/demand or other non related political event) and an alternative requires more of a paradigmatic shift, I see that as leading to a rather rocky transition (if the transition happens at all).
I'm not for increasing cafe standards and the like to force business' hand, but I do like the government investing in research, something that most businesses aren't as capable of doing.
See, I think there is some research that businesses will not do because they are not able to capture the benefits, but I don't think energy research is one of them. I'm pretty sure there is a pot of gold waiting for the company that creates the invention that replaces the gas engine, for example.
I admit there can be a public goods problem with research in some cases. But the problem I have with the government investing in research is that I think the odds the money is actually allocated to the most viable research option is low, while the allocation of funds to the researchers with the most political clout is high.
What incentive does a company like Exxon Mobile have to develop more efficient fuels? And there are huge barriers to developing a replacement for the gas engine. Electric has a chance because electricity is already ubiquitous, but hydrogen fuel cells or something like that would have to be so much better than gas to even get its foot in the door.
Or let's suppose Exxon has no incentive at all to find a replacement for oil. Don't GM, BMW, GE, or a number of other large companies have an incentive to make the breakthrough?
How do you think the transition from gas to hypothetical hydrogen cells differs from say, the transition between coal to oil, or horses and buggies to cars?
While I agree with Ryan that diminishing amounts of available oil will spur innovation with other fuel sources, having 100% confidence that feasible solutions will be implemented before serious problems occur requires faith I would save for religious beliefs.
-Theresa
It's pretty amazing how consistently the sun shines here. In the 60 days or so since we've had the panels there have been maybe 5 or 6 cloudy days. And even on those days the sun comes out part of the time. I haven't yet had a day produce below about 2/3 of what I get on a clear day.