in places with hydro or wind based electricity I think it’s fine to have the expectation of forever available electricity.
And what happens when there’s a drought or change in weather patterns?
I think expecting 24-7 electricity, whether it’s available or not, is part of the issue with modern consumption. We expect electricity on demand, so any energy solution has to have backups and grid connections and batteries and all that expensive ecologically damaging infrastructure the article discusses.
The point isn’t that some electricity production is reliable 24/7. The point is, if we want an ethos of reduced consumption, we need to give up the idea that we have the right to power on demand 24-7. We adjust our power consumption to nature’s rhythms and circumstances rather than spending billions extra to guarantee we can consume power whenever we want. And that would have a much bigger impact than adjusting our thermostats or wearing sweaters.
There are many medical applications which need power when the sun doesn’t shine. Likewise there are places where the sun doesn’t shine for months at a time. I don’t think the answer is capitulation. The answer is innovating better storage which addresses the challenges in the article.
Reducing consumption is orthogonal to whether we can operate essential devices when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow. The capitulation is deciding that the problem is too hard to solve and instead of solving it we should not try.
I don’t know if storage is more efficient at point of consumption or point of generation. Aggregated storage has more options than a device with a battery. Sending power through a grid has plenty of losses too. Of course it’s logical to use power when it’s in surplus.
I don’t know if storage is more efficient at point of consumption or point of generation
Some time in the recent past or very near future, an incremental addition of capacity became more resource intensive than incremental new generation and battery.
So the ideal is actually have some at both, because this minimises the most wasteful part allowing transmission to run at average rather than peak generation or consumption.
It’s still better to incur mild inconvenience and eliminate storage and transmission for many applications though.
I think, when you have a problem, changing your expectations so that you no longer consider it a problem is a valid solution.
For example, say you crash your car and it’s totaled. You could solve that problem by buying a new car. But if you look at your travel patterns and local public transit and decide you can live your life without a car, you’ve also solved that problem.
In this case, the problem is the expense and resource use of a 24/7 electricity. Society could solve that problem by making better batteries and more efficient transmission and more renewable energy sources. Society could also solve that problem by changing our expectation that everyone needs 24/7 electricity. Both of those are solutions, and really, we could use both.
And talking about better technology, the article goes into solutions for heating, cooling, refrigeration, cooking, and so on that provide 24/7 solutions based on intermittent power - for example, the solar refrigerators that are so efficient they can stay cool for up to a week and be powered by a single 200 W solar panel. Medical technology and other vital stuff can be adjusted similarly or run off battery banks charged intermittently rather than relying on 24/7 electric grids. It’s not as if we have to throw out all our batteries - but if we adjust our consumption habits, we can use fewer batteries and save them for the important things.
That is a better balanced take on the problem. Reduction, efficiency, targeting. Still, storage is the crux of all energy problems we have. There’s plenty of energy on earth, but it’s not distributed as we need it in time and space.
we need to give up the idea that we have the right to power on demand 24-7
If that’s the green transition plan, then we will continue burning fossil fuels until everybody dies in the climate wars.
We need to create electricity abundance, not scarcity, to have any hope of success. Far too many people will only give up their A/C when you pry it from their cold dead hands.
I’m theory, yes. But for every person that believes this, there are 10 more who will not budge. “I need to set my air conditioning to 60 degrees to sleep.”
Sure, and that’s why I say over and over again, reducing your personal consumption is a moral issue, and we need a moral/ethical/spiritual movement to reduce consumption. Because lots of people, reasonably, prioritize their comfort over their electric bill or the objectively tiny marginal benefit to the environment that turning off their air conditioner would provide. But if we teach people that unnecessary consumption is morally wrong, and your neighbors start shaming you for keeping your air conditioning at 60, you’re going to start setting it higher.
And that’s the neat thing about Low Tech Magazine. What it promotes is a moral transition, away from complex high resource use technologies and towards older, simpler, people powered or wind powered technologies. Not because those technologies are more efficient, but because they use less fossil fuels and nonrenewable resources, and so are morally superior. And a society that bases its technology use on ethical principles instead of financial efficiency is precisely what solarpunk idealizes.
I wasnt agreeing at first with you but I can agree with you on the moral take of energy consumption. Nevertheless I don’t think it makes any sense to remove constant electricity from the equation. Human development and prosperity is greatly increased by that availability aswell as communication. Let’s say the goal is a post capitalism, non hierarchical decentralized society that outgrows capitalism’s growth needs and achieves post scarcity. In order to for this to be real you need constant access to electricity and communications, otherwise you are isolating people and dampening your efforts towards it. I do think you are right and there needs to be some morality in spending but it should be a moral choice not a matter of not being available
None of this justifies running the aluminium smelter 24/7 rather than redesigning it slightly and running it 20/6. You’re straw manning.
Lowtechmagazine is a meditation on this concept and you are pretending that means anyone thinking this way wants to break into grandma’s home and switch off the ventilator in the middle of the night.
I’m not sure you are straw manning yourself or you have me confused with another comment. I was agreeing with the commenter. Moral consumption of power is a concept I completely accept. But @stabby_cicada did start the argument with this:
The point isn’t that some electricity production is reliable 24/7. The point is, if we want an ethos of reduced consumption, we need to give up the idea that we have the right to power on demand 24-7.
I was answering to that complemented with another comments and agreeing with the whole should use power with a moral attitude. What an aggressive response…
That’s a great way to feel good about yourself, but does literally nothing to solve the problem. Personal usage of a small percentage of the problem, and it’s the most important usage. The government and large companies are the ones who can actually change and should be held accountable.
Blaming personal use is how fossil fuel companies have gotten away with all the pollution that they do.
And what happens when there’s a drought or change in weather patterns?
I think expecting 24-7 electricity, whether it’s available or not, is part of the issue with modern consumption. We expect electricity on demand, so any energy solution has to have backups and grid connections and batteries and all that expensive ecologically damaging infrastructure the article discusses.
The point isn’t that some electricity production is reliable 24/7. The point is, if we want an ethos of reduced consumption, we need to give up the idea that we have the right to power on demand 24-7. We adjust our power consumption to nature’s rhythms and circumstances rather than spending billions extra to guarantee we can consume power whenever we want. And that would have a much bigger impact than adjusting our thermostats or wearing sweaters.
There are many medical applications which need power when the sun doesn’t shine. Likewise there are places where the sun doesn’t shine for months at a time. I don’t think the answer is capitulation. The answer is innovating better storage which addresses the challenges in the article.
Reducing consumption is “capitulation”? To whom or what?
Reducing consumption is orthogonal to whether we can operate essential devices when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow. The capitulation is deciding that the problem is too hard to solve and instead of solving it we should not try.
It’s not all or nothing. Running the 200MW industrial drying machine when it’s sunny doesn’t mean you can’t have a battery for your 20W CPAP.
I don’t know if storage is more efficient at point of consumption or point of generation. Aggregated storage has more options than a device with a battery. Sending power through a grid has plenty of losses too. Of course it’s logical to use power when it’s in surplus.
Some time in the recent past or very near future, an incremental addition of capacity became more resource intensive than incremental new generation and battery.
So the ideal is actually have some at both, because this minimises the most wasteful part allowing transmission to run at average rather than peak generation or consumption.
It’s still better to incur mild inconvenience and eliminate storage and transmission for many applications though.
I think, when you have a problem, changing your expectations so that you no longer consider it a problem is a valid solution.
For example, say you crash your car and it’s totaled. You could solve that problem by buying a new car. But if you look at your travel patterns and local public transit and decide you can live your life without a car, you’ve also solved that problem.
In this case, the problem is the expense and resource use of a 24/7 electricity. Society could solve that problem by making better batteries and more efficient transmission and more renewable energy sources. Society could also solve that problem by changing our expectation that everyone needs 24/7 electricity. Both of those are solutions, and really, we could use both.
And talking about better technology, the article goes into solutions for heating, cooling, refrigeration, cooking, and so on that provide 24/7 solutions based on intermittent power - for example, the solar refrigerators that are so efficient they can stay cool for up to a week and be powered by a single 200 W solar panel. Medical technology and other vital stuff can be adjusted similarly or run off battery banks charged intermittently rather than relying on 24/7 electric grids. It’s not as if we have to throw out all our batteries - but if we adjust our consumption habits, we can use fewer batteries and save them for the important things.
That is a better balanced take on the problem. Reduction, efficiency, targeting. Still, storage is the crux of all energy problems we have. There’s plenty of energy on earth, but it’s not distributed as we need it in time and space.
If that’s the green transition plan, then we will continue burning fossil fuels until everybody dies in the climate wars.
We need to create electricity abundance, not scarcity, to have any hope of success. Far too many people will only give up their A/C when you pry it from their cold dead hands.
Uh yes, we need energy on demand 24/7 lol. We’re not going to regress to the stone age, and it will always be a requirement.
I’m theory, yes. But for every person that believes this, there are 10 more who will not budge. “I need to set my air conditioning to 60 degrees to sleep.”
Sure, and that’s why I say over and over again, reducing your personal consumption is a moral issue, and we need a moral/ethical/spiritual movement to reduce consumption. Because lots of people, reasonably, prioritize their comfort over their electric bill or the objectively tiny marginal benefit to the environment that turning off their air conditioner would provide. But if we teach people that unnecessary consumption is morally wrong, and your neighbors start shaming you for keeping your air conditioning at 60, you’re going to start setting it higher.
And that’s the neat thing about Low Tech Magazine. What it promotes is a moral transition, away from complex high resource use technologies and towards older, simpler, people powered or wind powered technologies. Not because those technologies are more efficient, but because they use less fossil fuels and nonrenewable resources, and so are morally superior. And a society that bases its technology use on ethical principles instead of financial efficiency is precisely what solarpunk idealizes.
I wasnt agreeing at first with you but I can agree with you on the moral take of energy consumption. Nevertheless I don’t think it makes any sense to remove constant electricity from the equation. Human development and prosperity is greatly increased by that availability aswell as communication. Let’s say the goal is a post capitalism, non hierarchical decentralized society that outgrows capitalism’s growth needs and achieves post scarcity. In order to for this to be real you need constant access to electricity and communications, otherwise you are isolating people and dampening your efforts towards it. I do think you are right and there needs to be some morality in spending but it should be a moral choice not a matter of not being available
None of this justifies running the aluminium smelter 24/7 rather than redesigning it slightly and running it 20/6. You’re straw manning.
Lowtechmagazine is a meditation on this concept and you are pretending that means anyone thinking this way wants to break into grandma’s home and switch off the ventilator in the middle of the night.
I’m not sure you are straw manning yourself or you have me confused with another comment. I was agreeing with the commenter. Moral consumption of power is a concept I completely accept. But @stabby_cicada did start the argument with this:
I was answering to that complemented with another comments and agreeing with the whole should use power with a moral attitude. What an aggressive response…
That’s a great way to feel good about yourself, but does literally nothing to solve the problem. Personal usage of a small percentage of the problem, and it’s the most important usage. The government and large companies are the ones who can actually change and should be held accountable.
Blaming personal use is how fossil fuel companies have gotten away with all the pollution that they do.