Hi Frank - Perhaps matters can be stated more clearly.
"Fortunately, the gains that consumers will come to realize financially are aligned with the biological and conservationist goals of environmentalists, so it all works out in the end, despite the urge that some industry participants and public officials possess to take ideological swipes at the opposition."
I see your point. However, I was speaking of macro trends:
A - Economic financialization
B - Globalization
C - Energy, and financial sector gaming of same
D - Resources and sustainability
E - Climate change
There's no agenda here. Accepted that these changes now exist -- and will shape events for the foreseeable future. Just a simple question: Do you or others think energy will NOT be affected by these macro factors?
~~~
' Please elaborate on the following. It's not that I can't unpack it on its face, it's just that I don't readily see the context in which you stated it: re: "The interests with real power have changed. They're guided by profit, not social need." '
I'll give one example: From 2010, "In 1950 households owned more than 90% of shares in U.S. corporations. Now they own only 30% to 40%."
Meaning? Democracy of share ownership is an illusion. That capital in large amounts and equally, corporate direction is the now the province of managers who form a distinct elite in the financial sector. Individual approaches vary, but short-term gain is a common driver.
Real power. One example, of many.
~~~
"If it were possible to overlay the timelines of the emerging energy sphere (utilities, petrol, etc.), on the one hand, and the rise of the Internet, on the other, at what point on the Internet timeline would you say new energy stands today?"
That was the purpose of the chart. We're still at the "low-hanging fruit" stage.
Your internet comparison is apt -- because we've seen that penetration can become more difficult as time passes. Getting the 'net to all households -- reliably, with sufficient throughput and at reasonable cost -- still eludes us.
Re: 'If it were possible to overlay the timelines of the emerging energy sphere (utilities, petrol, etc.), on the one hand, and the rise of the Internet, on the other, at what point on the Internet timeline would you say new energy stands today?'
--- The early 80's, at best.
~~~
Re: 'Also, do you suppose there is enough grassroots activity in the energy sector to match the achievements of the earliest Internet pioneers?
--- Yes. But it's not an apples-to-apples comparison, is it? Imagine that you're Anywhere USA, population 25,000. For each household you want local and external generation -- because local generation isn't enough. Between wind and solar most households can get by, with efficiencies.There's a cement factory with large demand. If it isn't powered, 500 jobs disappear. So it must be tied to the grid. Most automobiles are recharged locally, but the big trucks used to move gravel and cement still use diesel. Gravel crushers, too.
As does the railway, because electrifying 500 miles of ROW and switching to electric locomotives costs too much.
Agriculture varies. Some corporate farms are tied to the grid and well-off, while independent locals survive on self-generation and reduced output. Or they still use fossil fuel.
The transition won't be easy or fast.
~~~
Climate: Re-wiring Florida for the 'net will be trivially easy, compared to new generation and electrification.
Norfolk for example, with its large industrial energy demands, will require external inputs. Local generation won't be enough.
And so on...
With few national exceptions, tomorrow's alt energy will be driven by today's dominant financial and socioeconomic forces. Balancing forces -- voters, grass-roots opposition, effective regulation, representative legislation -- have lost their power.
At best, they will compete with capital and its elites.
Jim |
