Many western jurisdictions have energy policies stuck in the 19th century. Policies that were designed around the concept that resources are infinite and can never be depleted. This is clearly not the case, and whether or not we are close to 'peak oil' or not, there is a finite amount of stuff we can burn in the ground.

Think of all the oil, natural gas, and coal deposits, and all their various forms, as our savings account. We can't make any deposits into our savings, we can only make withdrawals. There is an income in this analogy, the sun, which shines thousands of times the world's energy needs onto the earth each day. The sun also gives us energy income by creating wind, heating the ground, and generating rainfall.

We are spending our savings at an alarming rate, with no way to replenish it. We are using almost none of our daily income, and we are bankrupting the people that come after us, who will need even more energy than we use now.

Now, renewable power isn't going to balance this equation on it's own, because it's not just feasible, not yet anyway. In order to rebalance our energy account we also need dramatic focus on energy efficiency. From an economic sense, using less energy is cheaper than producing more energy. Many businesses have made this leap already, understanding that being energy efficient is good for the bottom line, but at the societal level, we are still stuck with outmoded directives from our government, which actually encourage us to consume more energy, rather than using less.

Governments need to see the writing on the wall, and take a true leadership step towards an energy efficient future powered by a mix of renewables and fossil fuels.

 

-----signature-----

That's great, but the problem is that the ones that control the energy also control the governments. We need to sever that connection between the two so the government can set a policy that works for long and short term. Until we can do that we are going to careen down this path at breakneck speed.

 

-----signature-----

This is the point in your argument where you fail. In truth, it is far easier and more economical to produce more energy, at least in the short term. There is very little incentive for people to conserve. You are correct in that the government probably needs to be the leader here, such as taxing coal plants to the point that electricity generators look at cleaner and more renewable resources.

 

-----signature-----

Humans have access to basically limitless energy production capabilities.

 

-----signature-----

Huh. Really?

It is absolutely not cheaper to produce more energy, not even coal power, than it is to design to use less energy. Coal costs over $3,500 per kilowatt. Are you really going to tell me that that price is cheaper than the cost to save the same amount of power? You could save that much in a building by simply using passive solar design, which costs nothing at all.

 

-----signature-----

Bah - it runs about 60$ US per MWHr.


http://www.worldcoal.org/resources/ecoal/ecoal-current-issue/costs-of-coal-fired-electricity/


I think you are using the Capital Cost figure, ie, to build the thing per KW.

 

-----signature-----

the premise of this thread is ridiculously stupid and we aren't being mean enough about it. I'm disappointed in the OP.

 

-----signature-----

Depends what you mean by easier.


It is easier to be lazy and fat than fit. It's also easier to be lazy and fat and use more energy rather than bothering to find ways to use less energy.


Especially with energy policies that basically reward you for being lazy and fat by making sure there's even more calories you can stuff into your face at a cheap price.

Have fewer kids.

/problem solved

 

-----signature-----

Right, that is the price I'm using, the capital cost. Which is why I said initially... it is cheaper to consume LESS energy than it is to produce MORE energy. The implication is that we will require more energy in the future as the population rises. Is it cheaper to make more power plants, or use less energy?

I may not have been entirely clear, but that is what I meant.

The other problem with your number is that it actually costs a lot more than that to CONSUME the energy, but those costs have been externalized onto the environment and the rest of society. For example, your figure does not include the negative health effects of burning coal, and the associated costs to the medical system, nor does it include the impacts of burning coal on the natural environment and our water supplies.

 

-----signature-----