Comments on: After energy markets

By: John D

John D — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 04:40:10 +0000

Desertec looks like the classic BIG engineering/private solution with the added problem for Europe of leaving it largely dependant on another potentially hostile foreign country for energy. Add price setting domination by a private monopoly/foreign country and long terrorist friendly delivery lines and there is a lot of strategic risk involved.

Some of these problems could be reduced by setting up power stations in a number of countries, public ownership by the EU and a lower dependence on Desertec.

The other extreme is the roof top solar/personal windmill approach. Far more difficult to knock out the power system but, at the moment, would cost more and have higher all of life emissions. doesn’t lend itself to molten salt thermal heat storage either.

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:16:06 +0000

The world, EU and Germany on the map. Kinda looks doable. According to this article technically not all that difficult. €400 billion (€350 billion for power grid and €50 billion to get it back to Europe) for 15% of supply by 2050 doesn't seem impossible in terms of the amounts being chucked around for the GFC, but that's not my area of expertise.

By: philip travers

philip travers — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:23:01 +0000

Good luck one and all in your practical assessments and applications!? But I put a couple of propositions about jet fighter planes and submarines…like the sun, which doesn’t hold to any form of accounting as far as I know,accept in the all and sun dry.Let me say a fighter jet on a tarmac, that may have reached a certain temperature as tarmac,is positioned exactly in the right position for a conversion of heat collection to explosive jet force,or even motor turn they have wings and a body also, plus space in the pilot’s seat to store gas under pressure caused by temperature variables etc. The parachute of airmen could be placed in wind conditions to spin and turn to give maximal energy conversion in those circumstances too whatever mechanical or other force to kinetic motor activity.Indeed whatever the fighter jet,and most planes I will suggest are doing in relationship to the ground have a potential for energy conversion for usage other than the use of energy for the design of itself as that vehicle,as can be observed in the notions of design in cars of using them as electrical generators.Now as moment of speculative generalised design the submarine within their design capacity,I am totally convinced of can do heaps more.And suggest,if you find that means,if you haven’t thought about it before..try to make some money out of it.Even the torpedoes bombs,did once come with trailing cable,and cable is universal as a means to convert through those means electrical,hydraulic and kinetic force.To not be amazed,but to explore is the instinct of the inventor developer,and it is likely some of the ideas like I am displaying here,have been put on hold.If two torpedoes hit each other ,similar to crystal deformation that translates as electrical energy,dont you think the energy systems oyster is still around with plenty of oppurtunities.The problem really today is in some way all energy systems need to be coalescing in some matter of design use or input,otherwise it is a waste of human talent.Oil refineries can be converted to hydro production or re-engineered as part of electrical power generation.Just look at the tech. in those refineries now.It is probably another reason,why Leo Simpson Editor of Silicon Chip actually allowed a promo of water desalination in his magazine. Take a look at the technology being used,and what does it remind you of!? Sadly,humanity whatever it may do,will be afflicted by unnatural loss of human life and potential,including the design errors of existing relationships between humanity and natural systems.Without mentioning the brutality of war. I thought it also strange postershere thought cleaning an advancement on mirrors was a high tech challenging job!Have any of you actually cleaned an equivalent of mirrors regularly!? Behave!? This is Australia.

By: BilB

BilB — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 10:16:32 +0000

I think that Will Davies missed the bit where large chunks of the captial for Desertek are to come from what ever carbon trading scheme the Europeans are using and much of the technology has been under development by the German Aerospace body. This is being driven by a country where corporations take out cross ownership with like minded other companies to prevent takeovers. These people know how to stay in business for the long haul. If you look at the Desertek information they show 3 squares over the map of the Sahara desert. One is the area to power Germany and its nearest and dearest (I think) the next is the area to power all of Europe, and the next is the area to power the entire world.

There is no monopoly plan here, no cartel. This is about community, responsibility, and those with the know how becoming the facilitators of a surviveable future.

There is plenty of sunshine to go around. Maybe we should get us some of that!!

By: HuggyBunny

HuggyBunny — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 08:23:27 +0000

These farms are going to be big 0h boy are they going to be big.
Another thing is they will employ lots and lots of people and they will require large dc transmission systems and if they are sited right they will supply power into Europe when it is needed.
Huggy is really really excited. Time for a lie down.

By: Roger Jones

Roger Jones — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 08:03:35 +0000

And I guess I jumped on it, not so much because of Desertec but because I’ve been thinking a lot lately on how we finance the repair and sustenance of global life support systems, which form the invisible economy that we all depend upon.

By: Robert Merkel

Robert Merkel — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:57:20 +0000

Yes, it’s important to question why things are as they are, and whether we can do better.

But I was puzzled about what about the nature of the Desertec project prompted the leap. Perhaps it’s a lack of imagination on my part.

By: Roger Jones

Roger Jones — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:49:32 +0000

The constraints I was referring to were economic, as per dk’s post, not physical. The points he was making do not stand or fall on whether solar power is scalable to the point of global industrial transformation. As he said it was about the political economy and that’s all my comments were addressed at. The comments above seem to suggest because the post mentioned solar, and because you all have decided it’s not scalable, the other points dk made about rethinking the economy are invalid. To me, that logic seems kind of odd.

Despite that, this lot are having a go: Desertec Because of the physical constraints I also have my doubts, but I’d rather the money went on this project than submarines and fighter jets, for instance.

To frame my comments a little better, I’m a physically trained scientist in an economic research group so don’t have any basic issues with the conservation of energy and mass, but I am interested in interdisciplinary approaches to these issues and I thought the post was thought-provoking. Maybe I’ll take back the comment about thinking like engineers, but the view beyond the silo walls seems to be occluded.

By: John Passant

John Passant — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:47:29 +0000

I’m not sure that flexibility was a response to the perceived (my word) individualism of the 60s. I’m not even sure flexibility exists.

The issues that confront humanity seem the same now as they did 160 years ago – in particular the relational process for the creation of value.

If that means I am thinking in terms of restricted economy then so be it.

Will asks: What happens when capital’s demand to retain surplus goes head to head with the sun’s insistence on distributing it?

I really don’t see this in the contradictory terms Will does. Maybe we need a little more to understand what this head to head is?

In fact it might just be a reprise of the old state capital versus private capital argument, occurring within the context of the present accumulation process.

There also seems to be a form of technological determinism involved here, especially Robert’s reference to technologies that might make capitalism obsolete. (please don’t quote back at me Marx on water wheels or chains being burst asunder (or whatever it was that determinists hold up.)

Certainly I think cost and profit models may well constrain us from developing timely technologies to address AGW. That may impact on our future direction – barbarism or socialism comes to mind.

I don’t see the sun as the original source of value. It is human intervention which creates value.

Certainly I don’t see the use (or failure to use, for that matter) of solar energy as necessarily destroying the particular variant of value creation we have at the moment or even creating the conditions for some sort of seamless transition away from capitalism. (And to what, precisely?)

By: dk.au

dk.au — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:00:40 +0000

Oh well, looks like my attempts to think outside traditional, functionalist accounts of political economy have been unconvincing.

Physics and thermodynamics constrain us: upsetting but true.

Yet they have a history. Do you not find that constraining? Or does the idea of constructivist realism (or 'speculative' realism) appeal to you? Serious question, btw.