Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The Revolution Will Be Solarized

By David Roberts, Grist.org. Posted December 2, 2006.


Author Travis Bradford says that solar energy will eventually break the hold that centralized power companies have on our energy grids.
Advertisement

Solar power has been the Next Big Thing for decades now, yet it remains a niche player in the energy world. The problem of intermittency is unsolved, up-front capital costs remain high, and surging demand for polysilicon, a key component of solar panels, has recently outstripped supply, stifling production.

So when someone claims that within decades solar photovoltaic technology will come to dominate the world's energy portfolio -- with or without subsidies, with or without rising fossil-fuel prices, with or without new environmental legislation -- one could be forgiven a degree of skepticism.

But Travis Bradford is no hippie idealist. The author of Solar Revolution: The Economic Transformation of the Global Energy Industry spent the early years of his career in corporate acquisitions and private equity funds -- not fields that reward irrational exuberance. His book is based on research and analyses done at his Massachusetts think tank, the Prometheus Institute for Sustainable Development, working from what he claims are conservative assumptions about market and capital trends.

Those trends, he says, are inexorable: Just as revolutions have transformed the information and communication sectors, solar power will break the hold of sclerotic, centralized power companies.

Roberts: Your book's central claim is pretty bold.

Bradford: Thanks for recognizing that.

It's not just that we're moving toward alternatives, it's that we're moving toward distributed [power generation] as well. If both of those are true, solar is the only viable option.

Solar is different from other energy technologies in that it delivers energy at the point of use, directly to the end user. That allows it to circumvent the entire supply chain. It's not another option for a utility, it's a competitor to a utility -- the first time utilities have really had a competitor.

The best way to describe it is with an anecdote about cell phones. We used to have these monopoly telephone infrastructure players. They controlled everything, and they had all the processing power at central switching stations. You had these dummy terminals that you just picked up; you had a connection, but no brains. All the brains were in the center of the network. And then these cell-phone producers came along and, in the Telecommunications Act of '96, were given access to the telephone grid. They began to go completely around the supply chain and offer competing services to the same customers, wireless and easier. The telephone utilities ... first they ignored it, then they tried to fight it legislatively, and when they lost that they tried to fight it economically. Eventually they just decided, screw it, we're going to buy them. Today those are the most profitable parts of their business. That's the transformation.

This also happened in computers. We went from large, centralized mainframes with dummy terminals to a distributed hybrid architecture.

Solar is slowly going to begin to unwind the existing utility economics, to the point where utilities decide they have to get in or they risk losing their core business -- exactly the transformations we've lived through in the last 20 years.

The solar revolution does not require new breakthroughs in technology. You could do it with the technology we have, scaling it up and learning how to do it incrementally better every year -- which is what naturally happens with scale.

Roberts: Solar is mainly used for electricity, which represents just over a third of energy use. How do you account for transportation fuels?

Bradford: We'll never solve the problem of transportation until we reconnect the transportation and electricity infrastructures. There's not enough liquid fuels.

I'm not a big fan of biofuels -- on close examination their environmental impact is wretched. What it does is export part of our energy price for transportation through the grocery store, right? We end up subsidizing the cost of our transportation infrastructure in the price of food stocks. Biofuels will solve some problems, but at the end of the day there's not enough land in the entire Mississippi River Valley to meet our transportation needs. And then where would we get food from? There's cellulosic, but that's only another 10 percent.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: energy, solar power

David Roberts is a staff writer at Grist.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
push
Posted by: rsaxto on Dec 2, 2006 1:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When push comes to shove in the renewable power industry the government needs to help more in the pushing so that reality doesn't shove us over an awful cliff of dimwitted doom.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Overly dramaic, mathematically deficient
Posted by: jsong123 on Dec 2, 2006 3:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How many people want their make their own electricity? About the same number that want an amateur radio antenna, or that brew their own beer.

How much baseload elecricity can wind energy supply to the grid?
10%

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» How Many People Want To Die? Posted by: Douglas
» Statistically inaccurate Posted by: SufiLizard
Ironic Amazon recommendation: "Solar Fraud"
Posted by: Artaraxl on Dec 2, 2006 4:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I went to add Bradford's book to my Amazon wish list and found this title recommended by Amazon:

The Solar Fraud: Why Solar Energy Won't Run the World, Second Edition by Howard C. Hayden

Amusing, no? Maybe it's best to get them both.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Coal is the enemy of the human race"
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Dec 2, 2006 6:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It sure is nice to hear the truth, isn't it? Simply stated, it hits with the force of revelation. Thanks for saying it out loud!

I'd add nuclear energy as another enemy of the human race; look at what the Chernobyl disaster did to the Ukraine and Central Europe - and there's no solution to the problem of long-term waste disposal or nuclear weapons proliferation.

The most polluting and disastrous industry in the United States is the coal business - the evidence is obvious, from the actions of Massey coal in mountaintop removal in the Appalachians to the damaged water on Hopi and Navajo reservations in the Southwest, to the open-pit mines of Montana. Billions of tons of CO2 are injected every year into the atmosphere from coal-fired electricity generation in the US and China, along with sulfur, nitrogen oxides, mercury and arsenic.

You can expect this article to bring out a whole horde of fossil fuel and utility PR trolls, who will make all kinds of claims - but the fact is, there's plenty of solar and wind available to generate electricity; there are technological issues that could be improved (like energy storage) but moving towards good electric cars is also going to help things out. The author is probably right about biofuels (particularly when the new Midwest ethanol plants are being bult with coal-fired power systems!).

What the utilities worry about is something called 'the death spiral'. If 10% of California goes solar, that means that utilities lose 10% of their market, and to maintain profit levels (the only thing their bankers and shareholders see) they'll have to raise rates, leading to more people switching to solar, and so on. Meanwhile, coal and natural gas suppliers will see shrinking markets and declining profits due to less demand for their product from electricity suppliers.

This is why the fossil fuel industry hires the world's best PR firms to attack the science behind global warming as well as the notion of renewable energy. Just watch...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

more information please
Posted by: mwildfire on Dec 2, 2006 6:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My primary response to this piece is 100 questions. This is a very important issue, because it ties in with all of the most critical issues of the day: global warming, the end of cheap oil, and war in the Middle East.
I live in West Virginia, and I really LOVED the pull quote. The power plants that spew pollutants and greenhouse gases are mostly built close to the coal--which means we get the brunt of the environmental devastation from mining and washing and transporting coal, as well as from the plants and their wastes. It's very rare for a discussion of these issues to take into account ALL of the costs of coal--the subsidies are enormous, and hidden and unjust.
So I'd love to believe that a solar revolution is inevitable, but IS there enough silicon? What about the problem of intermittency? Major steps toward conservation and efficiency will no doubt be critical.
As for the comment that only people who brew their own beer will want solar panels, there are stations in the southwest that use concentrated mirrors to produce centralized solar power...and windmills are mostly big affairs powering the grid rather than individual homes. Perhaps people will have a choice, as they do now with beer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: more information please Posted by: malaparte
» A recommendation Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: more information please Posted by: heftysmurf
~`~
Posted by: flyingfish on Dec 2, 2006 7:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyone hear any more about this?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ~`~ Posted by: Starcatcher
Solar works and it will work better the sooner we get ourselves out of reverse and get moving!
Posted by: greentime on Dec 2, 2006 7:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no question that solar is the way to go.
Passive solar, active solar, hybrid - it is simple and just makes sense. Common, healthy, sense. The sun is a fantastic source of energy. Our technology will improve and so will the efficiencies! Wind has an important place in this too.

The only question regarding solar and wind is this:
Should each of us operate our own private power sources or should we band together and operate them as PUBLICLY owned central power generating "plants"? The answer is pretty obvious.

There is NO question that they should not be privately owned. Oil and coal should have taught us that. Do you want someone like Bush and Co. to own the rights to the sun? How ridiculous does that sound? The sun - should we pay some rich family for the right to use it? Uh, no.

Now, if we can just get the ugly oily oiligarchy out of our way, we can be about the work of creating a sutainable, clean energy culture that lives peacefully and in balance with the planets web of life.

Or would you rather "stay the course"?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Solar Energy Long Overdue
Posted by: boing007 on Dec 2, 2006 7:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Solar power has been the Next Big Thing for decades.

James Stewart starred in a movie in the 1930's. I can't remember the title, but in one particular moment during this film, Stewart rhapsodized for several minutes about the wonders of Solar Energy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

solar radiant more efficient and effective
Posted by: Door man on Dec 2, 2006 8:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have completed the construction of a radiant solar home in Northern Wisconsin. It is heated (primarily) by a radiant solar system designed by solar mining out of Green bay Wisconsin. The 400 sq foot panel feeds into a 400 gallon collector after first heating my domestic hot water to 140 degrees.; the 400 gallon heat sink stores wat3er heat to be distributed throughout the home via radiant in floor heating. It is only early December... but between this and a masonary wood furnace - I have not turned on my heat yet.

I have the correct slant on the same roof to put in photovoltaics... which I will do the minute someone can show me any cost advantageous or even payback to zero.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Copper-Indium-Gallium-Diselenide (CIGS)
Posted by: wobblies on Dec 2, 2006 9:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hi~
What are your and the author's views on Copper-Indium-Gallium-Diselenide (CIGS) as an alternative material to silicon? Did you discuss this potential breakthroughs being worked on in places like South Africa?

God Speed,
David Elliott

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Cheaper Way To Terminate Coal Immediately:
Posted by: rwa on Dec 2, 2006 9:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
End the embargo on Cuba and integrate it's vast new natural gas fields into the N. American system. If we fail to utilize thier gas they will have to liquiffy it and ship it to Europe.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Excellent article. Peaked my interest in the book.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Dec 2, 2006 11:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, at the very least it was good advertising.

Solar won't be the end-all-be-all for driving U.S. consumer energy needs, but it can make a big impact if combined with reciprocal and complimentary technologies.

The ability for U.S. consumers to "get off the grid" (with some potentially heavy investment) will undoubtedly get here, mostly for reasons of economic self-interest. Much more interesting to me was the treatment of the topic of solar use in the third world.

I may have to read more of this one...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

YES!!. . .but. . .
Posted by: monkeywrench on Dec 2, 2006 12:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the article:
"And then these cell-phone producers came along and, in the Telecommunications Act of '96, were given access to the telephone grid. They began to go completely around the supply chain and offer competing services to the same customers, wireless and easier."

Cell phone companies didn't decentralize telecomminications; they simply produced another centralized system – which is way more expensive for poorer service. Try using your cell phone without access to a tower or satellite transmission –– and how many times does your land-line drop calls? What destroyed economical land-line service for customers was deregulation of the Bells, not centralization. We once had the most reliable phone system – hell, of any system – in the world, and our government wrecked it for us.

Don't get me wrong; I am in agreement that decentralized solar power would be a marvelous thing (in Calif. where I live, if you produce more power than you use, the utilities have to buy it back). I worry, though, that there is still a bottleneck: production of the panels and systems by centralized corporations. We cannot build our own; we are still dependent on rapacious companies for the technology, and with the corporate zeitgeist of collusion and price-fixing that has the blessing of our supposed "leaders," expect to be screwed by this technology as well.

I wish it were not so; I wish I were less of a pessimist – but I see how the system works today. Without regulation from a benevolent government, corporations – including those producing solar power technology – will do what they always do: rip off the consumer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: YES!!. . .but. . . Posted by: rwa
» RE: YES!!. . .but. . . Posted by: edith
» RE: YES!!. . .but. . . Posted by: rwa
Combining various eco-friendly technologies
Posted by: solrey on Dec 2, 2006 3:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Currently the ecological downside of solar power is the batteries, they are only viable for less than a decade and the materials are extremely toxic. My vision for ecologically friendly energy self sufficiency would combine photo-voltaic panels, hydrogen and efficient water use. Homes and apartments roofs would basically be large photovoltaic panels. Cisterns would collect rainwater from the roofs gutters as well as greywater from everything but toilets. Small, simple and self-contained systems would be used to cleanse the greywater. Hydrogen would replace the batteries as an energy storage medium. Solar panels would produce electricity to run an electrolysis system using the water stored in the cistern. The hydrogen, stored in a pressurized tank, would power a fuel cell for on-site electrical use and be available to fill a vehicle running on a hydrogen fuel cell. The water in the cistern would be re-circulated for greywater use and circulated through the electrolysis system. If the petro and coal industries would stop curtailing research and development we could produce and market more efficient electrolysis and photovoltaic systems which would help make this scenario affordable and efficient. The greywater system would greatly reduce the load on sewage treatment plants and water distribution systems as well as help to save our precious aquifers and waterways.
I've lived in self-sufficient communities so I know that this can be done, even with current technology and limited financial resources.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Plus passive solar Posted by: solrey
Focus on getting the USA to subsidize solar and stop worrying about other countries.
Posted by: maxpayne on Dec 2, 2006 4:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, it is EMBARASSING to see other countries subsidizing alternative renewables such as solar and even wind and biofuels but instead of crying about it, this and other authors would do better to understand what it took to get those countries to subsidize more of it and then get some ideas and framing similarly working here in the USA. As long as you allow "GOVERNMENT" to subsidize coal and oil over alternative renewables such as solar, wind, biofuels, etc ... the USA will stay the LOSING course off the cliff.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Try living in an AFFORDABLE ZERO ENERGY HOME
Posted by: lrrysgl on Dec 2, 2006 5:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Zero Energy Home Enters Affordable Range
Tracy Staedter, Discovery News

May 31, 2006 — A for-profit home builder has constructed a house priced under $200,000 that, in an average year, costs nothing to power or heat.

The so-called zero-energy home, built by Norman, Oklahoma-based Ideal Homes, is priced affordably even though it incorporates some of the latest technology and energy-efficient construction available today.

Do a Google Search for "Zero Energy Home Enters Affordable Range" to locate the full article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

BREAKTHROUGH IN SOLAR CELL TECHNOLOGY
Posted by: lrrysgl on Dec 2, 2006 5:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There has been a significant breakthrough in solar cell technology. If you do a Google search for "Solar Cells Change Electricity Distribution" you can locate the full article. It is written by Dave Freeman and Jim Harding.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DOE REPORT DESCRIBES THE BASIC RESEARCH NEEDED TO MAKE "REVOLUTIONARY" PROGRESS IN SOLAR CELLS
Posted by: lrrysgl on Dec 2, 2006 5:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To read this article about the DOE report, do a Google search for "DOE TOUTS SOLAR ENERGY POTENTIAL."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

solar is the hot new stock?
Posted by: edith on Dec 2, 2006 5:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Greentime and others here have raised valid concerns re: whether the utilities, still largely monopolies despite deregulation which simply allows unrestricted price hikes, will control solar distribution like they own the transmission lines now.

I was concerned about the following statement made by the interviewee:

" The telephone utilities ... first they ignored it, then they tried to fight it legislatively, and when they lost that they tried to fight it economically. Eventually they just decided, screw it, we're going to buy them. Today those are the most profitable parts of their business. That's the transformation."

The transformation will be that we get screwed on solar like the utilities screw us now on coal and nuke generated power?

I haven't heard Pelosi or Clinton yap much about public power. Nor do I expect to. You know. Sounds too much like the "New Deal" that DLC Dems love to hate.

Ironically, given the monopoly nature of power transmission, this is an area(delivery) where free market solutions as to delivery at least may not make sense, so ol FDR and the TVA were prescient!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Solar Is Empowering!!! Fossil Fuel Is Disempowering!!!
Posted by: Douglas on Dec 2, 2006 6:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The existing fossil fuel based utility corporations centralize power production and, in the process, disempower the individuals who use energy. Solar power decentralizes power production by delivering energy at the point of use, directly to the end user. Asked if decentralization of power will lead to political decentralization, Travis Bradford replies: "Solar power is empowering. All things being, equal, people like to control the resources upon which they rely. . . . At the end of the day, sustainability includes distributed power and democratization." Fossil fuel is disempowering!!! Solar is empowering!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Forget Growing Hemp To Fuel Cars!!! Why Biofuels Are A Bad Idea!!!
Posted by: Douglas on Dec 2, 2006 7:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Travis Bradford makes it abundantly clear that the notion of using biofuels to run automobiles is not a viable idea. He says:

"I'm not a big fan of biofuels--on close examination their environmental impact is wretched. What it does is export part of our energy price for transportation through the grocery store, right? We end up subsidizing the cost of our transportation infrastructure in the price of food stocks. Biofuels will solve some problems, but at the end of the day there's not enough land in the entire Mississippi River Valley to meet our transportation needs. And then where would we get food from? There's cellulosic, but that's only another 10 percent."

Latte liberals from various parts of the country (but especially from the middle west, it seems) will continue to fantasize about hemp as a panacea to our energy needs, but as Bradford points out, "at the end of the day, there's not enough land in the entire Mississippi River Valley to meet our transportation needs." He adds: "where would we get food from?" This is a question I have been asking on Alternet alot lately. Dream on guys.

The rest of us need to see the biofuel "dream" for the fantasy that it is and press forward with solar power. If we must drive cars, they too need to be powered by the sun!!! Biofuels are a pipe dream!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

United Solar Avionics, Greenville Michigan
Posted by: Jerome Alicki on Dec 2, 2006 8:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is noteworthy that United Solar Avionics is opening a new plant in Greenville, MI that will employ approximately 300. Greenville was hard hit by layoffs when Electrolux closed down there awhile ago. Former Electrolux employees are being given first shot at new jobs at the new solar panel manufacturing plant. United Solar Avionics has plans to build 6 plants total, eventually employing several thousand people, all in the Greenville area. This will make West Michigan the center of new solar technology in the next decade. Also West Michigan has 14 biofuel plants coming online in the next two years. You should also check out American Electric Vehicle Corp. in Ferndale, MI which is coming out with a new two seater Italian designed coupe that can be plugged in anywhere and fully recharged in two hours. All of this info is available on, ahem, MY BLOG at http://blackbearspeaks.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Blogging for Big Oil - the Edelman example
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Dec 3, 2006 1:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Recently, the American Petroleum Institute put $100 million into a PR campaign to protect Big Oil's interests; the PR firm Edelman won the contract. See Oil Industry's $100M Campaign to Show They're Not So Bad After All". They will use the regular methods of buying TV and newspaper and radio coverage - but they will also target the Internet and they'll also use 'buzz marketing' strategies (word-of-mouth).

To do this, an Edelman blogger might sign up at Alternet and would first try to 'make friends' using the 'personal touch' - for example, they'd agree wholeheartedly with all progressive viewpoints on women's rights, etc. However, when their "issue" comes up (be it global warming, renewable energy, or corrupt oil merchants) you'll see their real agenda come to the fore. If this sounds very dishonest and slimy - well, it is. That's why you should always look at the information content of posts, not who wrote them.

If you don't believe me, check out this quote I picked up off an Edelman PR discussion:Richard Edelman, CEO, in a Q&A session with industry insiders (I boldfaced the most relevant points):

"Eric: What will PR look like in 5 years?

A: PR involved earlier on in the product life cycle: We'll be a means by which a company can reach out to bloggers to affect prod development. Deconstructed press release. A more robust role in the corporate suite. I don't see PR as being disintermediated. David Weinberger [hey, that's me!] thinks PR gets in the way; no one wants to talk to the PR person. I think we should want the flak. We are indeed agents in that we represent our clients. I don't see that PR has to be a negative connotation, which it currently has. We have to be about truth, listening, learning, and telling the corporation stuff it doesn't want to hear. Five years from now, I hope PR people have the balls to say what they know. We need to give clients good advice. (We have thirty people blogging at Edelman. You learn by falling on your face.)

Q: What's the retraining process at Edelman like?

A: It's not easy. We have 30 people blogging. We probably have 15-20% who are regularly in touch with bloggers. That's pathetic. I have to be tougher about it.


Q: (Audience) A blogger got sued by an ad agency, who then dropped the suit. Is it a good idea to sue bloggers.

A: No.

Q: Are you modeling the topology of the blogosphere?

A: There isn't a model yet."


Now, look that over - these are a bunch of sophisticated swindlers. (topology of the blogosphere??!!) They also handle Wal-Marts PR contracts. I don't know if "Douglas" is one of them or not, or if "BozemanBlues" is one of them or not; I believe that "Edith" definitely is based on the long-winded assault on global warming science in the "African Apocalypse" alternet story (that hit all the talking points, I might add) - but notice the lack of information content in all of their posts.

Goebbels, the father of modern propaganda, always shied away from information-based arguments in favor of emotional polemics, because he wanted to stay as far away from the truth as possible. I can't emphasize this enough: forget about everything but the information content when you're reading the internet - don't 'make friends' with people you've never seen! The internet is the new PR playground.

Hopefully this will assist the readers of Alternet in understanding just how nasty and insidious PR strategies have become in the modern propaganda state. Good Night and Good Luck.

P.S. Renewable energy really is the only hope for the future of humanity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Sorry to intrude, but... Posted by: HeroesAll
» Trotsky Redux. Posted by: edith
» RE: Trotsky Redux. Posted by: rwa
» Hear Hear Posted by: DataDoc
Biofuels, solar, wind and energy conservation go hand in hand
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Dec 3, 2006 10:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Douglas: Scroll up to my original post on this thread, click on my response to myself, and look at the links contained therein. Then let's see what you have to say about biofuels.

Biofuel production is very closely linked to the issue of fossil fuel inputs to agriculture. Use varies widely, but if you look at the total fossil fuel that goes into agicultural food production (fertilizer, tractors, herbicides, pesticides, transportation, processing, storage) then it becomes clear that all forms of agriculture need to be reformed. This means using crop rotation, perhaps solar/wind powered fertilizer production (turning N2 in the air into NH3 fertilizer), natural pest control, building up topsoil - it's called organic or sustainable farming.

If done correctly, this means that as the plant grows, it takes up CO2 from the air. The plant is converted to biofuel, and burned, and the CO2 goes back into the air. There is no net change in the amount of CO2 in the air as a result.

Now, Big Agribusiness is owned by the same corporate financiers who own Big Coal and Big Oil. That's why you can't rely on ADM or Cargill to invest in sustainable biofuel development - they'll do things like put coal-fired power plants in bioethanol refineries, for example, since their board members also sit on the boards of fossil fuel corporations.

Read what David Morris has to say on this issue: The Carbohydrate Economy:

Quote:"New technologies, new laws and an increasingly aware public are ushering in a new materials base for the 21st century - plant matter. Carbohydrates, the building blocks of plant matter, can be converted into chemicals, energy, textiles, building materials, paper, and many other industrial products. We call this new materials base a "carbohydrate economy." A carbohydrate economy reduces pollution, builds stronger rural communities, and supports a rooted farmer-owned manufacturing sector."

Getting back to the solar issue, let's take a look at China's use of solar as an example - here you have a fairly totalitarian state (with serious problems to overcome, it must be admitted) and they are about to build the world's largest solar plant. Thus, there is no reason to assume that solar is, to quote Douglas, "anti-corporate and decentralist and it will lead to political and economic decentralization and will promote grassroots democracy."

Nevertheless solar is a far better choice then coal in all circumstances. Sorting out the social and democratic issues is a bit of a separate topic.

So, as I predicted, you've got a lot of posters who are busy attacking renewable energy strategies that they disagree with, while they ignore the real culprits: the fossil fuel and nuclear corporations, and the associated financial structures. Let's just say that they are poorly informed or misled, and should reconsider their opinions.

Lordy - public relations operatives would never do anything dishonest or underhanded, would they? To say that they would - that'd be "McCarthyism"!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» A couple of questions Posted by: HeroesAll
What's wrong with solar plants? And what about renters?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Dec 3, 2006 1:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The vast majority of people in the US can't afford to drop $10,000 to $50,000 on a solar system for their own home. To facilitate this, what you need is something like a car loan program - who would ever buy a new car without such loan programs? Who could buy a new house without loan programs? Of course, that's all tied into the Federal Reserve system, which is a very corrupt system (read Secrets of the Temple, by William Grieder).

In the case of Sacramento, the Public Municipal Utilities District initiated a program where they install solar units on rental units; they own and mainten the units and everyone gets a cheaper bill. During the 'California Energy Crisis' brought on by Enron, Duke, Reliant, (and Bush), SMUD rates were the lowest in the state.

Now we are also seeing basic building materials (like roof shingles and glass windows) that are photovoltaic as well. Every single skyscraper in the US should be made with photovoltaic solar glass. Solar plants aren't a bad idea, but it seems that rooftops are more convenient. Check out the details on solar glass at http://www.glassonweb.com/ glassmanual/topics/index/photo.htm.

Also, if all electricity is produced by wind and solar feeding into the grid, then you have to create some kind of energy storage system - the sun doesn't shine at night, when people want the lights on. That's a perfect role for public and private utilities to fill. If you want to go 'off-the-grid', then go for it - noone's stopping you.

I'd also far prefer to use biofuels produced from locally grown crops then gasoline and diesel produced from Nigerian and Iraqi and Venezuelan crude oil. Why are people so opposed to such a sensible strategy for getting off foreign oil? Any way you look at it, fossil fuels are more polluting than biofuels. Plus, the US auto fleet (diesel and gasoline) can cheaply be modified to use biodiesel and ethanol, unlike the case with electricity (though take a look at Tesla Motor's electric sports car at http://blog.wired.com/teslacar/).

Why don't we quit shipping government-subsidized corn to Mexico under NAFTA rules (where it wrecks local economies) and instead feed it into biofuel production? Cut back on the cattle feedlots (where a lot of the corn ends up) and make more ethanol? What exactly is wrong with such a strategy? The US population eats way too much beef (packed with hormones and antibiotics, I might add) and should move towards less meat in the diet anyway.

I've seen this argument so many times - Solar! No, Wind! No, Biofuels! No, Energy Conservation! It's the old circular firing squad in action - ridiculous! A real energy future will involve all of those strategies - in fact, it will require all of these strategies working in concert to have any hope of meeting basic energy demand levels.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]