India Power Outage: The Shape of Things to Come?

 

Home Forums The Automatic Earth Forum TAE Blog Energy India Power Outage: The Shape of Things to Come?

Viewing 29 posts - 1 through 29 (of 29 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #5190
    wp_admin
    Keymaster

    [article]357[/article]

    #5191
    william
    Participant

    Rolling blackouts sound harmless but that is not the case.

    They greatly effect food quality. When refrigeration is inconsistent meat spoilage can be unnoticed till after consumption. Beyond the immediate problem the rolling blackouts encourage the population to store much less food for when a crisis does happen.

    Rolling black outs would considerably hamper all services in North America and make travel difficult. Further because so much commerce is done with plastic most consumers would not be able to make purchases. For the consumers left your purchases would exclude all major chains as they require electricity to swipe your products, adjust inventory, and open the till.

    Further, for North Americans, rolling blackouts would start the end of the fast society. Fast foods purchased at the store mostly require freezing and cooling.

    #5194
    Ghung
    Participant

    After spending a number of years surveying and taking inventory of US electrical infrastructure, I decided that I wasn’t going to be the ass in this quote:

    “In this, as in so many other areas of public life, we are like the ass starving to death because he is equidistant from two bales of hay and can’t decide which way to go. We either have to spend tons of money propping up the old system, or expend tons of effort and thought coming up with a new one. By refusing to do either, we drift faster and faster toward the precipice over which India has just tipped. “

    My work for companies contracted to major power corporations was part of the effort to convert the old paper maps and schematics of grid systems into digital format, mainly in the early 90s, though I actually began in the 70s, walking the streets with a big clipboard, drafting equipment, and a measuring wheel. I spent a lot of time hacking my way through rights-of-way, and in manholes under city streets; an on-the-ground way of getting intimately familiar with the extent and condition of our electric grids. I was amazed at what we have built, and dismayed at the level of investment that was going to be required to maintain (and grow) capacity and reliability. I also discovered that investment was, even 20 years ago, grossly lagging requirements. A “pay me now, or pay much more later” progression was underway. The powercos in the US are, and have been, operating on borrowed time, as ASCE has warned. It’s just another can being kicked for the sake of profitability and electability, as with most of our critical infrastructure; the slow, relentless downward spiral to a point beyond recoverability.

    We’ve been living off the grid now for 16 years, doing quite nicely, and our expectations differ greatly from the entitled majority. I strongly suggest others develop and implement their resilience plans…

    #5195
    DIYer
    Participant

    I’m trying to puzzle out how their electric utility ever worked in the first place.

    Was reminded of this article by a ‘demotivational’ poster in another forum:
    https://diasp.de/uploads/images/scaled_full_1e91eff80441bcde7e49.jpg
    For those too demotivated to click the link, it reads
    “Kirchoff’s Law: not applicable in India”.

    #5196
    seychelles
    Participant

    Wow. One of the most informative articles I’ve read in some time.
    Thanks!

    #5198
    Anonymous
    Guest

    A comprehensive article, I was wondering when Stoneleigh would comment on the indian blackout, as she’s an expert on this topic. The absolute dependence on electric access may be lower for the indian economy, and they’re accustomed to intermittent availability, but if the blackout had lasted longer than it did, breakouts of cholera would have occured in the cities, along with shortages of generator fuel for hospitals.

    An indian blackout of longer duration could also propagate logistical collapse to the developed world, much of the vital call centres and IT infrastructure for western companies would be disabled, having been outsourced to there. A serious warning of things to come.

    The developed world would more easily erupt into total chaos in such a blackout scenario, even if lasting just a few days. Besides the logistical disruption and the crash of digital commerce, with electronic media, television and the internet unavailable, millions of westerners would suffer acute mental breakdowns, having become dependent on constant electronic stimuli to maintain the state of collective dissociative psychosis powering society.

    The event also reminds me of the dire prediction of the olduvai gorge theory, which postulates that global collapse would be precipitated by declining energy flux density from energy sources, progressively causing permanent blackouts in the developed world, but it doesn’t account for the danger of sudden cascading grid collapse by overcomplexity and maintenance failure.

    https://greatchange.org/ov-duncan,road_to_olduvai_gorge.html

    #5199
    jal
    Participant

    When there is a black out, that is when you get the opportunity to string your wire to your home to get free power without getting electrocuted.
    B)

    #5200
    Viscount St. Albans
    Participant

    Question Regarding your EROEI #s

    What are the sources for these #s for various sources of power generation? (hydro, coal, nuclear, wind, solar etc.)

    How do you know what EROEI is required for modern civilization? What are your references for these ratios?

    #5201
    Doubled
    Participant

    Remember that India and Pakistan possess hundreds of nuclear weapons. Maintaining their security will become very difficult!!

    #5202
    Nassim
    Participant

    The references to the American Society of Civil Engineers remind me of why I got out of civil engineering in 1973 – appalling short-termism and lack of investment to replace the stuff built in the UK generations ago. Plenty of money for the Olympics though.

    #5203
    skipbreakfast
    Participant

    Incredibly thorough article. I’ve lately been thinking a lot about the costs of infrastructure renewal, if only because I’m traveling in a developing country right now. Stoneleigh writes, “As we move further into financial crisis with the bursting of the global credit bubble, it will become more and more difficult to fund infrastructure investment, and we are living on borrowed time as it is. We have already been coasting on past infrastructure investments for a long time.”

    In a massive city like Bangkok, so much of the city appears to have been built between 30 and 60 years ago. It’s all in the same state of decay and disrepair. I’m not sure how long such structures go before they need to be replaced, but I can’t imagine there is enough capital now, let alone in the future, to replace even a fraction of it.

    This is a power pole I snapped a couple weeks ago–it’s not as spectacular as the Indian illegal load-sharing wires, but some of the Thai power poles are pretty “impressive” nonetheless.

    Attached files

    #5204
    steve from virginia
    Participant

    India’s biggest problem isn’t nuclear weapons or not enough electricity but too many people.

    The country needs to cut its population by any method that comes to hand including coerced sterilization. Otherwise, the population will be cut by other means including war, starvation and disease … coercion disguised. Perhaps not tomorrow but soon: the current drought continued for another decade is all that is required.

    Cut the population of machines as well, get rid of the energy-sucking, space-wasting cars. Otherwise, what is underway in finance- and energy markets will remove the cars by other means.

    #5205
    SteveB
    Participant

    Nicole, do you really mean that the current grid model is “under threat”, or would something like “extremely fragile” or “failing” be a more accurate description? If it is under threat, what threatens it?

    #5206
    Nicole Foss
    Moderator

    The modern grid model is under threat due to cost and complexity, and smart grids will make the complexity vulnerability worse by at least an order of magnitude. The safety margins have been cut back because they cost money and no one really wants to pay. The infrastructure keeps getting older and the risks larger. The dependencies are thoroughly entrenched, and we can expect that extracting ourselves from them will be difficult, time-consuming and expensive.

    IMO in the future electricity availability will be far less widespread than it is now, in all countries. I doubt the infrastructure in poorer areas will be maintained at all, so that service availability will retreat to richer enclaves. Fuel poverty will also increase substantially.

    In India population will be a major problem. It is very far over carrying capacity, with less and less capability to maintain the existing population. Water will be a huge issue, and electricity supply problems will make that substantially worse, due to the reliance on pumping.

    Other countries will find themselves sliding towards facing many of the same difficulties as the money supply dries up, infrastructure cannot be maintained and neither fuel for generation nor spare parts will be affordable. Russia faced this during the implosion of the Soviet Union.

    At least India demonstrates that crappy infrastructure will function at some level for quite a long time. It also demonstrates the importance of comparing expectations with reality. Dashed expectations are very dangerous.

    #5207
    Nicole Foss
    Moderator

    The most comprehensive EROEI research is being done by Charles Hall at SUNY. Anyone who would like to delve further into the specifics should look up the work of Charlie and his colleagues. Some of it appears at The Oil Drum, mostly published by David Murphy. David Hughes, a Canadian natural gas expert, has also looked into the issue in relation to gas supplies. Some of his work is available online.

    #5209
    Viscount St. Albans
    Participant

    I suspect there must be some problems with these EROEI #s.

    The center of the field/specialty is basically a single academic and his former students at a very obscure state university with very little research infrastructure. I don’t see how it’s possible that he could reliably generate these #s under those circumstances.

    Why is this such an obscure field?

    If there were real smoke here, then one should see this topic being pursued at some of the other big name institutions.

    I don’t doubt the existence of EROEI, of course, it just seems pretty clear that the precise calculations being used here are probably quite slippery and highly subjective.

    #5210
    Viscount St. Albans
    Participant

    The problem with EROEI analysis is one of boundary definition.

    Where do you set the boundary for input costs?
    Where do you set the boundary for output gains?

    The costs aren’t uniformly borne and the gains aren’t uniformly shared, so even if you could agree to the boundary definitions, it’s even less likely you’ll agree on methods for measuring individual variables. 500 calories of shoeshining and toilet plunging do not equal 500 calories worth of corner office deal making (never have and never will).

    So now what?

    This problem plagued the field in the early 1970s when it first came to widespread discussion within the federal government, and the problem persists today.

    If nobody agrees to the boundaries of the input costs and output gains, then the #s are largely meaningless.

    Your EROEI shows 0.1, mine shows 6. Who is right? Who is wrong? Does your great-grand-baby want fries with that? The spiritual component in unquantifiable. My paradise is your parking lot.

    See: US Government Accountability Office from 1977:
    https://www.gao.gov/assets/120/119517.pdf

    #5211
    Golden Oxen
    Participant

    What an informative article, it was quite an education for me.

    I have totally forgotten all the Wall Street hype about the great India growth story. This article has put that pipe dream to rest factually and most convincingly!

    #5214
    Cluster2k
    Member

    I remember visiting India on holiday in late 2010 during the Commonwealth games. I was surprised by how often the power failed (for short periods under 10 mins) on a regular basis in every destination I visited. In Delhi I refused to use the elevator as the power was off at least 3 times every evening, and I didn’t fancy an extended stay inside a metal booth until someone retrieved me. The elevator was offline after every blackout.

    Every computer had a UPS. India must be a UPS maker’s dream. I saw the incredible spaghetti webs of electrical wiring lining some streets. It’s difficult to imagine just how the system can be fixed without a complete revolution in wiring and consumer attitude. I wish India all the best as it’s such an exciting and vibrant nation.

    #5215
    gurusid
    Participant

    Hi Stoneleigh,

    With regards to alternatives like solar, this report from 2000 shows just how dirty the technology really is. While it is four times less ‘impacting’ than fossil fuel generation, it is not nearly as ‘clean’ as hydro power, wind or for that matter wood (see graph on page 14).

    Generally what is needed as well as a distributed energy model, is also a cyclical element; instead of our current linear input/output system of power generation and use, we need a much more cyclical approach as is found in natural systems such as the bodies of living organisms and macro systems such as arboreal and rain forests. Thus a farm or small holding could have a biodigester to ‘digest’ waste producing combustible gases, which can be used to power a combined heat and power (not just electrical but also direct mechanical energy for on site mechanical processes) generating system (this already happens on some farms and sewage treatment plants). However this process of ‘recycling’ can be added too. For instance the some of the organic matter could be used to grow worms or maggots to feed fish in an aquaponics system to produce protein. The water is recycled through hydroponics units to grow vegetables thus adding to the biomass stream. As more and more ‘cycles’ of energy use are added to the system, the ‘local energy economy’ grows and becomes inherently more efficient, and more importantly reduces the rate of entropy by ‘holding’ or entraining more of the available energy in the systems, much as traditional polycultural systems have done in the past. The ISIS project have a good paper explaining this in some detail, and their Dream Farm 2 example shows what is possible. But ultimately our energy consumption is going to be a lot lower, as David J.C. MacKay’s “Sustainable Energy – without the hot air” shows.

    L,
    Sid.

    #5218
    rwg
    Member

    Gurusid –
    That is a nice, very comprehensive, LCA. It is a bit out of date, though. It would be interesting to see how the major changes in technology would map out into a current LCA. I think the boundary conditions are the only thing that make nuclear in any way plausible, given the long-term (i.e., 250,000 years), high-level rad waste management requirements. In the reality that will occur, it is not financially or thermodynamically rational to use nuclear. Also, PVs seem to be lasting much longer than we thought they would, which affects and LCA greatly.
    I notice that the LCA is assuming large-scale installations of solar photovoltaics, whereas we might consider them as part of personal-scale systems, distributed generation, redundancy, etc. which changes the decision calculus significantly.
    While I understand the environmental effects would be the same, when I think of personal resiliency, PV needs to be in the mix. In fact, to be rather thermodynamically preposterous, even if the EROEI on PV were negative (which I do not believe), I think, well, if we are going to make negative EROEI investments (like shale or tar sands), then I’d rather those go to PVs which have a chance of flexibly contributing in a longer term to a better future than those sources that would be burned and gone in an instant.
    At the end of the day, without question, the best dollar investment on energy is still spent on improving the insulation and air sealing of buildings – energy conservation – which is half the price per kWh (3 cents USD) of our cheapest US fuel, coal (7 cents USD at least). (I can get the citation for that if you’d like, but it’s 2 km away right now.)
    But since we all need to be working on other energy sources, we’d best reduce what we need through energy efficiency and great clothing base layers like wool and silk and dead dinosaurs and then look to having a variety of energy sources. I think PV is still quite rational for individuals, especially on a very small scale – i.e., not necessarily for running a compressor – but certainly for lighting, charging, and so on.
    Thank you for your great post and the links to the ISIS project articles!

    #5229
    Anonymous
    Guest

    steve from virginia post=4889 wrote: India’s biggest problem isn’t nuclear weapons or not enough electricity but too many people.
    The country needs to cut its population by any method that comes to hand including coerced sterilization.

    @ steve from virginia
    Thats wrong, India certainly does not need to engage in crimes against humanity to solve any problem they have, because crime cannot be policy, and this particular strategy doesn’t lessen suffering.

    Western developmental organizations have long been coercing the indian government to commit such crimes against their people under threat of withholding economic aid. The World Bank’s formulated ‘policy’ for India has previously been used for coercive crimes of population control, by advocating the withholding of aid to influence internal policy towards the express goal of forced sterilization, even by physical violence.
    Public outrage emerged chiefly because ethno-religious minorities and the illiterate underclass were targeted in coerced sterilization campaigns to reach set quota’s. As indian minority groups are predominantly victimized, this criminal policy may amount to an act of genocide.

    Please read these, there are many horrific stories concerning this practice.

    https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/asia/item/11372-us-uk-taxpayers-funding-forced-sterilization-in-india

    https://www.lifenews.com/2012/05/10/british-govt-spends-millions-on-forced-sterilizations-in-india/

    https://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/madhya-pradesh-forced-sterilisation/1/173625.html

    https://theintelhub.com/2012/02/12/1984-world-bank-report-contemplates-sterilization-vans-camps/

    People may have different ideas in mind when advocating coercion, like cash incentives for voluntary sterilization or vasectomies, but these practices turn ill when preying on the poor and desperate, defeating rational economic choice when the participants are deliberately misinformed of the nature of the procedure.
    And if the quota’s aren’t reached, some agencies turn to violent means of persuasion, assaulting reproductive health against people’s consent. These methods are more immediately dehumanising and tyrannical than the burden of overpopulation.

    Widely available contraception, women’s education and alleviating poverty greatly reduces the average size of families. The elimination of poverty and stimulating women’s higher education is a slow process, but reproductive education, uncoerced family planning programs and free contraceptives should help.

    A friend of mine was adopted from India, she’s planning to go back there to work in an orphanage, as she likes to work with children.

    #5244
    steve from virginia
    Participant

    @Gravity,

    Coercion takes many forms, it is part of a government tool kit. Forced/paid sterilization is unpleasant but it works and the alternative is unmentionable cost of uncontrolled population expansion … then, collapse.

    Coercion is China’s ‘one child’ policy that punishes people who evade it and have more than one child. The one-child policy is unpleasant. It enrages people in the West but it works and is preferable to the West’s hypocrisy and denial. Part of the one-child policy is forced abortions and sex-determined abortions. The outcome of this unhappy policy is declining birthrates in China … this is the return on policy initiated 20 years ago.

    The secondary return is the percentage of China’s current wealth that is accountable to diminished population pressure. Unborn persons cannot consume capital which is then available for other — more remunerative — purposes. Supporting billions in permanent slums at the edge of destitution is not useful allocation of capital.

    Better to pay young girls not to have children while giving them the means to avoid conception. Pay one billion (+/-) young girls US$1,000 per year not to have children: US$20 trillion ($1 trillion x 20 years) and old age will do the heavy lifting. The funds would remain in the economies and the payoff would be substantial in real terms at the end of the 20 year period due to capital preservation. The West/Wall Street could make the investment without any difficulty. Instead, governments simply pass the buck and wait for that invisible fist to have its sport with the human race.

    Girls that would need the extra US$1,000 are the same girls with the highest birthrates and the lowest earning power.

    Certainly you must know that these girls are never going to get rich enough on their own and do quickly enough to give them consumerist choices about their fertility. There are simply not enough resources available, too many fertile young girls, not enough time. Girls reproduce much faster than they can be enriched, in doing so they defeat themselves and their children (along with everyone else).

    Paying girls not to have babies is also coercion but events are now outrunning the ability of managers to respond to them. It’s time to get serious or else …

    #5258
    gurusid
    Participant

    Hi rwg,

    That is a nice, very comprehensive, LCA. It is a bit out of date, though. It would be interesting to see how the major changes in technology would map out into a current LCA.

    If you read Stoneleighs earlier article on the “receding horizons of renewable energy” you will see this pertinent bit by George Monbiot:

    George Monbiot, writing for The Guardian in the UK, provides an insightful critique of FIT programmes in general:

    The real net cost of the solar PV installed in Germany between 2000 and 2008 was €35bn. The paper estimates a further real cost of €18bn in 2009 and 2010: a total of €53bn in ten years. These investments make wonderful sense for the lucky householders who could afford to install the panels, as lucrative returns are guaranteed by taxing the rest of Germany’s electricity users. But what has this astonishing spending achieved? By 2008 solar PV was producing a grand total of 0.6% of Germany’s electricity. 0.6% for €35bn. Hands up all those who think this is a good investment…. .

    As for stimulating innovation, which is the main argument Jeremy [Leggett] makes in their favour, the report shows that Germany’s feed-in tariffs have done just the opposite. Like the UK’s scheme, Germany’s is degressive – it goes down in steps over time. What this means is that the earlier you adopt the technology, the higher the tariff you receive. If you waited until 2009 to install your solar panel, you’ll be paid 43c/kWh (or its inflation-proofed equivalent) for 20 years, rather than the 51c you get if you installed in 2000.

    This encourages people to buy existing technology and deploy it right away, rather than to hold out for something better. In fact, the paper shows the scheme has stimulated massive demand for old, clunky solar cells at the expense of better models beginning to come onto the market. It argues that a far swifter means of stimulating innovation is for governments to invest in research and development. But the money has gone in the wrong direction: while Germany has spent some €53bn on deploying old technologies over ten years, in 2007 the government spent only €211m on renewables R&D.

    In principle, tens of thousands of jobs have been created in the German PV industry, but this is gross jobs, not net jobs: had the money been used for other purposes, it could have employed far more people. The paper estimates that the subsidy for every solar PV job in Germany is €175,000: in other words the subsidy is far higher than the money the workers are likely to earn. This is a wildly perverse outcome. Moreover, most of these people are medium or highly skilled workers, who are in short supply there. They have simply been drawn out of other industries.

    As with all industrial techniques the quickest/dirtiest/cheapest is used to bring a ‘technique’ to market (the saga of betamax vs. vhs exemplifies this conundrum) to maximise PROFIT.

    There are a few (very few) example where appropriate technology is used, but these are too far and few to be ‘impactful’ to any measurable extent. Check out the ISEC (International Society for Ecology and Culture) Ladahk project which attempts to develop “regionally appropriate development policies”.

    At the end of the day it is going to be a case of vastly reduced energy availability for the vast majority of remaining humans where ever they are (barring some break through in ‘fusion’). Complexity will be an ongoing issue – solar cells are extremely complicated to produce, versus a solar hot water heater which can be made from scrap material in your shed (yes I have made one and very effective it was too – enough ‘hot’ water to use in the washing machine, or have a ‘bucket bath’ – depending upon sunshine!). This is something people miss time and again – what is actually achievable on the ground and what is just pure fantasy. Your panels may last a hundred years, but if your inverter fails after FIVE years you will be reduced to whatever the panel output current/voltage is, and if your batteries fail after ten (that is unless your ‘connected to the grid via FIT – feed in tariff – in which case god help you when the power goes down – don’t get me started on power spikes in grids – see article for the fate of Kumar’s nice new printing equipment), you’ll be left with power only when the sun shines… if you can actually use it i.e. your ‘equipment’ will run on it.

    The real problems with all this techno-narcism is literally ‘too much magical thinking’ as Kunstler would say – people simply do not understand the physics, and even if they do, they do not then understand theory from what is actually physically practical. Add to that the ‘economic’ sh*t storm that we are in the eye of and the situation is at best hopeless, even if you can build a wind generator from scrap, – maybe it will allow you to listen to the world news on that old analogue long/short wave radio – but wait – oh no its all digital now isn’t it?…

    I agree with your ideas on insulation, but even that is fraught with difficulties – unless you’re building from scratch to attain a passiv haus standard. Check out this UK local council’s approach.

    I hope this makes some sense…

    L,
    Sid.

    #5286
    Anonymous
    Guest

    steve from virginia post=4929 wrote:
    Coercion takes many forms, it is part of a government tool kit. Forced/paid sterilization is unpleasant but it works and the alternative is unmentionable cost of uncontrolled population expansion … then, collapse.

    @steve from virginia
    ‘Unpleasant’ is an inadequate euphemism for utterly repugnant crimes of this magnitude.
    You really do have to read those linked articles to understand what ‘coercion’ means here, on what scale this is happening.
    From overwhelming anecdotal evidence it is clear that these are severe crimes being perpetrated, systematically violating human rights, and these brutal sterilisation campaigns target ethno-religious minorities, which mostly happen to be the local underclass, so they amount to a crime against humanity, genocide by UN definitions, forced mass sterilisation of defined minority groups or entire populations.
    This kind of violent coercion is not acceptable as policy because it is outrageously criminal, and it does not ‘work’ to lessen suffering due to overpopulation because it causes [greater] suffering more deliberately and more certainly than effects of overpopulation, by means of ‘policy’ which are not statistically generalised and probabilistic, but acutely accountable and determinate.

    Societal or individual suffering caused by overpopulationary poverty does not involve criminal complicity by legally accountable moral action, whereas the extent of such suffering cannot be readily quantified in the aggregate of society and causally isolated to absolute population size.
    Violent coercion [to remediate overpopulation] does involve such moral complicity, entailing [complicity in] acts which include crimes against individuals, communities and humanity, and such coercion is readily quantifiable in degrees of criminal complicity and in terms of material damage/bodily harm to individuals.
    Therefore, the effects of overpopulation are demonstrably legal, if unpleasant, whereas the means of violent coercion to prevent overpopulation are distinctly criminal, and demonstrably more unpleasant.
    The resultant suffering by such violent coercion is more morally reprehensible [as caused by deliberate political practice] than overcrowding-related suffering.

    In the context of coerced population control practiced in India and China, the euphemism of ‘coercion’ must be rectified to its proper meaning- criminal violence. This involves directly assaulting reproductive health, without peoples consent and against their will, inflicting permanent bodily harm and mental anguish.

    This coercion is dissimilar from the less damaging social-engineering forms of incentives and disincentives, paying women not to have children, or punishing them financially if they do.
    Rather, it takes the form of government health enforcers coming to a village and denying people access to basic necessities, water, food, until the men and women agree to be sterilised under threat of expropriation, ruination or death, which amounts to a technique of terrorism.
    Sometimes the health officials trick the villagers into undergoing an operation under false pretenses ‘to improve their general health’, and pregnant women are sterilised without their knowledge, causing them to miscarriage, often with medical complications and infections.
    This practice amounts to severe medical malfeasance, aggravated assault, murder and mayhem.

    In regards to the exposed practices in several countries, the forms of ‘coercion’ used for government-sanctioned population control are therefore reducible to the criminal meaning of physical violence or intimidation, threats of violence, against peoples health, livelihood and social viability.
    This is beyond the unpleasantness of monetary incentives and disincentives, and descends into the realm of eugenicist soft genocide.

    steve from virginia post=4929 wrote:
    Coercion is China’s ‘one child’ policy that punishes people who evade it and have more than one child. The one-child policy is unpleasant. It enrages people in the West but it works and is preferable to the West’s hypocrisy and denial. Part of the one-child policy is forced abortions and sex-determined abortions. The outcome of this unhappy policy is declining birthrates in China … this is the return on policy initiated 20 years ago.

    You should realise that forced abortion and infanticide is murder, and that this criminal practice is not incidental but systematically committed on entire populations. This is not ‘unhappy policy’ as such, but a genocidal crime against humanity according to lawful definitions. You could argue that ‘hypocritical’ western law and morality is wrong on this, and that the goal of declining birth rates justifies the most violent means, but its just not so. To not believe in human rights is to deny one’s own humanity.

    Again, if you’re familliar with chinese practices, such violent state crimes against humanity may ‘work’ to lessen overcrowding, but do nothing to lessen suffering, suffering being the principal effect of overcrowding. In fact, its established that these practices deliberately cause clearly accountable suffering, readily quantifiable, while not preventing any suffering beyond generalised statistical probabilities of overpopulationary poverty, unquantifiable.

    Furthermore, in part due to this abhorrent practice of coerced female infanticide [along with social status afforded by male offspring and the dowry system], India and China are showing increasingly skewed demographics towards the male gender. About 5-10% of all girls in those countries are aborted or infanticided now. This trend, promoting masses of unmarried men who are socially dysfunctional in strongly family-oriented communities, results in increased crime and societal stress, elevating the probability of war or violent revolution.

    The elderly in these countries also rely on extended family structures for a pension plan, which is destroyed by coercively controlling family size to one-child, whereas one-child ‘policy’, regardless of degrees of violent enforcement, causes the workforce to halve every generation, and labor productivity cannot consistently double to compensate. The cultural knowledge pool is equally diminished in this way, as the level of knowledge held by individuals cannot double every generation. Therefore, a one-child practice is inherently unsustainable in economic and cultural terms, and may yet cause greater suffering.

    If my own government was practicing these forms of violent assaults on people’s reproductive health, and no democratic recourse was available to abolish said practice, I might rightfully advocate and pursue the violent overthrow of such a criminal government. Its a matter of self-defense of personal health and reproductive rights, survival of the family, and of principle; official accountability under the rule of law and unconditional respect for human rights are minimal prerequisites for just governmental policy.

    steve from virginia post=4929 wrote:
    The secondary return is the percentage of China’s current wealth that is accountable to diminished population pressure. Unborn persons cannot consume capital which is then available for other — more remunerative — purposes. Supporting billions in permanent slums at the edge of destitution is not useful allocation of capital.

    This is a malthusian full-retard argument.
    You mistakenly assume that the poor can only consume and never produce, that slum-dwellers must be supported by allocation of productive capital, rather than subsisting off the affluent waste of industrial society, that they have no inherent right to exist, contrary to capital itself, and that their lives are not inviolate social capital which only they themselves may [re]allocate.
    And you further assume that capital resource stocks are fixed in quantity and cannot be expanded, that their use can not be made more efficient. Maybe against all odds one of those slum dwellers would have gone to college, started a business and finally commercialised cold fusion, if having been born. But I agree that slums are largely unproductive and inhumane means of existence, and that actual policy to minimise poverty, extend upwards social mobility and lessen the growth of slums is paramount, but not by genociding slum-dwellers or preventing their birth by violent coercion.

    Anyway, I do hope to change your mind on this coercion practice, its far worse than you might think, violently dehumanising [moreso than starvationary overcrowding], and morally a false dilemma.

    #5300
    Anonymous
    Guest

    P.S.
    For the West to not appear hypocritical and insensitive to local poverty, rather than sending India funds to enable these murderous practices, or condoning chinese affairs, the West should fund mass-adoption programs instead, adopting those unwanted children to supplement the declining western labor pool and remediate low fertility rates. Japan for instance will soon be in need of millions of fresh people from elsewhere as their domestic birthrate plummets from 1.21 to 0.21 as a result of chronic fukushima exposure.

    #5301
    gurusid
    Participant

    Why no debate on energy reduction?

    While there is a lot of media attention and focus on ‘alternative’ energy sources, there is little in the way of discussion on energy use and reduction. Often reports on alternative energy are linked also to the potentials for ‘jobs and growth’. But little attention is paid to the possibilities that might be entailed by a proactive move towards a lower energy economy, that it too might provide sustainable jobs and if not growth then certainly a vibrant new economy in energy reduction and conservation. However, as Ozzie Zehner points out in his book “Green Illusions” (2012, University of Nebraska Press), this is due in part to the way the media functions. Not because of direct control from the same corporations that own the media as own the energy and manufacturing concerns, but more from the general way the whole media system works:

    “Flirting with Truth
    Objectivity in journalism is frequently, yet mistakenly, understood as truth. Facts are slippery things, and news organizations understand that attempting to sell them directly would be shear folly. Instead, news organizations operate through proxy. Journalistic objectivity is not so much a rendering of truth as much as it is an attempt to accurately convey what others believe to be true. In order to achieve this rendering, experienced journalists instruct young journalists to keep their own beliefs and evaluations to themselves through a conscious depersonalization. Second, mentors instruct them to aim for balance, or field “both sides” of a controversial subject without showing favour to one side of the other. The news industry generally accepts this framework as the best way to go about reporting on issues and events. It’s certainly a lot better than some of the alternatives. Nevertheless, this truth-making strategy carries certain peculiarities.
    For example, news editors tend to judge stories supporting the status quo as more neutral than stories challenging it, which they understand as having a point of view, containing bias, of being opinion laden. Investigations that present empirical evidence and consider unfamiliar alternatives are not as valued as the familiar “balance of opinions.” As a result, journalists reduce energy debates to a contest between alternative-energy technologies and conventional fossil fuels. We have all witnessed these pit fights: wind versus coal for electrical production, ethanol versus petroleum for vehicular fuels. Pitting production against production effectively sidelines energy reduction options, as if productivist methods are the only choices available. Have you ever seen news segments that pit solar cells against energy-efficient lighting or that toss biofuels in the ring with walkable communities? Probably not. I have so far come across only a handful of examples out of thousands of reports.
    Pitting production versus production seems natural, but it leads to some unintended effects. First, these debates set a low bar for alternative-energy technologies; its not difficult to look good when you are being compared to the perfectly dismal practices of mining, distributing, and burning oil, gas, and coal. Imagine if wine critics judged every Bordeaux against a big bottle of acidic vinegar that’s been sitting in grandpa’s cupboard for two decades; it would be difficult for a winemaker to perform poorly in such a contest. Secondly, journalistic dichotomies reduce apparent options to an emaciated choice between Technology A and Technology B. This leaves little space for non-technical alternatives. It also misses negative effects that both Technologies A and B have in common. Finally, pitting alternative-energy technologies against fossil fuel gives the impression that increasing alternative-energy flows will correspondingly decrease fossil-fuel consumption. It won’t – at least not in America’s current socioeconomic system…” (p.154-6)

    Further:

    “Understaffed news rooms increasingly fall back on source journalism – initiating stories using material distributed by public relations firms and corporations. (This contrasts with the more time consuming practice of investigative journalism.) Today about half of news stories arise from press releases. This helps explain the nauseating barrage of articles touting new green gadgets, which are simply rewritten press releases from companies promoting their products or researchers eager to attract attention (and funding) for their often half baked schemes. Readers and viewers have a hard time distinguishing between these rewritten PR scripts and traditional journalism. Reported uncritically and replicated in bulk quantities, these pieces toke news users on the kind of consumerist high typically achieved only through infomercials.” (p.159)

    He goes on to describe how BP put solar panels on their filling stations, with phrases like “Plug into the Sun” and “We can fill you up with sunshine” (p.160) as if this somehow offset the contents going into the tanks. In this information age of ‘info-tainment’ it is not surprising that the general populace hasn’t got a clue; he points out that many see energy efficiency as boring and the more glamorous PV cells and wind turbines as more appealing to the entertainment hungry populace – of course it won’t be nearly as boring as sitting in a cold and draughty house (or tent!) when you are flat broke and can’t afford the heating costs – wishing you had invested in some insulation (or thermal underwear!)

    It seems that instead of preparing for a much more frugal future we are rushing like lemmings towards an energy cliff that will have a similar effect (without the encouragement of a film crew shooing us off – even lemmings have a basic self preservation instinct).

    But all is not lost. The example of the late Edo period in Japan (1603-1868) is examined in Azby Brown’s “Just Enough” (2009, Published by Kodansha International Ltd). It shows how a society turned back from the brink of environmental disaster and economic collapse to produce a flourishing culture that was truly sustainable, proving that it is possible to change direction.

    L, Sid.

    #5304
    gurusid
    Participant

    Reply to Viscount St Albans who wrote:

    “I suspect there must be some problems with these EROEI #s.

    The center of the field/specialty is basically a single academic and his former students at a very obscure state university with very little research infrastructure. I don’t see how it’s possible that he could reliably generate these #s under those circumstances.

    Why is this such an obscure field?

    If there were real smoke here, then one should see this topic being pursued at some of the other big name institutions.

    I don’t doubt the existence of EROEI, of course, it just seems pretty clear that the precise calculations being used here are probably quite slippery and highly subjective.”

    &

    ” The problem with EROEI analysis is one of boundary definition.

    Where do you set the boundary for input costs?
    Where do you set the boundary for output gains?

    The costs aren’t uniformly borne and the gains aren’t uniformly shared, so even if you could agree to the boundary definitions, it’s even less likely you’ll agree on methods for measuring individual variables. 500 calories of shoeshining and toilet plunging do not equal 500 calories worth of corner office deal making (never have and never will).

    So now what?

    This problem plagued the field in the early 1970s when it first came to widespread discussion within the federal government, and the problem persists today.

    If nobody agrees to the boundaries of the input costs and output gains, then the #s are largely meaningless.

    Your EROEI shows 0.1, mine shows 6. Who is right? Who is wrong? Does your great-grand-baby want fries with that? The spiritual component in unquantifiable. My paradise is your parking lot.”

    While there are some problems with EROIs they are tending to err on the side of not including enough of the energy inputs used in the ‘production’ processes. Often these are ‘hidden’ by societies blindness to its energy use, such as the fuel distribution system for instance, which was included for the first time in one of Charles Hall’s analyses at the Oil drum .

    More generally the biggest problem is the analysis itself which I think you allude to in your comment on ‘boundary conditions’. This has been examined in some detail by Drs Ayres and Warr and their concept of ‘exergy services’, that is the role of the physical work (thermodynamic ‘work’ not economic ‘work’ jobs etc) created from the available energy (“Exergy is the correct thermodynamic term for `available energy’ or `useful energy’, or energy capable of performing mechanical, chemical or thermal work.” (Ibid. P.4)) in an economy, and the uses to which it is put (work jobs etc). This seeks to overcome the category error that is often made in economic circles when trying to translate energy, a purely physical term, into economic terms such as production (goods and services – work) and capital (money). As one can see the whole area gets very confusing very quickly with things like physical works vs. economic work.

    William Rees and his student Mathis Wackernagel have done a lot to ground the “unquantifiable” in resource use in general with their concept of the Ecological footprint (EROI is basically the ‘energy’ component of the ecological footprint of obtaining said energy). While there is a lot of ‘subjectivity’ (in terms of personal/institutional bias) in all accounting processes, these efforts are developing rapidly and are far better than ignoring the idea completely which is what had happened till recently and still does happen in most circles of human activity today. Don’t forget the ‘Limits to Growth’ report was in 1972, , the Bruntland Commission in 1987, and the first Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 and look how long these ‘new’ ideas have taken to be accepted – if at all – and the effect that they have had on reducing humans environmental impact (i.e. NOT). EROI along with other concepts such as ‘Ecological Foot-printing’ and Energy Accounting/auditing are all relatively new ideas and are taking time to sink slowly into the human psyche – whether they will sink in quickly enough is another debate entirely. Thomas Kuhn’s “ The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1962) shows how intractable the human mind is to new paradigms; the old order literally has to die off (or retire!) for a new idea to get accepted.

    Also as these concepts and research areas are relatively new, they are often difficult to get funding applications for (ironically) as they do not lead, for instance, to direct reductions in carbon emissions or profitable business opportunities (don’t get me started on the gold plating of ivory towers). I know from personal experience how underwhelming the reception was of our own energy auditing research at a key (research top 10) UK based University. As I pointed out in another comment, energy conservation is just not very glamorous, and energy ‘accounting’ even less so. Ce la vie…

    As regards the confusion between ‘net energy’ (referred to in your link) and EROI, this article has a good take on it:

    But before I get into that, a quick note on terminology. The financial return on investment is known as ROI. The analogue in energy, the energy return on investment or EROI (also expressed as EROEI, for “energy return on energy invested”) is a ratio of the energy produced to the energy invested in its production. Some, including me, have also referred to EROI as “net energy,” but that really confuses the terms. For parallelism with the language of finance, net energy should refer to energy produced minus energy invested, whereas EROI should refer to energy produced divided by energy invested.

    From a purely systems perspective, what we are dealing with is a “dissipative system”; and as energy into that system becomes more and more entrained into procuring that energy, less will be available for other functions within that system. What we need is a different system from our current linear and wasteful one (again see my previous comments).

    L,
    Sid.

    #5305
    gurusid
    Participant

    Gravity wrote:

    P.S.
    For the West to not appear hypocritical and insensitive to local poverty, rather than sending India funds to enable these murderous practices, or condoning chinese affairs, the West should fund mass-adoption programs instead, adopting those unwanted children to supplement the declining western labor pool and remediate low fertility rates. Japan for instance will soon be in need of millions of fresh people from elsewhere as their domestic birthrate plummets from 1.21 to 0.21 as a result of chronic fukushima exposure.

    Or maybe move westerners to India:

    L,
    Sid.

Viewing 29 posts - 1 through 29 (of 29 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.