The Bullroarer - Tuesday 3rd February 2009

The Australian - Rudd's green jobs plan to insulate economy

KEVIN Rudd will use a multi-billion-dollar green jobs package to stimulate the economy as new figures show the budget will be at least $15 billion a year in deficit for the next four years, before adding in the cost of new spending. More than 2.2 million owner-occupied homes will qualify for free ceiling insulation under the Prime Minister's plan, an element of a multi-pronged economic stimulation package expected to be announced tomorrow.

SMH - We love a sunburnt country (our air-conditioners, too)

BLACKOUTS that left Adelaide and Melbourne residents sweating in soaring temperatures could hit Sydney as power grids strain and the city braces for 42-degree heat. The Energy Networks Association, which represents gas and electricity companies, said grids were stretched to capacity and warned of more power failures.

"More blackouts will come as we get warmer temperatures. We've got temperatures and energy demand both at records at the moment," the association's chief executive, Andrew Blyth, said. The Federal Government had to invest $50 billion in upgrading energy infrastructure nationally to drag it out of the 1950s, he said.


Drive.com.au - Mitsubishi electric car charged for 2010

An electric car looks set to go on sale in Australia next year for as little as $30,000. The top secret plan to sell the Mitsubishi i-MiEV, codenamed Project Green Drive, has been in the pipeline for almost a year led by a team predominantly in their 20s and 30s.

SMH - Coalition pays lip service to reducing emissions

With the Nationals so entrenched against the scheme - despite its promised compensation for households, assistance to polluters, initial exemption for agriculture, and creation of thousands of "green" jobs - it is little wonder Malcolm Turnbull produced his own policy 10 days ago that pays lip service to reducing emissions, while avoiding an emissions trading scheme.

With the Coalition divided, Turnbull pushed a scheme involving planting trees, returning carbon to the soil, making buildings more energy efficient and promoting carbon capture and storage, with the suggestion Labor had ignored all these alternatives.

In reality, Labor, in addition to its scheme, has pledged well over $1 billion for clean coal and renewable energy projects, and is already studying the viability of returning carbon to the soil.

The Australian - Solar power will create jobs, say Greens

Senator Brown and the Greens' only Qld MP, Ronan Lee, today launched a plan to create more than 7600 green-collar jobs in the sunshine state. Senator Brown said retrofitting Queensland homes with better insulation and solar hot water tanks would reduce power bills for consumers and create 3200 jobs by its fifth year of operation. ...

Mr Lee said the party would also invest in two 250 megawatt solar power stations for Townsville and the Darling Downs. "Between them they would create 4000 jobs in the construction phase, and 400 ongoing positions," he said.

The Australian - Warning of more heatwave blackouts

AUTHORITIES have been warned to prepare for more damaging power blackouts, as the massive financial losses and the number of deaths from the heatwave that has crippled southeast Australia grow. Temperatures in Adelaide reached 40C again yesterday and the soaring temperatures are forecast to remain throughout this week. South Australian police yesterday declined to reveal the number of sudden deaths reported to them over the weekend, but it is believed there were up to a dozen yesterday and a few more on Saturday.

Blip.tv - Charmaine Watts at SEANZ talks about renewable energy in New Zealand

Charmaine Watts, Chief Executive Officer of the Sustainable Electricity Association of New Zealand (SEANZ), talks about the energy situation in her country and her group's efforts to encourage the deployment of more renewable energy generation there, recorded between LA and the North Island of New Zealand

WorldChanging - Resource: Green Urbanism Down Under

Australia and America share many cultural similarities. Among them: roots in Great Britain, a "New World" legacy of both optimism and exploitation, and a car-centric culture. But while Australia has become a trailblazer on the path to sustainable urban development, the United States still has much to learn.

Guide2.co.nz - L&M Petroleum Granted Second Term To Drill Waiau Field

L&M Petroleum has been granted a second five-year term to drill the onshore Waiau field, 60km west of Invercargill, which it shares with Mighty River Power. .. L&M was obliged to drill at least two coal seam gas wells this year with the first scheduled for May, depending on rig availability.

SF Chronicle - Ausra's Robert Fishman talks about funding solar

Q: Can renewable power keep growing now that oil and natural gas prices are low again?

A: The real question that people have to ask themselves is not what the cost of renewable energy is compared to natural gas-fired energy. It's what are you really trying to solve here? We're trying to solve security issues with imported energy, and solve climate change and create jobs. Also remember, energy prices at the moment are artificially low because of the low economic activity.

SMH - Blow for energy proposal

THE state's first industrial biomass energy plant is under a cloud after major electricity companies have decided not to recognise it as an accredited supplier of renewable power. A woodchip mill near Eden plans to build a biomass plant on site, burning waste wood to create electricity both to run the mill and supply the local power grid. Opponents argue that burning wood to create power is no cleaner than burning coal, and more inefficient.

The Australian - AGL is ready to go on acquisition trail

AGL is already Australia's largest owner of renewable energy, with about 27 per cent of its total generation capacity in clean energy investments such as wind farms and hydro-electric plants. Fraser has big plans to boost the company's renewable energy assets to ride the expected long-term growth in the sector, with plans to expand in wind farms, hydro-power and coal seam gas as well as less proven technologies such as geothermal (hot rocks). "We can see, in the long term, between 40 to 50 per cent of our generation capacity will come from renewables," he says,

ABC - Customers should shoulder full energy cost: suppliers

Electricity suppliers say consumers should be expected to pay the full cost of power under the Federal Government's plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Voxy - Green Party Presents Policy Challenge

"The Government should make it a rule to only buy the most fuel-efficient cars - the best-in-class," Norman said at the Green Party's Picnic for the Planet. "The best car for the job will save the country at least $30m a year in fuel costs." Initiatives such as fuel-efficiency in the Government's vehicle fleet were the building blocks for a Green New Deal, Dr Norman said. "It is a response to both the financial crisis and the climate crisis."

In another new call, the Green Party Co-Leader challenged John Key to set standards for smart electricity meters: "You should be able to choose to run your dishwasher late at night and pay the cheapest rate for electricity; and sell power to the grid from rooftop solar panels." "My challenge to John Key is to show that his is a smart government by requiring smart meters that will reduce peak power demand and save consumers money."

Dr Norman's speech reiterated a call to reinstate the Green Homes Fund for families "facing another winter huddling by heaters they can hardly afford." Norman described the billion-dollar Fund as a common-sense "shot of adrenalin for the building sector" that would create jobs and cut power bills.

ABC - Melb water storages drop 5pc

The hot, dry conditions have led to a substantial reduction in Melbourne's water storages.

Peak Energy - The benefits of an intercontinental energy grid

ScienceAlert has an article on a DESERTEC Australia proposal to link the Australian gas an electricity grids with east Asia - The benefits of an intercontinental energy grid.

Peak Energy - Oil players stockpile cheap crude on tankers

Peak Energy - Cheap, superefficient LED Lights On The Horizon

Peak Energy - Flush Hour: Oslo Buses Fueled By Biogas

Peak Energy - Severn Tidal Power Project Update

Peak Energy - The Ten Best Green Jobs for the Next Decade

Peak Energy - Green Walls In Chile

Peak Energy - The farms race

Peak Energy - Rudd Calls For New World Order

It has a 47kW electric motor (about 25 per cent less power than a Toyota Yaris) and can be driven for up to 160 kilometres on each charge. It can be recharged in a regular powerpoint in about eight hours, or for just 20 minutes in a dedicated higher voltage outlet.

The Drive article regurgitates another of the usual critisisms of EVs (although, to be fair, this article was about as balanced as they come). ICEs are rated on peak power/torque. Electric motors are rated on continuous power/torque. An electric motor can be 'overdriven' for short periods of time by as much as 400%(usually rated for 1 or 5 minutes). AC motors with water cooling can be 'overdriven' practically forever, if the radiator and water flow is large enough. So in reality, the i-MiEV is rated, if you use the same system as ICEs, at 141 - 188kW, enough to scare the daylights out of most 6cyl passenger cars, and, with its lightweight body and the electric motors ability to deliver maximum torque from zero RPM, probably enough to give many V8's a shock at the 'main road drags'.

160KM range is well more than enough for an average commuter as well, given that the average car only does 50-odd km a day here in Australia. And if Mitsubishi can bring out an all-electric vehicle within 24 months, it pretty much negates a large portion of the Green Car Plan and GCIF.

Victorian Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu blamed the state's inability to cope with the heatwave on the Brumby Government. "We have lost wages, we have lost stock, we've lost sales, we've lost reputation, we've lost capacity," he said.

"The Government has to take responsibility for that."

The people can take some responsability as well. They know the heat is going to cause blackouts due to overdemand, yet they still run their airconditioners all day, trying to cool the entire house down to 22 degrees, instead of either just living with it, or setting the aircon to the mid 30's, just enough to take the edge off.

The best way to get people to take responsibility with their air conditioners is smart meters and dynamic pricing - there isn't any incentive to behave sensibly under the current system.

Rudd's insulation stimulus has pleased the insulation industry - SMH - Insulation plan to create 4000 jobs

PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd's plan to offer free insulation to 2.7 million houses could create 4000 new jobs throughout the industry, say business groups. Building and insulation groups have welcomed the plan, outlined today as part of a $42 billion stimulus plan over four years, saying it was a welcome step in creating green jobs.

Among the main beneficiaries is likely to be businesses involved in the insulation industry, as well as the manufacturing industry. The Insulation Council of Australia and New Zealand (ICANZ) President, Dennis D'Arcy said the plan could have a ''terrific multiplier effect'', creating as many as 4000 jobs.

The problem with the green economy is that you need to buy it all brand new, and it usually costs a bomb. It costs financially and it costs environmentally. Why can't we just make do with all the infrastructure we've got? it's not like we need any more stuff. Companies are finding it increasingly tough finding buyers for all the excess stuff as it is, with the economy going into a tail-spin. After all, many durable items can last 10 to 20 years, with a bit of maintenance. The green economy is just another way of running the status quo, slapping ourselves on the back for it, while continuing to exhaust finite resources.

Whatever happens, we're constantly buying and building new stuff anyway. Roads get holes, railway sleepers creep up and rails buckle, old power pylons fall over, power stations wear out, houses fall apart, and so we have to replace them all. We always have to buy and build stuff.

The only question is just what we'll buy and build.

We're going to spend billions on transport infrastructure, billions on electricity generation, billions on housing, and so on. It can be energy-efficient transport, or wasteful; renewable energy, or polluting energy depending on declining resources; houses which can be comfortable without 3kW of cooling and heating, or only with it; and so on.

It's the building of the new which is ruining the planet. If we want to conserve what's left of our patrimony then we should stop doing, and just be - you know "power down?". We have more than enough shit already.

Doesn't matter what it's used for, the continued exhaustion of finite resources is a plague upon nature.

There are 3 things needed to solve the problem :

1. Shift to clean, renewable energy sources -> no more extraction of resources for energy

2. Stabilise population by making everyone (particularly women) wealthier, better educated and with free access to contraception -> reduce the need to construct new cities / buildings etc

3. Adopt cradle-to-cradle manufacturing systems (ie. super recycling) -> no more extraction of resources for making stuff

None of these ideas are new or impractical - they just need to be put into practice.

1. You have to extract the resources to build the infrastructure. All of a sudden you help worsen the very problem "clean, renewable energy sources" are supposed to solve - climate change.

2. Firstly, stabilising the population will do nothing to mitigate overshoot - the people are already here. Secondly, making someone wealthier typically results in increased resource consumption.

3. As if super recycling won't need energy (besides an entirely new economic system), and you can't recycle everything - entropy, you know? So you have to keep on extinguishing finite resources.

No, none of these things are new. These sort of valiant ideas have been around for decades (*yawn), and I warrant that they are very impractical, because they and other solutions in isolation, only worsen the predicament of overshoot, since they encourage continued consumption of finite resources.

Further, what evidence is there to support your claims? Are the various governments of the world sprinting to remake social, cultural and economic systems to mitigate the spectre of climate change, or are they merely focussed on preserving the status quo?

Yeah, I suggest you go and write all that up in an article for anz.tod. Put some hard numbers to it. How much steel needed? How much aluminium? How much oil? All that.

Then, and only then, can we believe you when you say that building some renewable infrastructure will ruin the planet, create overshoot, etc.

I'm frankly tired of this "doom is self-evident" stuff. It's as useless and unfounded as the Science! and The Market! rubbish - "they'll think of something" and "the free market will sort it out." It's a simple statement of a belief founded on no facts at all.

If Science! or The Market! will save us, or if Doom! is inevitable no matter what, then of course none of us need to do anything, to make any effort to change our lifestyles, get our elected representatives and corporate leaders to change policies, and so on. Cornucopia or doom, we just sit on our arses.

Which is so amazingly convenient that I just have to be sceptical.

Unless of course you have those facts, or can get them, and write them up for us, showing how they lead rationally to your conclusions. Otherwise I've no more reason to believe you than I have to believe the old guy outside Flinders Street station telling me that Jesus will come back in our lifetimes, right after a world-shattering war.

If you're into the old powerdown, then perhaps we could see an article from you on your powered-down lifestyle. I've written one, and we're working towards that. How about you?

I don't believe the resources required to build an energy system that runs entirely on wind, solar, geothermal, tidal/wave, hydro and biogas power are all that large compared to our current resource consumption.

As Kiashu suggests, show this requires so much resources that we'll destroy the planet if you genuinely believe its true.

Once they are built, and we've adopted to cradle to cradle techniques, then we don't need any more resources. You can recycle everything if you design it correctly (design for disassembly etc).

Entropy is a red herring - we are always getting new energy into the system from the sun - more than 10,000 times what we currently consume.

Next, prosperous (as opposed to obscenely rich) people have less children, which greatly reduces their resource consumption.

In any case, if all the energy they use comes from renewable sources, and everything they consume gets recycled completely, who cares how much stuff they 'consume" - it no longer matters.

The fact that people haven't bothered doing this just shows they haven't needed to thus far, nothing more.

You two are just pissing in the wind. Are we not damaging the environment at an accelerating rate, whole ecosystems unraveling? Are we not exhausting finite resources, upon which we depend for our every need, 1000's of times faster than they were laid down on earth? Is the population not still growing without any sign of abating? Are all political and economic leaders not committed to perpetual growth (human and material), growth which today relies entirely on fossil fuel, and other finite resources? In fact are not the majority of people in all countries clamouring for more growth, not less? Is not geopolitical tension escalating as the earth becomes more crammed and less yielding of its fruits?

I'm sorry it is you who need to show us the evidence that your fantasy eco-consumption future is more credible than the evidence that lies before your very eyes.

Speaking of wind, if you require, on average, 150 sq km's to support a wind farm that can supply roughly 1000 megawatts, as this place in Germany, then how much area is needed to make up for just a 2% decline in the oil supply (ASPO suggested post-peak decline rate) per annum. 2% is not even that steep really, only a shade over 120,000 MW's (electricity equivalent). Well, how much surface area, steel, concrete, diesel, roads, electricity towers, undersea cable etc needs to be installed to mitigate just one years decline in equivalent energy? Come on, you're clever guys, do the math.

Then reconcile that with the fact that, despite years of heroic effort, global wind capacity is only just over 120,000 MW's now, and the wheels have fallen off the world economy, casting a long shadow over your hopes and dreams.

As for me I live comfortably (for now), own a business, pays a good living, don't fly anymore, own 1 10 year old car, have 4 pushbikes, (of which I should ride more often), walk to the local fruit market if the weather's nice, installed energy saving this, and eco-friendly that - often at great expense. For instance, my hot water went down recently, I coughed up $6000 AUD to install a heat pump (still waiting for my nearly $2000 in clean energy rebates from one government or the other), which work like reverse air-cons, heating water from the surrounding air. However my neighbour, faced with a similar problem just fitted a classic electric hot water storage system, running off-peak. He only forked out $1500, and what's more his hot water bill will still be lower than mine, despite doing the right thing by the environment and all.

So, if my neighbours' aren't compelled to switch from old hot water systems (and why would they if the economics don't stack up for them anyway?), then all my, and your, efforts are in vain. Unless we change institutionally then our individual efforts, as laudable as they might be, are in vain. If all new renewable energy is installed merely to supplement existing fossil fuel use, then it's all in vain. Mitigation of the myriad problems besetting us today is a chimera without it.

I'm sorry it is you who need to show us the evidence that your fantasy eco-consumption future is more credible than the evidence that lies before your very eyes.

You say that, then tell us further down that you're busy 'eco-consuming' yourself. If your hot water went down, and you have any conviction that 'building new' was killing the Earth, you'd not have bought a new one.

Speaking of wind, if you require, on average, 150 sq km's to support a wind farm that can supply roughly 1000 megawatts, as this place in Germany, then how much area is needed to make up for just a 2% decline in the oil supply (ASPO suggested post-peak decline rate) per annum. 2% is not even that steep really, only a shade over 120,000 MW's (electricity equivalent).

Electricity is 5 times more efficient than Heat Engines, so it's really 5000W. And you can still do things under the turbines, as they don't actually take up 150km2.
Incidentally, it's not '120,000mW's'. It's 120,000mWh's (assuming the figure is correct). Likewise, the offshore Wind farm will produce a hell of a lot more mWh than just 1000 each year. The Farm is expected to provide 3tWh of electricity per year, which is some 25,000 times greater per year than a 2%pa decline in Oil supplies (3tWh / 120kmWh, or 3,000,000,000,000 / 120,000,000).

and the wheels have fallen off the world economy, casting a long shadow over your hopes and dreams.

Sounds like the best time to make a Renewables push, to me. Governments can force it through as 'nation-building', because private industry sure isn't going to be investing and building much of anything for the next decade.

If all new renewable energy is installed merely to supplement existing fossil fuel use, then it's all in vain.

Replacing filthy, polluting, finite-resourse consuming fossil fuel infrastructure with clean, non-polluting, renewable infrastructure is in vain. Gotcha.

1) It's MW's pal. A 5 megawatt wind turbine delivers, well 5 megawatts of electricity, at full capacity, so you'd need 20,000 of these monsters to deliver the same amount of energy as that contained in a 2% oil decline. Actually more so, since the things never run at 100% efficiency.

2) And since there is no wind turbine that can build another wind turbine, and still leave a useful amount of energy left over to do other things with, then I guess you're stuffed, and have to turn to fossil fuels to do the heavy lifting of running the rest of society.

3) Renewables projects are being shelved faster than even future oil projects, in the current climate.

4) None of your business what I do buddy. Your mate asked a question, and I responded.

5) Yep, all that shit is in vain, so long as we keep exhausting finite resources and our population keeps growing.

Almost everything you said there is wrong.

Try and tone down the attitude, and add some references that back up your wilder claims, if you can find any...

Dear Big Gav; please explain which of the following statements are wrong, or wildly exaggerated, unless we are living in parallel universes, or something?

Are we not damaging the environment at an accelerating rate, whole ecosystems unraveling?

Are we not exhausting finite resources, upon which we depend for our every need, 1000's of times faster than they were laid down on earth?

Is the population not still growing without any sign of abating?

Are all political and economic leaders not committed to perpetual growth (human and material), growth which today relies entirely on fossil fuel, and other finite resources?

In fact are not the majority of people in all countries clamouring for more growth, not less?

Is not geopolitical tension escalating as the earth becomes more crammed and less yielding of its fruits?

> Are we not damaging the environment at an accelerating rate, whole ecosystems unraveling?

I never said we weren't - in fact I've been documenting this process for years.

> Are we not exhausting finite resources, upon which we depend for our every need, 1000's of times faster than they were laid down on earth?

There are few truly finite resources (oil, gas and coal are - almost everything else isn't).

We don't need to depend on these for our every need - we could do without oil, gas and coal completely if we could be bothered changing our energy and transport systems.

> Is the population not still growing without any sign of abating?

No it isn't. Most models show population levelling off around 9.5 billion people around 2050. Lots of countries already have negative population growth. Educating women and giving them economic opportunities accelerates this trend.

> Are all political and economic leaders not committed to perpetual growth (human and material), growth which today relies entirely on fossil fuel, and other finite resources?

Economic growth does not depend on finite resources (aka oil, gas and coal).

> In fact are not the majority of people in all countries clamouring for more growth, not less?

Yes. That isn't a problem.

> Is not geopolitical tension escalating as the earth becomes more crammed and less yielding of its fruits?

I see no evidence that there is more geopolitical tension today than there was at any other period of time in the past 5 centuries.

There is significantly less tension (and wars underway) now than there was during most of the 20th century.

1) You get billed in *Wh's, so rater capacity in *W is irrelevant.

2) There is no ICE that can build another ICE, no Oil refinery that can build another Oil refinery, no supertanker that can build another supertanker, no pipeline that can buiold another pipeline, no petrol station etc etc. You use the energy to run a seperate machine/s that can build another of whatever it is you want. Cars, for example, are built by machines that run on electricity.
If we need Fossil Fuels to do the 'heavy lifting', I guess all that mining equipment and Heavy Rail that runs on electricity is a big waste of funds by the companies involved, eh.

3) So?

4) You told us what you do.

5) Population is the key.

As Kiashu mentioned above, your collapse fixation is the same as the Science! or The Market! crowd, in that nothing is required from you. This is a dangerous mindset.

1. Wind and solar needs to be collected, concentrated and stored to provide energy when we need it, where its needed which costs money and energy. With FF's nature did all that for us already.

2. No kidding. All that, 5MW monster wind turbines and cars, either directly or indirectly, rely on a fossil fuel based economy. A reliance which is only increasing due to the imperatives of population and economic growth.

3. So seeing that projects of this scale take many years to come online, aren't you the least bit anxious that the infrastructure meant to replace oil won't be there, once we go sailing over the peak oil plateau?

4. Kiashu was coming across all "holier than thou". I was merely being frank about my living arrangements. Forgive me for being born in modern times, I'll just go off with the local hunter gatherers, since discovering that modern life is a cruel joke, except they've got TV's and cars now too.

5. The laws of biology, ecology and physics are a real downer for the perpetually optimistic.

5. The laws of biology, ecology and physics are a real downer for the perpetually optimistic.

Many so called "laws" are more like guidelines anyway... especially when it comes to biology and ecology where some of the underlying models are stochastic.

Newtons law of gravity was great until Einstein crashed the party.

Or more irreverently whatever happened to phlogiston and the ether?

A little respect for uncertainty please... a science career is built on exploring it ;-)

Is "Doomer Determinism" the apocalyptic vision that atheists have instead of the Fundamentalists determined view that "the end times" are nigh?

Many so called "laws" are more like guidelines anyway... especially when it comes to biology and ecology where some of the underlying models are stochastic.

Priceless! Let's see. There have probably been over 20 million species in existence since life began on Earth, all, bound by the same biology, reliant on the natural environment, and subject to the immutable laws of thermodynamics. Yet somehow, because you say so, humans, just one of these species, is somehow exempt from them. I'd say that the odds of that are ~20 million to 1 against!

You get to use the "because you say so" phrase only when someone says what you allege they said... Rocket Man... and this is at least the second time you've tried this on in this thread.

I did not say that humans are exempt from any of the so called laws that you continually propose TOTALLY determine our fates. But nowhere in your "immutable" laws is there anything that says "were doomed - Doomed".

I am uncertain of "our" fate.. and despite the current crop of elected leaders hope, that "our" future can be better. Your strident certitude that all are fools who can not see the future YOU see written in the immutable laws you worship on the other hand - zealotry is always unattractive.

I take your ridiculous underestimate of the number of "species" that have ever existed as an indicator of your general level of comprehension. There are millions of "species" of bacteria in the soil beneath our feet... all of them having had evolutionary predecessors - presumably now extinct...
There are millions of species of insect, NOW.

Which leads into your silly statistical argument. You can't use probability in this way to win roulette!

Just as you can't use probability in this way to argue that the sun will forever rise...

About the laws of thermodynamics... these state that the fate of the universe is a cold entropy "death"... eventually. But it is less clear about the rate at which individual systems within the universe approach this fate... which is why systems like the Earth, with a continual input of energy can actually have localized decreased entropy. A point Gav made but which you missed... willingly or through lack of understanding.

I can have an explosive mix of H2 and O2 sitting in a bottle... the forward reaction for which is thermodynamically favored by its Delta G... and yet nothing will happen. For the next step we turn to Kinetics. All laws have limits... THATS NOT TO SAY we are exempt... merely stating the obvious. The applicability of Thermodynamic laws to the analysis of human behavior is not as certain a proposition as you seem to believe. Sure, we cant perpetual motion machine our way out of this, but we can change. Well, some of us...

If you were a skeptic, you might having something to contribute.

Maybe you are the antagonist in the Monty Python Argument Sketch?

Youtube

Further correspondence will not be entered into.

SaturnV I admire your lifestyle (and nickname - most powerful machine ever created, eh!) and I hope you stick around TOD long enough to see that people here have some useful and nuanced information that can help you to stop worrying. The future appears challenging, but there's no need to panic when one reads somebody else's doomy (and in the case of the wind farm, wildly inaccurate) projections.

Big Gav is right on the beam about population growth going into reverse once people (esp. women) have even a modicum of economic stability. Fortunately we are getting to the point where around half the world's population already live in countries at sub-replacement fertility. This is a cause for celebration! (And if we pulled our fingers out and did something about making small social security payments to the world's poor, then this trend would be dramatically improved.)

Renewable energy *can* power society, but we face an interesting time in the next 20 years, since the Peak Oil Cliff will probably arrive in 2012 before the Renewable Power-Up has occurred. This will be a WW2-sized emergency, but I think that humans don't concentrate unless we have a challenge, and this will prove to be our "finest hour".

Cretaceous, thanks very much for the kind welcome. I don't envy my lifestyle nearly as much as you might. I have lived at much lower standards than I presently enjoy, but today have the pressure of raising a young family, which makes it difficult to escape the dominant economic and social mantra. Some of my clueless relatives feel sorry for me because I drive an old car, even though I can afford to buy a new one, or because I send my kids' to the local public school (2 mins by foot down the street) instead of driving them 20 kms each way to a private school where they can be "better connected" in the future. Given the fateful trajectory we are headed down, I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I hear talking about the future like it's going to be some rerun of the past, only faster.

I'm sorry, but I don't share your optimism, even if I did, not sure what good it would do since the world is filled with people determined to take it the opposite direction to the one you so hope for. All the best anyway!