<nettime> sunshine on my spreadsheet digest [t barlow x2, bc x 2, leszi x1]

["nettime's_solar_anus" <nettime@bbs.thing.net>]

Toby Barlow <toby@solararmy.org>
     Re: <nettime>  Re: the development of a solar infrastructure
bc <human@electronetwork.org>
     Re: <nettime>  Re: the development of a solar infrastructure
bc <human@electronetwork.org>
     For the Record: lunar digestive tract
"Leszi" <arcadia@lynchburg.net>
     Re: <nettime> Re: solar infrastructure
Toby Barlow <toby@solararmy.org>
     Re: <nettime>  Re: the development of a solar infrastructure

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 20:09:27 -0800 (PST)
From: Toby Barlow <toby@solararmy.org>
Subject: Re: <nettime>  Re: the development of a solar infrastructure

Wow, what a trip. Please, before I waste any more of
your time, LOOK AT THE SITE, solar bonds are energy
bonds, bundling conservation and, in some cases, wind
to make the economies work. The math is very tight,
that's why the comptroller of San Francisco endorsed
Prop B. 

As to the powers that be, well, bring 'em on. 

The "mining of raw materials" issue you bring up is
enormously irrelevant. You're going to compare
silicon, the second most common element on earth, to
uranium?

As for the regions, last time I checked there was sun
everywhere. Germany has a lot more solar than we do
and they're located farther north in a cloudy climate.
And they're pretty damn smart when it comes to
allocating their technological resources. 

Again, check out the site. Goodnight.
  
--- bc <human@electronetwork.org> wrote:
> 
> Toby Barlow from solararmy.org replied:
> 
> >I think your questions are good ones. I think there
> >are ideas worth studying here. But the question I
> have
> >is a fundamental one. Solar is a mature technology
> >with an immature manufacturing and marketing base,
> so
> >how do you change that?
> 
>   i do not know. many people have tried, though, as
> you
>   are probably well aware of. politicians.
> scientists. and
>   activists.  economics has been the easiest
> dismissal of
>   solar tech in the USA, as it would cost more when
> the
>   statisticians were sporting numbers for various
> game
>   plays. yet the 'cost', as has been argued, is not
> just
>   that of the consumer. but production,
> transmission,
>   conversion, distribution also. and this can lead
> to the
>   issues of mining of raw materials that are
> questionable
>   in their destructive qualities of habitat, and-or
> human
>   health, as uranium mines are a few steps in the
> chain
>   of events to making these computers work, along
> with
>   everything else.
> 
>   so, if it is economics,well, energy bonds and the
> idea
>   of investing in the future, now, is a solid
> approach, if
>   communities can find the critical mass to realize
> it. yet,
>   when a local power company is owned by another
> which
>   resides across the country, as part of its power
> portfolio,
>   well, again, as all know, powerful interests are
> at stake,
>   and any local initiatives risk taking on the
> behemoth of
>   the energy machine in its political-economic
> functioning.
> 
>   if it is evaluated in the vague terms of pure
> force, and
>   friction, a small band or tribe of people who want
> to help
>   bring in the change are rubbing against the very
> foundation
>   of the local interest, if the status quo is the
> default action.
>   whereas the deeply embedded and self-interested
> system
>   of Operation that pre-exists and has superceded
> all of the
>   prior attempts to change it for the better, is
> like a well-
>   greased machine, ready to steamroll anything in
> its path
>   to systematic growth and complete market control.
> 
>   thus, and this is only a guess, but if issues of
> energy are
>   only discussed in economic terms, and debated and
> shared
>   in these lingos, it can limit what is at stake,
> what can occur.
>   that is why energy is so often a 'wonk' issue, it
> seems, as
>   statistics, esoteric techniques, and verbage, and
> also the
>   obfuscation of the issues in sheer public
> relations spinnage,
>   can be an unbearable opponent when aiming for
> clarification.
> 
>   the anti-strategy, fight force with force, of
> ideas, of PR,
>   of propaganda, can destroy legitimacy by walking
> into the
>   trap of doing what the opponent is accused of, the
> bait and
>   switch reversal of a monologic of staid energy
> ideologies.
> 
>   whereas, if the technical aspects of energy were,
> in an
>   open and democratic and public way, understood as
> being
>   of cultural significance, and consequence, and
> debated on
>   these more fully realistic parameters (with
> subsequent
>   but supportive not primary) statistics and
> scenarios, then
>   this educated understanding might help build the
> critical
>   mass needed to transform something that is more
> than
>   about consumption (it is not as simple as buying a
> solar
>   panel and plugging it in, it just does not work
> that way)
>   but also about production, why, how, where, when,
> who.
> 
>   and the point being, not everyone is who (for
> solar, or
>   even for alt.energy in some cases, given unique
> givens).
> 
>   thus, 'energy bonds' with energy as commodity is
> akin
>   to the enronomics (political economics of enron as
> .biz)
>   of the energy markets, and, in pragmatic
> circumstance,
>   is seemingly unlikely to have critical mass (less,
> is the
>   'solar' bonds, as something like this is not
> universal in
>   its application, as only a portion of a country or
> region
>   can use solar for self-sufficiency, it is not
> plug-&-play).
> 
> 
> >While weather patterns may change, a sudden influx
> of
> >cloudy days, even if it's thirty percent more,
> would
> >still leave you with ten or so free years of
> energy.
> >If it's more than thirty percent, we're all screwed
> >anyway.
> 
>   my delay in responding was i was trying to locate
> an
>   architectural chart of regional sun and cloudcover
> stat-
>   istics to demonstrate that solar technology is a
> science,
>   whereby like the old sliderule books of
> calculations, an
>   area will have specific attributes that are
> necessary in
>   making a judgement of whether or not solar will be
> a
>   viable alternative, by weather statistics.
> meaning, the
>   above '30% more cloudy days = 10 years free
> energy'
>   is highly questionable given the subject. doesn't
> add up
>   to the way the technology works, when it does
> work,
>   or so it seems. (and there are solar 'off grid'
> people
>   on the list, i gather, who might share their
> experience).
> 
>   the point being that if you took a geographic
> region, say
>   california, and put solar panels over the entire
> area, in
>   some places, it might be of great benefit, of
> others, it
>   might be of wasted benefit but if optimized it
> might do
>   what it can do efficiently, and in other areas, it
> may
>   not be productive at all, as the climate is not
> right for
>   the universal roll out of solar (or wind, or even
> coal,
>   natural gas, oil, nuclear, hydro, wave, biomass,
> geo...)
> 
>   this is the reason that 'energy bonds' may bring
> more
>   people into your initiative than solar alone. as
> it is a
>   highly variable technology, given local
> circumstances.
>   whereas energy, as energy, is a universal
> situation,
>   people need it, it needs to change in many ways,
> and
>   to change it requires people, and people who can
> find
> 
=== message truncated ===


=====
--------------------------------------------------------
Toby Barlow
250 Texas St. SF CA 94107
(415) 385-6679 cell
(415) 863-4069 home
(415) 733-0783 work
tobybarlowny@yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 22:50:27 -0600
From: bc <human@electronetwork.org>
Subject: Re: <nettime>  Re: the development of a solar infrastructure

Toby Barlow replies;

>Wow, what a trip. Please, before I waste any more of
>your time, LOOK AT THE SITE, solar bonds are energy
>bonds, bundling conservation and, in some cases, wind
>to make the economies work. The math is very tight,
>that's why the comptroller of San Francisco endorsed
>Prop B.
>
>As to the powers that be, well, bring 'em on.
>
>The "mining of raw materials" issue you bring up is
>enormously irrelevant. You're going to compare
>silicon, the second most common element on earth, to
>uranium?
>
>As for the regions, last time I checked there was sun
>everywhere. Germany has a lot more solar than we do
>and they're located farther north in a cloudy climate.
>And they're pretty damn smart when it comes to
>allocating their technological resources.
>
>Again, check out the site. Goodnight.
>

  i did check out the site, the positions are
  still relevant, solar is not the same word
  as energy, the sun is not everywhere in
  the same intensity, nor wind, and the mining
  of raw materials (and silicon for that matter)
  are very toxic processes (go visit a semi-
  conductor plant without a bunnysuit and a
  breather and see you in the morgue) and no
  universal solar value/return exists the same
  everywhere, these are facts. having done
  solar calculations for building designs in a
  specific climate and knowing it is site- and
  region-specific, it is hard to dismiss this
  and take the utopian view of one solar panel
  works the same as another, anywhere in
  the world. regional maps (& actual statistics
  about specific areas) would show where solar
  and wind are and are not viable alternatives.
  that was/is the point. thus, the importance
  of reframing common issues in common terms,
  such as 'energy'. but, you're on the ground, on
  a balletbox issue in SF, and good luck to you.
  hope it works out in the larger sense, voting
  for minds to consider these issues in more detail.
bc

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 23:48:31 -0600
From: bc <human@electronetwork.org>
Subject: For the Record: lunar digestive tract

  [for the archival records i would like it known that
  this is the message i was responding to, not the one
  that appeared prior to my response in the digest. as
  i was being sent the prior messages personally, and
  the one in the digest was sent to the list instead, and
  thus i was not able to see it before writing. yet it is
  in part identical to the post being responded to.  bc]

     <headited @ nettime>

>Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 22:32:38 -0800 (PST)
>From: Toby Barlow <toby@solararmy.org>
>Subject: Re: <nettime>  Re: the development of a solar infrastructure
>To: bc <human@electronetwork.org>
>
>I think your questions are good ones. I think there
>are ideas worth studying here. But the question I have
>is a fundamental one. Solar is a mature technology
>with an immature manufacturing and marketing base, so
>how do you change that?

 <...>
>  >   issue. here is the conundrum i see in 2002...

....

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Leszi" <arcadia@lynchburg.net>
Subject: Re: <nettime> Re: solar infrastructure
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 05:47:05 -0500

Solar is a mature technology
> >with an immature manufacturing and marketing base, so
> >how do you change that?
>

I have a thought or two to offer on this.

I think the recent unpleasantness in California made it clear that people
and businesses cannot rely on the utilities to supply steady power at a
steady price.  I think this is a direct result of electricity becoming a
publicly traded commodity.  The whole point of a publicly traded commodity
is to have a cyclical rise and fall in prices so that speculators can make
money.  As the Ken Lays and George Bushs of the world to demonstrate their
manifest incompetence to deliver a smooth supply of power, the cost
differential of alternative power gets narrower and narrower.

When people say that solar power costs too much, they are usually thinking
of a centralised power generation system, a huge and inefficient grid, and
then suburban homes running two 200 amp boxes so they can run the three
microwaves, the heat pump, and the jaccuzzi all at once.  No.  Solar
electric power is not going to keep up with conspicuous consumption like
that.  No other power source is going to do that either, in the long run,
without dire consequences.  Frankly I don't wish it would.

The big promise of nuclear energy used to be unlimited cheap clean power.
It has never delivered on this promise.  It relies on limited resources
controlled by hostile countries, just like fossil fuels but more exotic.  It
produces small amounts of acutely toxic and corrosive waste, rather than
large amounts of stuff that does not actually kill you right away, and its
claim to be 'cheap' has always relied on government subsidies and in the US
on the Price Anderson Act virtually exempting the industry from liability in
the event of any kind of nuclear mishap.  On the down side, nuclear
proliferation in poorer countries can be traced directly back to the
commercial nuclear power business and its enthusiasm to build plants all
over the world, producing plutonium as a by-product.

The big promise of the Sun is that it's _there_ and will continue to be
_there_ for as long as we are, and that if we can build the infrastructure
to catch it, the power itself will be free for the taking.

Also, particularly in rural situations, the cost is comparable between
energy independence and cutting a power line  through your property to
connect to the unreliable grid.  Of course, homemade power requires care and
attention, some knowledge, and a commitment up front to keep one's need for
electricity in line with what one can get.

Matt

www.geocities.com/snap_d/arckat/

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 17:01:21 -0800 (PST)
From: Toby Barlow <toby@solararmy.org>
Subject: Re: <nettime>  Re: the development of a solar infrastructure

I'm glad you read the site but surprised that you did
not notice that solar bonds are not a one size fits
all proposition, each region designs their own bond,
combining solar, wind, and conservation in the manner
most appropriate for that particular region. Which
seems to be exactly what you're asking for. And
because it's a local initiative movement, if they
happen to be located in a big hole, then they
certainly are free to not pursue the solar option.

As to the environmental impact of solar cell
production, yes, all modern production has it's
industrial side effects and controls have to be put in
place. Luckily, with solar, the industry is new and
therefore can be openly monitored as it develops. But
I'll take the hazards of silicon chip production over
uranium tailings, ecosystems destroyed by damming, or
the greenhouse gas producing alternatives out there
now. Since we aren't about to elect a Luddite reform
movement, we will continue to have energy production,
so why wouldn't you pursue the cleanest technology
available.

And while they are energy bonds, we are calling them
solar bonds because "energy bonds" doesn't sound very
descriptive or interesting and solar/conservation/wind
is something of a mouthful.

In any case, I am pretty disappointed with nettime
network as a whole. I was led to believe that it is a
forum for discussing tactics and politics. And while I
have had a somewhat engaging input from one person, it
was largely discouraging (reminding me of the
apocryphal tale that Che Guevera's mother once said to
him "If the left had to form a firing squad it would
be a circle"). I was looking for ways to take the idea
further, input on how the net could disseminate
successful regional politics to wider forums. Maybe
it's the idea's fault. Or my fault for not presenting
it properly. But it's easier to blame nettime. 

The good news is that San Diego, The University of
California, Sebastapol, Boulder, Washington State, and
a few other places have expressed interest in Solar
Bonds, and, also in the footsteps of the San Francisco
model, there was the following report:

CALIFORNIA POWER AUTHORITY SUBMITS LARGEST  CLEAN
ENERGY PLAN IN HISTORY


“The CPA’s has devised a feasible plan for Los Angeles
Community 
 Colleges to Solar”

                          – Says Greenpeace



LOS ANGELES– On Friday, the California Power Authority
(CPA) submitted its Energy Resource Investment Plan
“Clean Growth: Clean Energy for California’s economic
Future” to the state legislature. Greenpeace
congratulates the CPA for submitting such a strong
plan to the legislature. In particular, we are pleased
that it allows institutions like the Los Angeles
Community Colleges access to low cost financing
program in order to go solar.


The Energy Resource Investment Plan details a strategy
to prevent future energy crises by meeting
California’s energy supply shortfalls through energy
efficiency, conservation and renewable generation.

In total, the CPA will generate $5 billion in revenue
bond financing that will leverage over $12 billion in
clean energy investment by 2007.


“This is the largest clean energy investment plan in
history,” said Danny Kennedy, Coordinator for
Greenpeace’s Clean Energy Now! Campaign, “ The CPA
plans to meet the majority of projected energy demand
with conservation and energy efficiency measures that
will spawn the equivalent of 5 big coal-fired power
plants being supplanted by wind, biomass and solar
energy. This is largely non-polluting and is the same
as taking one million cars off the road in the next 20
years, greatly reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.”


The CPA’s Energy resource plan acknowledges two major
strengths that the support of a government agency can
provide: the agency can act as a public broker and
lead the path for other institutions to go solar, and
it can provide bulk procurement when buying for
schools, prisons and other public buildings. The plan
also projects that by installing photovoltaic cells on
buildings all over sunny
California, there is up to 2400 MW of untapped,
cost-effective solar power on state facilities. 


“Now we want the Los Angeles Community College
District to negotiate with the CPA low cost financing
for solar installations in schools,” said Kristin
Casper, Campaigner for Greenpeace’s Clean
Energy Now! Campaign, ”This is the Los Angeles
Community College Districts chance to make their
campuses a model of the  clean energy future that
students, faculty and citizens around the state want
to see. The Board of Trustees have no excuse but to
vote YES on solar.”


Wednesday, the Board of Trustee of the Community
Colleges will vote on a proposal to install enough
solar panels to produce electricity to supply the
power needs of twenty five percent of all new campus
buildings being built, as part of their billion dollar
renovations program. The Governor’s office, The Los
Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP), students,
faculty and Greenpeace are all advising the school
that this plan is feasible and cost effective.


CONTACT:     Alisa Arnett, Greenpeace media at (415)
407-9293  or Danny Kennedy, Climate Campaign
Coordinator at (510) 912- 3949.
 

--- bc <human@electronetwork.org> wrote:
> Toby Barlow replies;
> 
> >Wow, what a trip. Please, before I waste any more
> of
> >your time, LOOK AT THE SITE, solar bonds are energy
> >bonds, bundling conservation and, in some cases,
> wind
> >to make the economies work. The math is very tight,
> >that's why the comptroller of San Francisco
> endorsed
> >Prop B.
> >
> >As to the powers that be, well, bring 'em on.
> >
> >The "mining of raw materials" issue you bring up is
> >enormously irrelevant. You're going to compare
> >silicon, the second most common element on earth,
> to
> >uranium?
> >
> >As for the regions, last time I checked there was
> sun
> >everywhere. Germany has a lot more solar than we do
> >and they're located farther north in a cloudy
> climate.
> >And they're pretty damn smart when it comes to
> >allocating their technological resources.
> >
> >Again, check out the site. Goodnight.
> >
> 
>   i did check out the site, the positions are
>   still relevant, solar is not the same word
>   as energy, the sun is not everywhere in
>   the same intensity, nor wind, and the mining
>   of raw materials (and silicon for that matter)
>   are very toxic processes (go visit a semi-
>   conductor plant without a bunnysuit and a
>   breather and see you in the morgue) and no
>   universal solar value/return exists the same
>   everywhere, these are facts. having done
>   solar calculations for building designs in a
>   specific climate and knowing it is site- and
>   region-specific, it is hard to dismiss this
>   and take the utopian view of one solar panel
>   works the same as another, anywhere in
>   the world. regional maps (& actual statistics
>   about specific areas) would show where solar
>   and wind are and are not viable alternatives.
>   that was/is the point. thus, the importance
>   of reframing common issues in common terms,
>   such as 'energy'. but, you're on the ground, on
>   a balletbox issue in SF, and good luck to you.
>   hope it works out in the larger sense, voting
>   for minds to consider these issues in more detail.
> bc


=====
--------------------------------------------------------
Toby Barlow
250 Texas St. SF CA 94107
(415) 385-6679 cell
(415) 863-4069 home
(415) 733-0783 work
tobybarlowny@yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net