Abundance

[Tristan]

Read this book recently. Pretty good and seems to be part of a shift on the left to look at how we can build and invent the solutions we need to many of the problems we have. It’s particularly good at exploring what the blockers to solutions are (with a US focus, but also applicable here). The solutions aren’t as detailed as I’d have liked, but it is nice to see a progressive case for growing our way out of our environmental and economic problems. It’s a change from a more defeatist attitude we’ve been seeing.

One of the things I think the book doesn’t cover enough is how you balance the need to get things done with democratic oversight. Some of the problems they define I think are as a result of trying to please too many stakeholders in a democracy. It’s a tricky balance, but I don’t think it’s one we get right now.

I’m not a huge fan of “abundance” as the name for this position as I think it gets misinterpreted.

https://www.waterstones.com/book/abunda ... 1805226055

There’s also a new podcast with James O’Malley and Martin Robbins (formerly of this parish) that discusses this in a more UK specific context.
https://www.abundancepod.com/

[IvanV]

The fact this new book uses the same word that has been around for over a decade in self-help books, etc, as the Law of Abundance or Universal Law of Abundance, for over 10 years, this sort of stuff doesn't do it any favours in terms of the marketing of the idea. From my brief look at it, it is not the same thing, or only tangentially borrows from it.

I recognise exactly the same problem that we have in Britain. That we have over-regulated stuff and this has really buggered stuff up. It makes it very difficult and expensive to build houses, very difficult and expensive to build infrastructure. And Starmer and co recognise this. But they are tinkering around the edges, they don't recognise the deep structures that foster this issue. When someone makes a striking observation, that we are impeded from building using the cheap and effective construction methods of other wealthy countries, they start looking at the reasons, and they don't want to rock the boat. And it is left and right that have done this. The right talks more about deregulation, but actually did nothing in their 14 years in power to get to the root of the problem. Instead they can be persuaded to let people build fire-prone buildings, because that will make them cheaper and developers can make money. When that is not looking at the root of the reasons why buildings are expensive here, and building fire-prone buildings is not how other places have cheaper buildings. The left has also been persuaded to take away important protections for short term advantage, like the stuff that made the financial crisis really bad here.

[Grumble]

The book is coming in for a fair bit of criticism, eg https://www.levernews.com/abundance-is- ... -to-trump/

[Tristan]

The book is coming in for a fair bit of criticism, eg https://www.levernews.com/abundance-is- ... -to-trump/

It’s not a totally unfair criticism, I do think there’s a bit of a blind spot there. Having said that I wonder I suspect that’s particularly relevant in the US given the relative power of corporations on politics there.

The podcast is more focussed on the UK and its applicability here.

[IvanV]

It is interesting the very large amounts of wind, solar and batteries being constructed in Texas, with only the standard federal renewable subsidies, even though we would not think of it as a helpful administration for that kind of thing. Wikipedia notes 30GW of wind in 2020 and I think it is probably more like 40GW now. Solar is about 20GW and there are about 10GW of batteries, increasing about 1GW per year. (That's actually about the size of the the increases the FES requires for Britain, at least in GW, but the GWh issue I'm not sure about). And the Texas electricity system is not well interconnected to other parts of the US, so this is not for export.

We might think the large open windy spaces of Texas are of relatively low scenic value, and many of them already covered in nodding donkeys and other oil extraction facilities. But ultimately the point is that it is very administratively easy to build stuff and run businesses in Texas, and the state doesn't interfere with it. Being Texas, there are of course people complaining that these federally assisted renewables are now of a scale that Texas' electricity system is getting hard to balance, and makes less attractive the construction of other, more reliable, kinds of electricity.

People vote with their feet and Texas is attracting a lot of population. I don't know if there are industrial safety scandals or dangerous building scandals in Texas due to inadequate regulation, or other such things. That would be an interesting test of whether you can have a business-friendly jurisdiction without such problems.

But it is a common claim of conservatives that business-friendly means friendly to people who are already billionaires, and that is incorrect. What you need is an environment that enables people to earn money, not preserve it once they have made it. Sweden has a high proportion of billionaires...

[dyqik]

I suspect that Texas's separate electricity grid also means that it's cheaper and easier to connect new grid scale renewables to the grid. This in turn helps lower cost of creating renewable energy credits, which are then sold US wide to meet other state's renewable electricity mandates and to sell 100% renewable energy tariffs

[Grumble]

I suspect that Texas's separate electricity grid also means that it's cheaper and easier to connect new grid scale renewables to the grid. This in turn helps lower cost of creating renewable energy credits, which are then sold US wide to meet other state's renewable electricity mandates and to sell 100% renewable energy tariffs

Which is why these credits are a nonsense. If the Texas grid is almost isolated then there’s no chance the green electrons will actually power plant in other states. The Texas power market seems quite similar to the GB market but with fewer planning restrictions.

[dyqik]

I suspect that Texas's separate electricity grid also means that it's cheaper and easier to connect new grid scale renewables to the grid. This in turn helps lower cost of creating renewable energy credits, which are then sold US wide to meet other state's renewable electricity mandates and to sell 100% renewable energy tariffs

Which is why these credits are a nonsense. If the Texas grid is almost isolated then there’s no chance the green electrons will actually power plant in other states. The Texas power market seems quite similar to the GB market but with fewer planning restrictions.

It's not nonsense if it reduces greenhouse emissions from powerplants in Texas. Greenhouse gases are shared worldwide.

[Martin_B]

I don't know if there are industrial safety scandals or dangerous building scandals in Texas due to inadequate regulation, or other such things. That would be an interesting test of whether you can have a business-friendly jurisdiction without such problems.

I think that American businesses (certainly ones in my industry, which has a large proportion based in Texas) follow the guidelines set out by industry bodies (eg, ASME, API). If your facility is designed to the guidelines and something goes wrong, then as long as you can show that you followed the accepted guidelines you are largely covered in case of being sued.

Indeed, if you wanted to sue a company then you would probably have to show that both the guidelines were inadequate and that the company both knew that the guidelines were inadequate and failed to improve upon those guidelines

[IvanV]

I don't know if there are industrial safety scandals or dangerous building scandals in Texas due to inadequate regulation, or other such things. That would be an interesting test of whether you can have a business-friendly jurisdiction without such problems.

I think that American businesses (certainly ones in my industry, which has a large proportion based in Texas) follow the guidelines set out by industry bodies (eg, ASME, API). If your facility is designed to the guidelines and something goes wrong, then as long as you can show that you followed the accepted guidelines you are largely covered in case of being sued.

Indeed, if you wanted to sue a company then you would probably have to show that both the guidelines were inadequate and that the company both knew that the guidelines were inadequate and failed to improve upon those guidelines

In fact, I discover, the US generally has a high rate of workplace fatalities in comparison to the rest of the developed world. And Texas is one of the worst states in the US for workplace fatalities.

I was a bit surprised, because I thought the US was notorious for legal liability if businesses do damage to people, both in terms of a low barrier to fault, and high compensation amounts. But Martin explains how they handle that. It's more consistent, I suppose, with the road casualty situation, where most of the US seems to believe in people's freedom to kill themselves on the roads, regardless of the collateral damage to others. I realise that the NE states have a more European road safety record.

[Grumble]

I suspect that Texas's separate electricity grid also means that it's cheaper and easier to connect new grid scale renewables to the grid. This in turn helps lower cost of creating renewable energy credits, which are then sold US wide to meet other state's renewable electricity mandates and to sell 100% renewable energy tariffs

Which is why these credits are a nonsense. If the Texas grid is almost isolated then there’s no chance the green electrons will actually power plant in other states. The Texas power market seems quite similar to the GB market but with fewer planning restrictions.

It's not nonsense if it reduces greenhouse emissions from powerplants in Texas. Greenhouse gases are shared worldwide.

It’s like me paying you to recycle and then claiming that my recycling rate has gone up

[dyqik]

Which is why these credits are a nonsense. If the Texas grid is almost isolated then there’s no chance the green electrons will actually power plant in other states. The Texas power market seems quite similar to the GB market but with fewer planning restrictions.

It's not nonsense if it reduces greenhouse emissions from powerplants in Texas. Greenhouse gases are shared worldwide.

It’s like me paying you to recycle and then claiming that my recycling rate has gone up

If neither of us were recycling before, the global recycling rate has gone up. This is very basic maths that you seem to be having trouble with.

There's the same net effect from you recycling, or from you paying me to newly recycle (actually, given the number of bottles in our recycle bin, it'd probably be more productive for you to pay me than for you to recycle yourself).

[Grumble]

It's not nonsense if it reduces greenhouse emissions from powerplants in Texas. Greenhouse gases are shared worldwide.

It’s like me paying you to recycle and then claiming that my recycling rate has gone up

If neither of us were recycling before, the global recycling rate has gone up. This is very basic maths that you seem to be having trouble with.

There's the same net effect from you recycling, or from you paying me to newly recycle (actually, given the number of bottles in our recycle bin, it'd probably be more productive for you to pay me than for you to recycle yourself).

But it hasn’t gone up by as much as if we both had to aim for 100% recycling. There’s a sleight of hand to “net zero” calculations, when we really need to be aiming for actual zero.

[dyqik]

It’s like me paying you to recycle and then claiming that my recycling rate has gone up

If neither of us were recycling before, the global recycling rate has gone up. This is very basic maths that you seem to be having trouble with.

There's the same net effect from you recycling, or from you paying me to newly recycle (actually, given the number of bottles in our recycle bin, it'd probably be more productive for you to pay me than for you to recycle yourself).

But it hasn’t gone up by as much as if we both had to aim for 100% recycling. There’s a sleight of hand to “net zero” calculations, when we really need to be aiming for actual zero.

No, it hasn't. But if you don't have recycling available to you, then that's not an option. Renewable energy deployment, and recycling capacity are limited by local resources. Some places have more capacity, and higher efficiency than others. Actually zero is impossible, by the way. Net zero is achievable, but necessarily includes summing over large areas.

If $1000 spent on building renewables in Texas produces twice the generating capacity of $1000 spent on building renewables in England or New England*, and thus reduces net carbon emissions by twice as much, then it's a massive win. It probably also uses less resources to provide 1 kW of generating capacity.

It's probably even more efficient to spend UK money building renewables in Africa, on a £/kWh or £/ton CO2 not emitted basis.

*Finger in the air hypothetical number, vaguely justified by the relative cost of land and labor, and the difference in weather/climate.

[Grumble]

If neither of us were recycling before, the global recycling rate has gone up. This is very basic maths that you seem to be having trouble with.

There's the same net effect from you recycling, or from you paying me to newly recycle (actually, given the number of bottles in our recycle bin, it'd probably be more productive for you to pay me than for you to recycle yourself).

But it hasn’t gone up by as much as if we both had to aim for 100% recycling. There’s a sleight of hand to “net zero” calculations, when we really need to be aiming for actual zero.

No, it hasn't. But if you don't have recycling available to you, then that's not an option. Renewable energy deployment, and recycling capacity are limited by local resources. Some places have more capacity, and higher efficiency than others. Actually zero is impossible, by the way. Net zero is achievable, but necessarily includes summing over large areas.

If $1000 spent on building renewables in Texas produces twice the generating capacity of $1000 spent on building renewables in England or New England*, and thus reduces net carbon emissions by twice as much, then it's a massive win. It probably also uses less resources to provide 1 kW of generating capacity.

It's probably even more efficient to spend UK money building renewables in Africa, on a £/kWh or £/ton CO2 not emitted basis.

*Finger in the air hypothetical number, vaguely justified by the relative cost of land and labor, and the difference in weather/climate.

It’s a good idea to build UK renewables in Africa as long as the actual power is being used in the UK. Which is what Xlinks are trying to do. Similarly it’s a good idea for New England to build renewables in Texas as long as the actual power is transmitted to New England. It’s the actual carbon intensity of the power you’re actually using that we should drive down.

[dyqik]

It’s a good idea to build UK renewables in Africa as long as the actual power is being used in the UK. Which is what Xlinks are trying to do. Similarly it’s a good idea for New England to build renewables in Texas as long as the actual power is transmitted to New England. It’s the actual carbon intensity of the power you’re actually using that we should drive down.

This is the bit that doesn't make any physical sense.

Why on earth does it matter where the power is being used? Electricity is fungible and CO2 emissions are fungible. It makes very little difference to the climate where the CO2 is emitted or where the electricity is used. It's more important to reduce the total CO2 emissions than the local density of emissions where I happen to live. How does connecting wires from Texas to Oklahoma change the CO2 emissions?

Separately, it's better for fossil fuels that have to be used to be used where there are tighter regulations on efficiency and emissions.

[Grumble]

It’s a good idea to build UK renewables in Africa as long as the actual power is being used in the UK. Which is what Xlinks are trying to do. Similarly it’s a good idea for New England to build renewables in Texas as long as the actual power is transmitted to New England. It’s the actual carbon intensity of the power you’re actually using that we should drive down.

This is the bit that doesn't make any physical sense.

Why on earth does it matter where the power is being used? Electricity is fungible and CO2 emissions are fungible. It makes very little difference to the climate where the CO2 is emitted or where the electricity is used. It's more important to reduce the total CO2 emissions than the local density of emissions where I happen to live. How does connecting wires from Texas to Oklahoma change the CO2 emissions?

If it’s better, for whatever reason, to build the renewables in Texas then interconnections allow you to build more than 100% of local demand and export the spare. If the aim is to get to 100% zero carbon electricity, and it should be, then realistically we will need interconnections to account for varying generation. We aren’t going to get to 100% if we allow some places to say “my 30GW of consumption that’s met by fossil power in reality is offset by 30GW of generation we bought somewhere else”.

[dyqik]

It’s a good idea to build UK renewables in Africa as long as the actual power is being used in the UK. Which is what Xlinks are trying to do. Similarly it’s a good idea for New England to build renewables in Texas as long as the actual power is transmitted to New England. It’s the actual carbon intensity of the power you’re actually using that we should drive down.

This is the bit that doesn't make any physical sense.

Why on earth does it matter where the power is being used? Electricity is fungible and CO2 emissions are fungible. It makes very little difference to the climate where the CO2 is emitted or where the electricity is used. It's more important to reduce the total CO2 emissions than the local density of emissions where I happen to live. How does connecting wires from Texas to Oklahoma change the CO2 emissions?

If it’s better, for whatever reason, to build the renewables in Texas then interconnections allow you to build more than 100% of local demand and export the spare. If the aim is to get to 100% zero carbon electricity, and it should be, then realistically we will need interconnections to account for varying generation. We aren’t going to get to 100% if we allow some places to say “my 30GW of consumption that’s met by fossil power in reality is offset by 30GW of generation we bought somewhere else”.

Eventually, yes. But we're nowhere near needing the interconnections yet. While we're nowhere near the limit of replacing all the fossil fuels in Texas, this doesn't make any difference.

Massachusetts' supply is already a minimum of 50% renewable (with a chunk of Canadian hydropower in there), while Texas isn't even there yet.

[science_fox]

Somewhat late to the discussion - one difference between paying for renewables elsewhere and building your own, is that the former encourages a business as usual mindset. I can have all the power I want because the carbon is offset over there somewhere.

To actually get closer to net zero, requires using less energy than we currently do. At least until all energy is 100% zero carbon. And yes I note the hypocrisy of the joules spent to post this on an online server.

[dyqik]

Somewhat late to the discussion - one difference between paying for renewables elsewhere and building your own, is that the former encourages a business as usual mindset. I can have all the power I want because the carbon is offset over there somewhere.

However in this case, it's encouraging renewable building in an area that wouldn't build it otherwise (deep red Texas oil country). At the same time, local renewables are being built anyway.