As to holding heated water in the ground, I have mostly heard talk of this from people as a solution to the fact that energy cannot be stored. Wind sort of runs countercyclical to demand so on a hot still day when everyone wants AC there is now wind. The idea sounds interesting but storing enough heated water below ground for say a metroplex of 3 million sounds like one monster load of heated water ~ certainly enough to radically alter the environment.

My thought has always been since most oil is used in transportation, and since 45,000+ people die every year in cars, and since Detroit is collapsing that maybe the focus should be on safe efficient point to point transportation. The beauty is that efficiency gains in human life will parallel efficiency gains in oil consumption (I’ll posit an estimate that everyone could be moved around safely on 1/25 the oil now consumed for the purpose). I bet setting aside a measly 1/2 billion dollars for prize money would create more radical and unbelievable ideas within a year than anyone would ever predict.

I don’t feel that storing heat in the ground (~200deg F) would be bad for the environment when the entire core of the planet is molten rock.

I am not a subscriber of Global Warming but I am very concerned about Peak Oil.
Peak Oil is NOT about how much oil is available (RESERVES), but how fast (FLOW RATE bbl/day) can be supplied and how much INPUT ENERGY is needed to make that possible.

The little publicized annual IEA report on oil supplies should make all take pause and think about what we are doing and where we are going as far as our energy future is concerned:

http://www.iea.org/Textbase/press/pressdetail.asp?PRESS_REL_ID=275

Until this report these folks have been very bullish about the future of oil supplies. Their estimate that the current major global oil fields are currently depleting at a rate of 6.7% is pretty stunning number. This rate implies that a year from now, without any new added capacity from new (much smaller) fields that basically the supply of roughly 5.7million bbl/day ( about the amount now produced daily by the US) will no longer be available and every year thereafter another US supply will go offline.

If true, no amount of energy conservation will be able to keep up with this depletion rate, and no amount of increased drilling will hold this rate in check. The report was talking about $1trillion/yr spending to try to just stay in place.

It’s not a question about if, but when, oil depletion will become the major issue, which will be the ultimate cap on our infinite global consumption. Energy is the foundation of the modern global economy, and once it begins to fall in earnest so will the global economy. I feel we need to start thinking seriously about local sustainability, what it will look like and how we can get there.

Actually, I’ve been thinking of this scheme (underground thermal storage) for awhile and I believe it to be a viable solution to the intermittency of renewable energy. Unlike batteries which are expensive, short life expectancy, and are generally limited to how fast they can be charged. The wind thermal can be coupled with solar thermal for an additional boost in thermal energy.

There’s a housing development in Alberta Canada that used the ground itself as a thermal storage unit, the method used is referred to Borehole thermal storage. See link:

http://www.sterlinghomesgroup.com/drake/energystorage.html

The ground itself is heated and not the ground water( which would sink the heat away).

I’ve been thinking that other ways would be to build large insulated underground tanks filled with rock and water to store the heat. This heat could then be used as a local district heating center (see the Sterling Homes link above) , and additionally can be used to regenerate electricity using Organic Rankin Cycle generator as in link below:

http://www.infinityturbine.com/ORC/Waste_Heat_Turbine.html

The nice thing, if system is designed right, is this generator will be running 24/7, no more renewable intermittency.

Our discussion guidelines here on Locally Grown are intended to foster the development of an environment where ideas, information, and opinions are exchanged in an atmosphere of civility, trust, fun, and respect. It is best if you bring a spirit and language of inquiry with you when you visit and restrain your desire to only promote a point of view that is already formed.

I agree that it is the CITIZENS responsibility to work for sustainability.
Unfortunately this issue has been hijacked by lobbyists on both sides.

Little people like me have no say other than vote.

“If right wing politics is uninterested in working to ensure that we have a world worth living in long-term, I will oppose right-wing politics with every fiber of my being. However, I’m more interested in a politics of getting positive things done than in applying off-putting labels such as left wing and right wing designed to divide people into opposing camps….sigh. Some things seem to never change.”

But soon as someone questions your motive you get defensive???

Your above statement does not contribute anything to the by you proclaimed need for unity on this issue.

It makes guys like me resentful and indifferent to your point of you.

“You quoted :
the inadequacy of our institutions for dealing with problems that cut across traditional political boundaries”

Thanks…my point exactly.
We are in the midst again were a few extremists are trying to push a political agenda rather then ecological agenda.
Amen to that.

The basic causes of our environmental troubles are complex and deeply embedded. They include: our past tendency to emphasize quantitative growth at the expense of qualitative growth; the failure of our economy to provide full accounting for the social costs of environmental pollution; the failure to take environmental factors into account as a normal and necessary part of our planning and decision making; the inadequacy of our institutions for dealing with problems that cut across traditional political boundaries; our dependence on conveniences, without regard for their impact on the environment; and more fundamentally, our failure to perceive the environment as a totality and to understand and to recognize the fundamental interdependence of all its parts, including man himself.

—famous left-wing politician Richard Nixon, August 10, 1970

The discourse on this issue comes from the way it is being used as a political tool to further an agenda that goes beyond protecting our natural resources.

I am old enough to remember when the rivers were a lot dirtier then they are today and the air was less clean then it is today.
Back then we didn’t have to use taxes as a way to punish everyday citizen in to compliance by raising taxes. We didn’t raise peoples cost of energy by burning food for fuel or plan to raise taxes via a cap and trade system. We did it because it was the right thing to do.

The aggressive tone of the extreme eco-nazis has pretty much destroyed any civil conversation on this issue.
We are readily adopt the mantra of an Eco- Messiah who claims that only he alone can save the world.
Never mind that he does exactly the opposite of what he preaches and has setup a mutual fund to profit from his prophecy.

I think we all would be well served to take of our blinders and go back to common sense solutions rather then serving a self serving agenda of an extremist few.

It’s curious but consistently and tiresomely predictable that some folks inevitably, see the words sustainable and sustainability as red flags, and seem unable to get past them without reacting in a violently negative manner, and caricaturizing efforts to work toward sustainability as misguided/ill-informed/people-hating tree hugging. David H.: your opinion that

“Sustainable” is just an emotional word for left wing politics.

is a case in point, as is your characterization of comments on this thread as

arguing for ecology over society

Here’s the working definition of sustainable (and sustainability) that informs my worldview:

A sustainable community is one that provides opportunities for its citizens in ways that do not compromise opportunities for future generations.

Sustainability is a means of configuring civilization and human activity so that

• society, its members and its economies are able to meet their needs and express their greatest potential in the present
• while preserving biodiversity and natural ecosystems, and
• planning and acting for the ability to maintain these ideals in the very long term.

If that is left wing politics, so be it. If right wing politics is uninterested in working to ensure that we have a world worth living in long-term, I will oppose right-wing politics with every fiber of my being. However, I’m more interested in a politics of getting positive things done than in applying off-putting labels such as left wing and right wing designed to divide people into opposing camps….sigh. Some things seem to never change.

Given our current understandings of these, and of the breakdowns of unsustainable systems, it’s easy to see it as related to the preamble:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

- The goal is a more “perfect union,” which allows for future progress.
- “…establish justice”: Unsustainable systems often lead to unjust consequences, such as paying for cheap meat, milk and vegies by way of hidden health care costs.
- “…insure domestic tranquility”: Domestic tranquility may be threatened by climate change, as the Pentagon has already planned for possible droughts and food shortages, as well as wars over resources.
- “…provide for the common defence”: Some of the dangers we defend against include the consequences of our own unsustainable actions.
- “…promote the general Welfare”: Need we say more?
- “…secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”: The future of the planet requires sustainability.

Sustainability itself may not be in the text of the articles that follow, but it’s clearly in the intention of the preamble, which sets the tone; laws to promote sustainability can certainly be made within the framework of that constitution, and in wonderful harmony with the preamble.

Government can and should offer incentives and punishments to direct behavior even toward sustainability. But, even seemingly good ideas like ethanol can turn out to be monumental failures when the incentives don’t match the financial reality.

For example, the argument of sustainability in the annexation process was: we have a limited amount of farmland; we need to preserve it; therefore, we should restrict its use. The problem, of course, is that “we” don’t own it; “they” own it.

So, citizens can and should lobby for what they want, including sustainability. But, sustainability should the the result of good government, not the goal. Fairness (justice) to the farmers requires that they receive market price even if the land is used for “sustainability”. That way, the price of sustainability is shared by all.

Even Peter concedes (comment #101) that “At one point we will reach the point where our ever expanding need for growth will reach it’s boundaries.” Left to its own devices, the market, with its inherent short-term, bottom-line focus, is virtually guaranteed to send us over the cliff unless citizens, through their elected officials, say “let’s create economical/social policies that ensure long-term (i.e. indefinite) sustainability.” If we wait for the market to recognize that our boundaries have been reached, to use Peter’s terminology, it’s too late to avoid the abyss (e.g. societal collapse).

http://www.newsweek.com/id/169196

I haven’t read it (though I am a fan of ‘Tipping Point’), but the review calls it a book that talks about “luck” being a bigger factor in determining who/what succeeds and who fails in our society, in a way ideas and profitable ventures only occur of of circumstance and ‘Geniuses are made, not born.’