Resource constraints and the need for new economic paradigms

Energy Evolution Journal: Musings About an Ecologically Sane Human Society

My books about energy and economics

Contact: rogerkb at energyevolutionjournal dot com

Article_8

SolarPACES organization pursues long term energy storage system using elemental sulfur as the storage medium

11/03/2024

I recently came across a web page[1] of 
the SolarPACES (Solar Power and Chemical
Energy Systems) organization discussing 
a long term energy storage system which 
involves running generating turbines    
using elemental sulfur (S) as a fuel.   
Sulfur burns at a temperature of 1200°C 
and it produces sulfur dioxide (SO2)    
which is disproportionated back into S  
and O2 by a solar thermochemical process
so that the sulfur is not a mined fuel  
but rather an energy storage medium.    
This process was originally developed by
General Atomics who published documents 
about this process more than a decade   
ago[1][2]. A central technology for     
carrying out this process is the        
extraction of sulfur from sulfuric acid 
(H2SO4). This extraction is three part  
process the net result of which can be  
summarized as follows:                  

H2SO4 ==> S + 32 O2 + H2O

You may be wondering how sulfuric acid  
got into the picture. It gets into the  
picture because the chemical process for
SO2 disproportionation produces sulfuric
acid as well as elemental sulfur:       

2H2O(l) + 3SO2(g) ==> 2H2SO4(aq) + S(s,l) (115-170°C)

This process only extracts 13 of the   
sulfur from the input SO2. Using this   
process alone would require continually 
mining new sulfur and disposing of large
quantities of sulfuric acid. Therefore  
to turn this process into a true system 
of energy storage it is necessary to    
have a process for extracting sulfur    
from H2SO4. The total three part process
is given by:                            
  1. 3H2SO4 (g) ==> 3H2O(g) + 3SO3(g), T = 450-500°C
  2. 3SO3(g) ==> 3SO2(g) + 32 O2 (g), T=700-950°C
  3. 2H2O(l) + 3SO2(g) ==> 2H2SO4(aq) + S(s,l), T=115-170°C
The first two steps of this process     
require concentrated solar energy to    
drive the decomposition of the sulfuric 
acid. The third step of SO2             
disproportionation is an exothermic     
reaction. That is the energy generated  
by producing sulfuric acid more than    
compensates the energy required to      
separate the sulfur from SO2.           
The concentrated solar energy would be  
provided by an array of moveable mirrors
which focus sunlight on a central       
receiver located on a so-called power   
tower. Such concentrated solar power    
(CSP) systems are currently used with   
molten salt as the transfer fluid and   
steam turbines as the electrical power  
production machinery. The temperature   
attained by such molten salt systems is 
between 500 and 600°C.                  
In the simplest version of the new      
technology proposed by General          
Atomics[1] sulfur is burned to run a gas
turbine and the resulting SO2 is fed    
back into process 3 which recovers 13  
of the sulfur. The other 23 is         
recovered by using the whole 3 step     
process.                                
If one considers the possibility of     
using this process for seasonal energy  
storage (i.e. using summer solar energy 
to produce electricity in the winter)   
then an interesting interpretation of   
the use of H2SO4 can be derived.        
Suppose that instead of immediately     
disproportionating the SO2 you store it 
until summer, and only then begin the   
process of sulfur production. At the    
beginning of this process all of the    
sulfur you need for next winter is      
stored in SO2. 13 of the required      
sulfur comes from disproportionating the
SO2 (reaction 3) while the other 23    
comes from running the full 3 step      
cycle. Now we consider the required     
sulfuric acid inputs and outputs.       
First we consider the output of H2SO4.  
The production of each mole of S is     
accompanied by the production 2 moles of
H2SO4.                                  
Now we consider the input of H2SO4. 23 
of each mole comes from the whole 3 step
process. From the formula for step one  
it is evident that the required input of
H2SO4 is 3×23=2 moles. The 13 of each 
mole that comes from the stored SO2     
requires zero input of H2SO4. Therefore 
the net input of H2SO4 per mole of      
sulfur is 2 moles                       
Since the input and the outputs are the 
same the amount of H2SO4 is not changed 
during this process. The process began  
with all of the required sulfur stored  
as SO2 and it ends with all of the      
required sulfur stored as elemental     
sulfur. Therefore from this point of    
view the H2SO4 is acting as a "catalyst"
which itself is not consumed, but which 
allows the sulfur in the SO2 to be      
transformed into its pure elemental     
form. I put the word catalyst in quotes 
because H2SO4 is clearly not a catalyst 
in the traditional chemical sense of    
that word.                              
Of course in practice one might choose  
to disproportionate the SO2 as soon as  
it is produced, in which case 23 of the
necessary sulfur for the next season in 
temporarily stored in the form of H2SO4.
General Atomics developed this concept  
more than a decade ago but did not move 
toward a practical implementation. One  
of the barriers to implementation was   
the lack of an economical solar         
concentrator/receiver system capable of 
achieving the high temperatures required
for process 2. The recent development of
falling particle receivers (see         
article_3) and gas based solar receivers
(see article_7) has raised optimism     
about producing economical solar heat in
the right temperature range. Therefore  
new development efforts are underway to 
realize a solar sulfur energy storage   
system.[4]                              
Of course economical solar heat is not  
the only requirement of such a system.  
Economical high performance catalysts   
are required for each of the three      
chemical processes. It remains to be    
seen whether an economical practical    
energy production system will emerge    
from this concept in the near future.   
Looking at the three step thermochemical
process we see than out of every three  
moles of SO2 extracted from H2SO4 only  
one mole of elemental sulfur is         
produced. The other two moles end up    
back in the form of H2SO4. This fact    
implies that for sulfur extracted from  
H2SO4 the maximum efficiency of for the 
conversion solar energy to chemical     
potential energy is 33.3%. However 13  
of the total sulfur comes from the      
single step process of sulfur           
disproportionation which does not       
require solar energy input. Therefore if
6 units of solar energy produce 2 units 
sulfur in the three step process the    
total production of sulfur is 3 units so
that the theoretical maximum efficiency 
is 50%. In reality the efficiency will  
not be this high since the conversion of
solar energy to SO2 in the first two    
steps of the process will be less than  
100% efficient.                         
In the end it is really cost which      
matters, though efficiency is           
undoubtedly part of the cost equation.  
General Atomics estimates a cost        
$2/kWht. The subscript "t" usually means
"thermal" which in typical CSP plants   
means energy stored as heat (i.e. before
conversion to electricity). In the case 
of a sulfur energy storage system I     
assume that this subscript refers to the
chemical potential energy of the sulfur 
which will eventually be converted to   
electricity at substantially less than  
100% efficiency. If you assume 50%      
efficiency for the electrical conversion
then the cost is $4/kWhe. If you are    
hoping to use this technology for       
seasonal energy storage it will take    
several decades to get the cost down    
under $0.20/kWhe.                       
CSP plants require direct sunlight to   
operate unlike PV panels which can still
work in diffuse sunlight (i.e. on cloudy
days). Therefore CSP plants are located 
in geographic areas which have          
relatively low amounts of cloud cover.  
If one is hoping to use sulfur storage  
as a general solution to the problem of 
renewable energy variability in time,   
then one must propose a method of       
dealing with the geographical           
variability of suitable locations for   
this technology. I will further discuss 
this topic in a future post.            

[1] SolarPACES solar sulfur cycle

[2] General Atomics solar sulfur cycle 2011

[3] General Atomics solar sulfur cycle 2014

[4] European Sulphurreal project

Article_7

German company Synhelion designs new high temperature solar receiver for use with solar power towers

10/19/2024

Recently I came across an article[1] on 
SolarPACES.org which describes a new    
solar receiver capable of achieving a   
heat transfer fluid temperature of      
1500°C using existing solar mirror      
fields designed for use with solar power
towers. This temperature is a huge      
increase from the 565°C temperature     
achieved by existing solar power tower  
plants using molten salts as the heating
fluid.                                  
The developer of this new solar receiver
is German company called Synhelion.     
Their own web site contains very little 
information about the design and        
operation of this receiver. In the only 
information I found there is the        
following[2]:                           
Our solar technology converts           
concentrated sunlight into the hottest  
existing process heat on the market.    
State-of-the-art concentrated solar     
systems typically work in temperature   
ranges between 400 and 600°C. Synhelion 
has developed a completely novel        
technology to attain much higher        
temperatures. We can provide fully      
renewable solar process heat beyond     
1,500°C, offering industries that       
traditionally rely on the burning of    
fossil fuels a sustainable alternative. 
In the SolarPACES article they show a   
diagram of the solar receiver with a    
reference to theory paper. The following
paragraph taken from the paper explains 
the principle of operation[3]:          
The receiver is constituted by an       
absorbing cavity with a windowed        
aperture. The cavity is filled with the 
streaming gas flowing from the aperture 
towards the back of the cavity. The     
incoming solar radiation enters the     
aperture, passes with minimal absorption
through the gas, and is successively    
absorbed by a highly absorptive surface 
at the back of the cavity. The          
solar-absorbing surface thermalizes and 
re-radiates with a blackbody spectrum.  
The gas absorbs to a large extent the   
thermal re-emission and is heated up,   
and, at the same time, shields the      
aperture from this re-emission.         
The receiver gases that are modeled are 
water vapor, CO2, and various mixtures  
of these two gases. As it turns out pure
water vapor (that is steam) is the best 
performer. Water is a poor absorber of  
sunlight but a good absorber of the     
black body radiation which is emitted by
the back wall of the receiver cavity.   
Note the reference to gas streaming     
toward the back of the receiver cavity. 
Low temperature steam enters the cavity 
and is heated to 1500°C as it streams   
towards the back and then passes through
a hole in the back of the cavity.       
The steam is only a heat transfer fluid.
After it flows out of the cavity most of
the heat is removed by a heat exchanger 
and transmitted to a working fluid which
acts as an energy storage medium and as 
a source of heat for any applications   
which are using the solar energy        
collected by the receivers. Presumably  
the steam is not condensed all the way  
back to the liquid state but is left as 
low temperature steam which is then     
returned to the solar receiver for      
another round of energy collection.     
I can find no discussion of the design  
and performance of the heat exchanger or
the nature of the working fluid. The    
SolarPACES article does mention that    
some heat is lost during the heat       
exchange process so that the working    
fluid temperature is more like 1400°C.  
This heat exchange process may be a weak
point with respect to practical         
applications of this technology. 1000°C 
is considered an extreme temperature    
with significant design challenges for  
cost effective heat exchanger           
performance. Until I see some           
information about the design and        
performance of the heat exchanger I will
remain skeptical about how quickly this 
extremely high temperature solar heat   
technology can be scaled up for         
practical applications.                 
Of course if you can achieve            
temperatures of 1500°C temperatures in  
the range 800 to 1000°C could also be   
achieved. A lower solar flux would be   
needed to achieve this temperature. The 
sunlight in concentrated on the power   
tower by an array of mirrors which can  
track the sun on two independent axes.  
With lower concentration requirements   
the tracking accuracy of the mirror     
would not have to be as high thus       
leading to lower costs for the solar    
collection field                        
There are several interesting           
applications for solar heat in the 800  
to 1000°C temperature range. One of     
these is the closed loop Brayton gas    
turbine cycle using supercritical CO2 as
the working fluid. I have previously    
mention this cycle in Article_3. The    
SolarPACES organization has an          
interesting energy storage application  
in mind which also has need of solar    
heat in this temperature range. I will  
discuss this application in my next     
article. Well established designs for   
heat exchanger exist at temperatures    
below 1000°C, so that the practical     
barriers to the use of solar heat in    
this temperature range are smaller than 
for the much higher temperatures being  
targeted by Synhelion.                  

[1] SolarPACES Synhelion article

[2] Synhelion solar process heat statement

[3] Synhelion receiver design paper

Article_6

Capturing CO2 from lime production as solid sodium carbonate

10/12/2024

Calcium oxide, CaO and calcium hydroxide
[Ca(OH2)] are very useful compounds     
known respectively as quick lime and    
slaked lime. Slaked lime can be formed  
by reacting CaO with water. The calcium 
for these compounds comes from the      
abundant mineral limestone which has the
chemical formula CaCO3. When CaCO3 is   
heated to high temperature in a lime    
kiln carbon dioxide gas is driven off   
and CaO is left behind.                 
Various forms of lime are used in       
agricultural, environmental,            
metallurgical, construction,            
chemical/industrial applications, and   
more. According the National Lime       
Association[1] the single largest use   
lime is as a flux for purifying steel.  
Even if the energy for lime production  
came from carbon free sources the       
release of carbon from from limestone is
unavoidable. Therefore zero carbon lime 
production from limestone will require  
carbon capture and storage (CCS) for as 
long as humanity continues to utilize   
CaCO3 as a source material for this     
product. Capturing CO2 from traditional 
lime kilns is economically difficult so 
that various new methods of producing   
lime are a subject of research and      
development efforts[2].                 
One of these proposed new methods       
captures CO2 as part of the stable solid
compounds sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) and 
its hydrate Na2CO3.H2O. Sodium carbonate
and its hydrates are also known as      
washing soda.                           
The chemical reaction which produces    
slaked lime and sodium carbonate from   
calcium carbonate (limestone) and sodium
hydroxide (NaOH) is:                    

CaCO3 + NaOH + xH2O ==> Ca(OH)2 + Na2CO3.xH2O, x=(0,1)

This reaction is fast process which     
requires very little mixing energy. It  
avoids the need for high temperatures   
and therefore the need for fuel burning.
Since sodium carbonate is a stable solid
compound there is no need for pumping   
CO2 into underground reservoirs.        
However new energy and product disposal 
issues are introduced by the need to    
produce NaOH. This compound is typically
produced by the chlor-alkali process    
which produces NaOH and chlorine gas    
from salt (NaCl):                       

2NaCl + 2H2O ==> Cl2 + H2 + 2NaOH

This is an electrolytic process which   
requires a large input energy in the    
form of electrical current. Conceivably 
the electricity could come from carbon  
free renewable resources, but the cost  
of the electrolyzers and of the         
renewable electricity becomes part of   
the economic equation.                  
For each mole of NaOH produced 1/2 mole 
of Cl2 is produced. Since chlorine gas  
can not simply be released into the     
environment some use must be found for  
it. So the question arises of how much  
extra chlorine production would result  
from converting global lime production  
to this new method.                     
global lime 2024: 475MMT[3]             
global chlorine: 90MMT[4]               
CaO molecular weight is 56.1. Therefore 
the MMT moles of Cl2 produced would be: 
0.5*475/56.1 = 4.24                     
Cl2 molecular weight is 70.9. Therefore 
the MMT moles of Cl2 currently produced 
is 90/70.9 = 1.27                       
Therefore producing lime by the new     
method would require increasing the     
global production of Cl2 by a factor    
4.3. Since chlorine gas cannot simply be
released into the environment this      
excess production represents a          
significant barrier to using this method
of lime CCS at a large scale.           

[1] https://www.lime.org/

[2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032122006505#bbib45

[3] https://www.expertmarketresearch.com/reports/lime-market

[4] https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5305192/global-chlorine-industry-outlook-to-2025

Article_5 

Limitation of storing CO2 as baking soda

08/26/2024 
A paper on carbon capture in the    
form of bicarbonate ions (HCO3-)     
published 2023 prompted a flurry of 
headlines about storing captured    
carbon in the oceans as baking soda 
as the following to examples show.  
From newscientist.com:              
We can suck CO2 from the air and    
store it in the ocean as baking     
soda[2]                             
From theweek.com:                   
New carbon capture technology can   
turn carbon into baking soda[3]     
The idea is that hydroxide compounds
(a combination of positive ions with
negative OH- ions) in an aqueous    
solution can interact with CO2 to   
form to form bicarbonate compounds. 
For example:                        

Ca(OH)2 + 2CO2 ==> Ca(HCO3)2

The HCO3- ion is the carbonate ion  
and the combination of Ca2+ with    
this ion is calcium bicarbonate     
Ca(HC03)2.                          
Bicarbonate compounds are a source  
of alkalinity which can be released 
into the ocean which thus become a  
store of carbon without the         
acidification which comes from      
dissolved CO2.                      
In the paper referenced above they  
do not use Ca or any other common   
metal ion for carbon capture.       
Instead they use an engineered      
chemical complex called             
polyamine-Cu(II) complex,           
Polyam-N-Cu2+. Explaining the       
nature of this chemical complex     
is above my pay grade as a chemist  
so I will just refer to it at the   
mystery complex M2+. This complex   
can absorb CO2 just like Ca:        

M(OH)2 + 2CO2 ==> M(HCO3)2

This chemical reaction is reversible
so that applying heat will liberate 
the CO2 and restore the M(OH)2. The 
total energy and the temperature    
required to liberate the CO2 are    
much less than for capture systems  
which store carbon in the form of   
carbonates (e.g. CaCO3). Therefore  
this system could be used for       
traditional carbon capture and      
storage (CCS). That is you could    
blow air by your vats or trays of   
aqueous M(OH)2 until the solution   
was relatively saturated with CO2.  
After which the solution could be   
heated (possibly using waste heat)  
and a relatively dense stream of    
CO2 would be given off which could  
be captured and injected            
underground.                        
The authors however present another 
possibility for transforming        
M(HCO3)2 back into M(OH)2. They     
propose running a stream of sea     
water contain NaCl (ordinary table  
salt) through the carbon capture    
solution and using a water          
electrolyzer to split H2O. These    
actions result in the following net 
reaction:                           

M(HCO3)2 = 2NaCl + 2H2O ==> M(OH)2 + 2Na(HCO3) +2HCl

The M(OH)2 has been restored and in 
addition for each mole of M(OH2)2   
2 moles of sodium bicarbonate       
(baking soda) plus 2 moles of HCl   
(hydrochloric acid) have been       
produced. The sodium bicarbonate can
be released into the ocean as a     
beneficial source of alkalinity.    
However, dumping the hydrochloric   
acid into the ocean is not a cool   
thing to do, so the proposal is to  
sell HCl which is in demand for     
various industrial purposes. The    
money obtained from these sales     
helps to offset the cost operating  
the electrolyzers that are required 
for this method of CO2 storage. How 
extensively this method of carbon   
storage could be used would depend  
on how much demand there is for HCl.

[1]bicarbonate ions for the storage of captured carbon

[2]New Scientist on bicarbonate carbon storage

[3]The Week on bicarbonate carbon storage

Article_4

The continued use of lime obtained from limestone requires carbon capture and storage to acheive net zero cabon emissions

06/10/2024

Quick lime or calcium oxide (CaO)
is used for a variety of
industrial purposes. Typically it
is hydrated (CaO + H2O ==>
Ca(OH)2) prior to use. Among the
uses of this compound are:

1. Construction: lime is a key
ingredient cement, plaster, and
mortar

2. Steel Industry: lime is used
in the extraction of iron from
its ore and in removing
impurities from steel

3. Glass industry: lime is added
to soda-lime glass which is the
most common type (90% of
production).

4. Agriculture: lime is added to
acidic soil to correct its pH.

5. Water treatment: lime is added
to waste water to neutralize its
acidity

6. Chemical Synthesis: Calcium
Oxide serves as a cheap and
durable base for the synthesis of
numerous organic compounds.

The cheapest way to obtain CaO is
to heat limestone (CaCO3)
resulting in thermal
decomposition:

CaO3 + heat ==> CaO + CO2.

The heat could be provided by
carbon free renewable energy
sources, but the only way get to
net zero emissions for the carbon
released from the limestone is
via carbon capture and storage
(CCS).

For a number of manufacturing
processes (e.g. glass and steel)
the carbon emissions caused by
production of lime are a
relatively small fraction of the
total emissions. If you are into
the "more sustainable" meme you
might choose not to worry about
these emissions. After all if you
eliminate over 90% of CO2
emissions who but a killjoy would
spend a lot of time agonizing
over the remainder?

The British glass industry has
published a roadmap for reducing
carbon emissions[1], and to their
credit their goal is not to make
their industry "more
sustainable". Their goal is to
achieve net zero carbon emissions
by 2050. They are counting on CCS
to achieve 7% of emissions
reductions.

This use of CCS must continue for
perpetuity. As long as humanity
is using limestone as a source of
CaO we must continue to practice
CCS if we want net zero carbon
emissions.

The earth is very big place and
there may be lots of suitable
geologic sites for CCS. On the
other hand the earth's atmosphere
and oceans are very large
reservoirs of matter and for a
long time we assumed that human
emissions into these reservoirs
would have insignificant effects.
I hope we do not get surprised in
the matter of CCS. Lower total
resource demand through lower per
capita standards of consumption,
emphasis on long lived products,
and a high degree of recycling
would seem to be in order if we
are hoping for a long run of
human civilization on this
planet.

British Glass Net Zero Roadmap

Article_3

Falling particle reciever for concentrated solar power plants could potentially provide higher temperature and lower storage costs

05/17/2024

Recently (Jan 2024) a group of
Italian reasearcher published an
open access paper called "A
falling particle receiver thermal
model for system-level analysis
of solar tower plants". The
following three paragraphs are
taken from the introduction of
this paper:

"In the "Gen3 Roadmap" published
in 2017 by Sandia National
Laboratories (SNL), Mehos et al.
introduced the three most
interesting Solar Tower (ST)
technology pathways on which the
research effort should be focused
on (i.e., molten salts, falling
particle, gas phase). Following
an extensive analysis of those
three technologies carried out in
the frame of the Generation 3 CSP
Systems funding program, the U.S.
Department of Energy announced in
2021 that the most promising
pathway to achieve higher
temperatures in CSP plants and to
meet 2030 cost targets is the
one based on Particle Receiver
(PR).

In detail, the concept is to
adopt particles as a heat
transfer medium (HTM) instead of
liquid fluids; this leads to some
advantages including: i) the
possibility of HTM direct heating
that allows achievement of high
temperatures, and ii) the
possibility of cheaper Thermal
Energy Storage (TES) because heat
can be stored in a relatively
inexpensive medium (e.g. sand).

More precisely, the adoption of
direct heating allows avoiding
the exposure of metallic tubes to
the direct solar radiation
allowing achievement of high
temperatures and this leads in
turn to the possibility of
adopting power cycles with higher
efficiencies than the ones
adopted for conventional molten
salts receivers."

The high temperature power cycle
which I have seen mention most
often in connection concentrated
solar energy is a closed loop
Brayton cycle with carbon dioxide
as the working fluid. The typical
maximum temperature cited for a
practical implementation is in
the range of 700°C to
800°C. In the paper reference
above the particle outlet
temperature of the modeled solar
field is 750°C which sits in
the middle of the range targeted
by the Brayton cycle researchers.
The max temperature of existing
molten salt receivers is
600°C.

Article_2

Rheinmetall receives new orders for heat pumps for large commercial EVs

05/06/2024

Green Car Congress recently
posted an article[1] about some
large commercal orders for
Rheinmetall's heat pump module
designed to work in large
commercial electrified vehicles

From Rheinmetall's web site[2]:

"These two new orders mark the
next milestone in the Group's
marketing and positioning
strategy following the market
launch of the heat pump module,
which was specifically designed
for the electrification of drive
systems in commercial vehicles,
construction machinery, and
boats. The intelligent cooling
and heating management of the
heat pump pre-filled with R1234yf
not only increases the range of
vehicles and battery service life
but also makes driving more
comfortable. "


These heat pumps are an
interesting development since
climate control for
passengers/operators is a
significant issue in determining
the battery life in EVs.
Rheinmetall is clearly focused on
larger commercial vehicles and
not smaller sized passenger cars.
Some premium passenger cars are
already fitted with heat
pumps[3]. As an option they cost
about $1,300.

[1] Rheinmetall on Green Car Congress

[2] Rheinmetall news release

[3]Heat pumps for EVs explained

Article_1

AI's Appetite for Electrical Energy

03/25/2024

Steve Hanely recently published
and article[1] on
cleantechnical.com entitled: "AI
Has A Voracious Appetite For
Electricity, And That’s A
Problem". The whole article is
interesting. The concluding
paragraphs are:

"And yet, trying to limit the use
of AI to endeavors that are
socially beneficial is like
trying to get people to only
drive their cars when absolutely
necessary. Not gonna happen. In
order to maximize the limits of
computer technology, we will need
to vastly increase our
electricity generating
capabilities. We don’t have
enough renewable energy as it is.
How much of it should be diverted
to power AI, or mine Bitcoin, or
support online sports betting?

Those are the sorts of messy
questions that few people want to
answer and so they prefer not to
ask them in the first place. And
so we careen blissfully into the
future using more and more
resources to amuse ourselves. If
we continue to do what we always
have, we will continue to get
what we have always gotten — a
profligate waste of resources to
keep us entertained. Yes,
friends, we are that shallow."

My reponse to the paragraphs was:

I do not think the problem is so
much that we are shallow as that
we are committed to the
predominance of a specific social
institution: private credit
markets. The Mexican poet
Ocatavio Paz had this to say
about this institution:

"The market (by which he meant
private credit markets) is
efficient but it has no purpose.
Its only goal is to produce more
in order to consume more."

As long as the rate at which
money is being converted into
more money (which is to say the
rate at which consumption rights
are being converted into a larger
amount of consumption rights in
the future) is a central and
universal measurement of social
welfare it seems unlikely that
the fight against climate change
will gain serious traction. One
step forward will be followed by
one (or even two) steps
backwards.

I think that we need to create
community credit markets whose
goal is not to turn money into
more money but rather to create
and maintain infrastructure which
will serve the long term welfare
of humanity and of the biosphere
which supports us. If it is
impossible that we can create
such an institution because of
some aspect of the human psyche
which only allows short term
acquisitive greed to make
efficient decisions about credit,
then it seems likely that homo
economicus is an evolutionary
dead end that is unfit to survive
in the long term.

[1]AI Electricity Consumption