Crowds piled into a UCSB Bren Hall classroom last Wednesday to participate in a special seminar with esteemed environmental scientist Amory Lovins, who spoke and answered questions about the changing world of renewable energy, and its spectrum of benefits in terms of business and efficiency.
Lovins opened the talk by asking his audience, “What if we could reinvent fire?” in reference to the title and topic of his October 2011 book, Reinventing Fire. Lovins is chair and chief scientist at the Rocky Mountain Institute, and he pioneered the concept of “soft energy paths.”
“We need a new fire,” said Lovins, after noting that 90 percent of America’s energy comes from nonrenewable sources. “Today’s energy system is not just inefficient, it’s also disconnected.”
Lovins interspersed his discussion of ways to improve energy efficiency with explanations of its economical benefits. He said that by ceasing use of oil, coal, and nuclear energy, we could save $5 trillion by 2050 in a 158 percent larger U.S. economy.
He substantiated these claims by raising the issue of hidden costs in our most common energy sources — which he noted to be $4 billion per day due to the “daily yo-yo” of prices.
Turning the conversation to oil abuses rendered by the automobile industry, Lovins then discussed the negative effects of recent car trends. “In the past quarter century, our two-ton autos have suffered from the epidemic of obesity,” commented Lovins on the inefficiency of large cars. He compared what he sees as an imminent revolution in car insides to the shift from typewriters to computers.
“As we design and build vehicles better, we can use them smarter,” added Lovins, saying that without using oil we can save $25 per barrel. He deemed electricity the “key to the new energy era.”
The talk was followed by conversations with the audience, one person praising Lovins by telling him, “We wish there was a way to make you king of the world.”


Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
While we look around for an alternative, other nations will use the recourses that drive the global machine. They will use petroleum were they can find it, coal, wood, nuclear, natural gases and whatever energy they can from dams. So they will make your solar panels, wind turbines, and other “green energy goods” because you’re a good customer and you want to save money. Meanwhile we will be out of jobs and way behind as our national debt buries us. We are at 15 trillion dollars in debt and still counting.
The emergency that no one seems to be talking about is that we owe international interests 5.1 trillion dollars. An alarming third of the debt is not carried by us. Get to work with the fuels we have, making them cleaner burning and more cost effective, so that America can get out of debt with the resources that she already has. Quit devaluing our money and the country with the 500 billion dollar experiments that go bankrupt trying to make fire.
jw (anonymous profile)
March 26, 2012 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
A few key points needs to be considered.
First, it took 50 to 75 years to transition to an oil transportation economy and it will a while to transition off.
Improving energy efficiency is a lot cheaper than new sources of power up to a point.
But population growth and a growing economy always needs power. Being efficient and growing sustainability power are both needs and solutions.
The govt is starting to focus on energy efficiency as a way to reduce the govt budget. But when the govt also decides to be a venture capitalist, the budget goes way up.
Oil's value is as a flexible, transportable fuel; something electric cars lack.
Oil is most important as a lubricant and chemical engineering; burning it is a waste until we can start growing our own.
I need/want a small SUV with 35 mpg and 3000 lb towing capability so I can go out and enjoy nature. And commute. and carry bikes. My suv only gets 22mpg
We need to focus on reducing the national debt by increasing US manufacturing share of the world energy systems and reducing the cost of govt through improving it's energy efficiency .
passagerider (anonymous profile)
March 26, 2012 at 5:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jw: "They will use petroleum were they can find it, coal, wood, nuclear, natural gases and whatever energy they can from dams. So they will make your solar panels, wind turbines, and other “green energy goods” because you’re a good customer and you want to save money. Meanwhile we will be out of jobs and way behind as our national debt buries us."
No silly! These are the new good paying jobs:! Right here in the US, right now! I'm proof, so are my friends with good paying jobs in Santa Barbara as licensed contractors doing solar, wind, and first and foremost, energy efficiency! In many cases, already cheaper than fossil fuels and tier 5 SCE electric rates in Santa Barbara!
Riceman (anonymous profile)
March 26, 2012 at 7:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Rice man. You are the end user and a tax collector. That has nothing to do with the fact that SCE is over in China making solar panels, using coal powered electric plants and dams. The bigger picture is the national debt and who owns it. In 1960 out national debt was fewer than 300 billion dollars. This administration has dropped that much money, our money, on a project called Solindra. That makes me sick. You drove a truck to work, can't haul or tow that stuff in a Prius. Who are we buying this stuff from? They are hiring way more people making it than the small number of people putting it together. How about the people that made the factory? The masons, framers, electricians, plumbers and carpenters, to name a few that are not in IT&T. So who has the higher employment?
jw (anonymous profile)
March 26, 2012 at 9 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I see 'the goverment's role' in the energy game as limited. But perhaps targeted on
1. paying for US made efficiency improvements for govt. buildings and operations as part of a strategy to reduce the cost of govt. to the taxpayer
2. Basic R&D grants to universities
3. Accelerated depreciation rates for businesses that upgrade to more efficient US made equipment
passagerider (anonymous profile)
March 28, 2012 at 2:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
@JW - You might want to reconsider what you've written here. "In 1960 out national debt was fewer than 300 billion dollars. This administration has dropped that much money, our money, on a project called Solindra.". Do you honestly believe the current administration spent three hundred billion on that project? If so, I've got a bridge to sell you...
freshpavement (anonymous profile)
March 28, 2012 at 7:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't understand how developing more oil and natural gas supplies domestically will increase jobs and eliminate our foreign debt, unless the petroleum industries are nationalized and export profits go to pay off debt. After all, refined fuels were our #1 export last year, but the profits went to the production, refining and transportation companies, most of which didn't even pay much or anything in taxes. Domestic oil production has gone up under Obama's term while it decreased during Bush II's tenure, yet the retail price of gasoline is way up and still rising. Connect the dots! We either need to get all the way in to the petrofuels business by nationalizing it, or get the hell out of it by reducing and eventually eliminating petrofuels use. The former (nationalization) probably won't ever happen, and the latter certainly won't happen in any of our lifetimes, but it's a worthy goal.
GregMohr (anonymous profile)
March 28, 2012 at 12:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
this country would have never reached the moon with the current mindset.
spacey (anonymous profile)
March 28, 2012 at 1:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
and what has going to the moon done for us?
GluteousMaximus (anonymous profile)
March 28, 2012 at 4:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)