Would you be prepared to live without Electricity?

[ChrisM.]

Would you be prepared to live without electricity, and the associated equipments that both provide it, and use it?

(Making and obtaining all such equipments from the rawest materials onwards has significant planetary, species, and ecosystem impacts, with greenhouse gas emissions being merely a subset of all those impacts).

Additionally, is your answer based upon how things are now, or how things can or must be, or both?

Is your answer based upon your own opinion, your own education, your society's opinion, or the planet's figurative opinion?

All the Best, <rockon>

Chris. M.

[MartinSykes]

No.

Personal comfort aside, whatever the future of the human race holds will require communication and collaboration on a global scale which requires computers, phones, satellites, television, radio and just about every other electronic device you own. I don't see any other way that can work. We've gone too far down that road now and there isn't a way back. We as a species strive to better ourselves and that's how it should be but we need to find ways to do that without further damaging the rest of the planet and repairing the damage we've done already.

My answer is based on where we are now and that the only way I see is forward. Had we not gone so far there may have been other options but that boat has sailed.

[Edit] If it was just me and not the whole world abandoning electricity then probably still no. I can see it would be possible to do so but it's still too much sacrifice. There must still be ways to progress more sustainably and we all need to be part of that solution [/Edit]

[Corey]

Have to agree with MartinSykes for the most part. for 2 simple reasons, population of 4 billion over sustainable levels, and a collapsing ecosystem.

[Johnny Electriglide]

The population is actually about 6 billion over sustainable now, Corey. Remember that sustainability itself goes down with pollution, loss of groundwater and soils.
The question of being prepared to live without electricity is without regard to those who aren't sucking on the nipple of the grid. Large electric and other grids make people more vulnerable to breakdown from all causes. In most large city or even town type areas, you have not only the electric grid, but others as well. Common sewer and water systems, common gas systems, telephone and cables, too. Many are interdependent, especially with the power supply component.
When driving a vehicle, they all have independent electrical systems. Even totally electric vehicles. I am not prepared to take down my solar panels or disconnect my inverters, or battery banks.
There are alternatives to CO2 spewing power plants, large grids, and the mostropolises that cover the globe like bad acne. The alternatives require one child per family and enough smarts, strength, and coordination to build/remodel Earthship style independent homes and drive smaller vehicles less.

[MartinSykes]

Off the top of my head, a few basic population calculations

Currently about 130M people are born each year and 60M die. (UN Figures)

To reduce population by 4.5B would therefore take about 75 years *if nobody had any children* If you halved birth rates you would only just mange to hold population at it's present level. And that assumes that there are no medical advances to increase life expectancy and that nobody lifts a finger to save the millions of people who die every year of simple things like starvation.

Short of some global event wiping out literally billions of people, any sustainable future is going to have to work with a future population in the region of 7.5-10B. There's no point basing solutions on less because it's not a target anyone can deliver.

[Johnny Electriglide]

You are right, going to one child per family worldwide would have worked with enough forcefulness up to about 10 years ago. The population will crash from too many people, not enough food and water, before mid century. The maximum long term sustainable level went from a max of 2 billion to now around .9 billion and by mid century, .5 billion. Continued over sustainable will reduce this even less.
The die-off can not be prevented any longer, and planning for a sustained population of up to 10 billion is ludicrous. Survivors with independent electrical systems, or in areas of hydroelectric that can go on without maintenance, will be able to use the satellite communications.
After Collapse, the slow return to sustainable is dependent on the biosphere. If it takes too long, then some of our electrical devices will become part of the geologic record.

[rc white]

I can certainly live withought a great deal of the electricity that is used at present.
That used in heating of water, electric stoves, air conditioners and the illumination of the night sky by cities.
I can also live withought the transmission losses found in national grid systems.

Those who resist the elimination of these things usually bleat about freedom of choice and the economic realities of the market.
The physical reality of the planet is that if we continue using electricity in the way we do in the west, (Australia produces the highest carbon dioxide per head in the world, due largely to coal fired electricity), then in the end we have no choice, and the champions of choice can be seen for what they are, front people for interest that profit by unsustainable consumption.
rcw

[isenhand]

Originally Posted by ChrisM.

Would you be prepared to live without electricity, and the associated equipments that both provide it, and use it?

No. We have intelligence and inventiveness and we should use those to make not only our own lives better but other people’s as well. Electricity is one of those technologies that we can use to make life better. For a sustainable society point of view, technology is neither the problem nor the solution but becomes part of the problem as well as part of the solution.
He have the capability to actually build a sustainable society if we change the way we do things. We can make that sustainable society something positive with a good standard of living. I would see electricity as part of that society.


.ui

[windy1]

Well, you only have to look back less than 150 years to see what it was like before we had electricity available for everyday use. I don't think it is particularly appealing to want to go back to that way of life, unless the idea is that we should all live a more primitive sort of lifestyle and work a lot longer hours.

Electricity has made possible all sorts of useful and good things to assist human beings, and it is an excellent means to distribute energy around a country. So I think it would be an idiotic idea to think we should even consider living without electricity.

One of the worst aspects of plentiful electricity is that a lot of unessentrial or wasteful gadgets have been produced that use valuable materials and energy in their manufacture and use. With the increasing demands on our natural resources it would be better to look for more efficient ways to use electricity. Old fashioned non-rechargable batteries are a very inefficient and environmentally damaging method of distributing electricity.

[greenrealist]

I agree with the comments below. Electricity is a secondary form of energy and it's effect is neither positive or negative on the environment, it is itself natural. I believe the concern of the original question is therefore twofold. 1) The manner in which electricity is generated and distributed and 2) the manner in which the electricity is consumed. Whilst I do have strong views on the latter aspect, I believe that the environmental importance of the second point is mitigated to some extent by addressing the first.

From a realists perspective the problem with addressing the current reliance on fossil fuels (and the associated impact on climate change) lies in understanding the social, economic and political pressures on Governments to promote a diversified generation portfolio. From a UK perspective these concerns are often classified as;
1) the need to reduce GHG emissions
2) the need to ensure security of supply (SOS)
3) the need to ensure affordable energy for all in society.

Clearly each form of generation technology has pros and cons when considered against this list e.g.
Coal/Oil/Gas - Negative impact on the environment (especially GHG emissions), but well understood technologies and existing infrastructure making generation relatively cheap, also coal gives an element of SOS from a UK perspective.
Nuclear - Relatively good from a GHG point of view, but significant waste issue. Cheap when generating but expensive to decommission. Excellent for domestic security of supply.
Renewables - excellent in terms of GHG, but many new forms of renewables are low down the development/deployment curve making them expensive and questions remain over longer reliability i.e. tidal/wave power. Intermittant generation also requires back up for frequency response purposes which means that consumers would pay twice for generation capacity.

Whilst new EU legislation on renewables will help to speed up deployment (and therefore reduce renewable costs quicker) the UK Government will still base their energy strategy on the three fundamental objectives outlined above.

In conclusion, if you want to change the balance of generation, citizens and businesses will have to convince Government (in numbers sufficient to win an election) that;
1) We don't mind paying a lot more for energy
2) We do not mind the potential for supply interruptions, especially in the medium term until renewables and associated infrastructure are fully reliable.
3) We welcome renewable developments in our back yard

Whilst many on this forum would sign up to the above, this is not what I hear from friends, colleagues, neighbours and people down the pub. I'm not sure where this leaves us.

I am conscious that this has been from a UK policy perspective and given that there are numerous members from around the globe I would appreciate feedback on your Government's energy policy. Are the key objectives the same??

All the best,

Green Realist.