Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta Ecología. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta Ecología. Mostrar todas las entradas

domingo, 22 de mayo de 2022

The Great Simplification - Full Movie

 This 32 minute animation -in 4 Acts - describes the backdrop for The Great Simplification - an economic/cultural transition beginning in the not-too-distant future.

We made this movie, originally as a framing 'teaser' for the new podcast thegreatsimplification.com, but the project....expanded over time. Part 1 describes how our species got to this point, and the role of energy in our economies Part 2 gives an overview of the relationship between energy, technology, money and the environment and how global human society is (currently) akin to a metabolic heat engine Part 3 gives an overview of individual (and aggregate) human behavior tendencies in a novel modern environment and why these dynamics are relevant to our current challenges Part 4 describes how people look at the future wearing different popular lenses, but when wearing a 'systems' lens, it becomes clear that a Great Simplification is soon approaching. There are show notes pinned in the comments and also at thegreatsimplification.com Please subscribe to this channel or the podcast for more content and context about what we can do to meet the future halfway.
Here are show notes and references hosted on the podcast site: thegreatsimplification.com

domingo, 4 de abril de 2021

How Neolithic farming sowed the seeds of modern inequality 10,000 years ago

The prehistoric shift towards cultivation began our preoccupation with hierarchy and growth – and even changed how we perceive the passage of time

Rock paintings of Neolithic farming in Tassili de Maghidet, Libya.
Rock paintings of Neolithic farming in Tassili de Maghidet, Libya. Photograph: Roberto Esposti/Alamy

Most people regard hierarchy in human societies as inevitable, a natural part of who we are. Yet this belief contradicts much of the 200,000-year history of Homo sapiens.

In fact, our ancestors have for the most part been “fiercely egalitarian”, intolerant of any form of inequality. While hunter-gatherers accepted that people had different skills, abilities and attributes, they aggressively rejected efforts to institutionalise them into any form of hierarchy.

So what happened to cause such a profound shift in the human psyche away from egalitarianism? The balance of archaeological, anthropological and genomic data suggests the answer lies in the agricultural revolution, which began roughly 10,000 years ago.

The extraordinary productivity of modern farming techniques belies just how precarious life was for most farmers from the earliest days of the Neolithic revolution right up until this century (in the case of subsistence farmers in the world’s poorer countries). Both hunter-gatherers and early farmers were susceptible to short-term food shortages and occasional famines – but it was the farming communities who were much more likely to suffer severe, recurrent and catastrophic famines.

Hunting and gathering was a low-risk way of making a living. Ju/’hoansi hunter-gatherers in Namibia traditionally made use of 125 different edible plant species, each of which had a slightly different seasonal cycle, varied in its response to different weather conditions, and occupied a specific environmental niche. When the weather proved unsuitable for one set of species it was likely to benefit another, vastly reducing the risk of famine.

As a result, hunter-gatherers considered their environments to be eternally provident, and only ever worked to meet their immediate needs. They never sought to create surpluses nor over-exploited any key resources. Confidence in the sustainability of their environments was unyielding.

The Ju/’hoansi people have lived in southern Africa for hundreds of thousands of years.
The Ju/’hoansi people have lived in southern Africa for hundreds of thousands of years. Photograph: James Suzman

In contrast, Neolithic farmers assumed full responsibility for “making” their environments provident. They depended on a handful of highly sensitive crops or livestock species, which meant any seasonal anomaly such as drought or livestock disease could cause chaos.

And indeed, the expansion of agriculture across the globe was punctuated by catastrophic societal collapses. Genomic research on the history of European populations points to a series of sharp declines that coincided first with the Neolithic expansion through central Europe around 7,500 years ago, then with their spread into north-western Europe about 6,000 years ago.

However, when the stars were in alignment – weather favourable, pests subdued, soils still packed with nutrients – agriculture was very much more productive than hunting and gathering. This enabled farming populations to grow far more rapidly than hunter-gatherers, and sustain these growing populations over much less land.

But successful Neolithic farmers were still tormented by fears of drought, blight, pests, frost and famine. In time, this profound shift in the way societies regarded scarcity also induced fears about raids, wars, strangers – and eventually, taxes and tyrants.

Fruits and tubers gathered by the Ju/’hoansi.
The Ju/’hoansi traditionally made use of 125 different edible plant species. Photograph: James Suzman

Not that early farmers considered themselves helpless. If they did things right, they could minimise the risks that fed their fears. This meant pleasing capricious gods in the conduct of their day-to-day lives – but above all, it placed a premium on working hard and creating surpluses.

Where hunter-gatherers saw themselves simply as part of an inherently productive environment, farmers regarded their environment as something to manipulate, tame and control. But as any farmer will tell you, bending an environment to your will requires a lot of work. The productivity of a patch of land is directly proportional to the amount of energy you put into it.

This principle that hard work is a virtue, and its corollary that individual wealth is a reflection of merit, is perhaps the most obvious of the agricultural revolution’s many social, economic and cultural legacies.

From farming to war

The acceptance of the link between hard work and prosperity played a profound role in reshaping human destiny. In particular, the ability to both generate and control the distribution of surpluses became a path to power and influence. This laid the foundations for all the key elements of our contemporary economies, and cemented our preoccupation with growth, productivity and trade.

Regular surpluses enabled a much greater degree of role differentiation within farming societies, creating space for less immediately productive roles. Initially these would have been agriculture-related (toolmakers, builders and butchers), but over time new roles emerged: priests to pray for good rains; fighters to protect farmers from wild animals and rivals; politicians to transform economic power into social capital.

recent research paper examining inequality in early Neolithic societies confirms what early-20th century anthropologists already knew, on the basis of comparative studies of farming societies: that the greater the surpluses a society produced, the greater the levels of inequality in that society.

The new research maps the relative sizes of people’s homes in 63 Neolithic societies between 9000BC and 1500 AD. It finds a clear correlation between levels of material inequality – based on the size of household dwellings in each community – and the use of draught animals, which enabled people to put far greater energy into their fields.

Of course, even the most hard-working early Neolithic farmers learnt to their cost that the same patch of soil could not keep producing abundant harvests year after year. Their need to sustain ever-larger populations also set in motion a cycle of geographic expansion by means of conquest and war.

The Ju/‘hoansi, who once depended solely on hunting and gathering, now rely ever more on subsistence farming.
The Ju/‘hoansi, who once depended solely on hunting and gathering, now rely ever more on subsistence farming. Photograph: James Suzman

Thanks to studies of observed interactions between 20th-century hunter-gatherers such as the Ju/’hoansi and their farming neighbours in Africa, India, the Americas and south-east Asia, we now know that agriculture spread through Europe by the aggressive expansion of farming populations, at the expense of established hunter-gather populations.

The agricultural revolution also transformed the way humans think about time. Seeds are planted in spring to be harvested in autumn; fields are left fallow so they may be productive the following year. Thus farming-based societies created economies of hope and aspiration, in which we focus almost unerringly on the future, and where the fruits of our labour are delayed.

But it’s not only our work that is future-oriented: so much of modern life is a tangle of social goals and often-impossible expectations shaping everything from our love-lives to our health. Hunter-gatherers, by contrast, only worked to meet their immediate needs; they neither held themselves hostage to future aspirations, nor claimed privilege on the basis of past achievements.

Understanding how the agricultural revolution transformed human societies was once no more than a question of intellectual curiosity. Now, though, it has taken on a more practical and urgent aspect. Many of the challenges created by the agricultural revolution, such as the problem of scarcity, have largely been solved by technology – yet our preoccupation with hard work and unrestrained economic growth remains undimmed. As environmental economists remind us, this obsession risks cannibalising our – and many other species’ – futures.

So it is worth recognising that our current social, political and economic models are not an inevitable consequence of human nature, but a product of our (recent) history. That knowledge could free us to be more imaginative in changing the way we relate to our environments, and one another. Having spent 95% of Homo sapiens’ history hunting and gathering, there is surely a little of the hunter-gatherer psyche left in all of us.

  • Affluence Without Abundance by James Suzman (Bloomsbury Publishing) is available from the Guardian Bookshop at a saving of 15% on RRP
  • If you have experiences relating to this article that you’d like to share, please email us at inequality.project@theguardian.com

jueves, 15 de noviembre de 2018

Franco Berardi: No hay salida del nazismo global


“No hay salida del nazismo global”
Entrevista al filósofo italiano Franco Berardi

Para Berardi, las personas resignaron su capacidad para pensar y sentir y, mientras la falta de diálogo impide la organización, nuevos gobiernos represivos controlan todo sin necesidad de recurrir a ejércitos. “Hoy no nos relacionamos”, asegura.

Por Pablo Esteban
El filósofo Franco “Bifo” Berardi tiene la sonrisa fácil. Es profesor de la Universidad de Bologna desde hace mucho tiempo pero antes, cuando solo tenía 18 años, participó de las revueltas juveniles del 68’, se hizo amigo de Félix Guattari, frecuentó a Michel Foucault, ocupó universidades y fue feliz. Hoy asegura que esa posibilidad fue clausurada: los humanos ya no imaginan, no sienten, no hacen silencio, no reflexionan ni se aburren. Los cuerpos no se comunican y, por tanto, conocer el mundo se vuelve un horizonte imposible. Frente a una realidad atravesada por la emergencia de regímenes fascistas –enmascarados con globos, pochoclos y dientes brillantes– los ciudadanos protagonizan una sociedad violenta, caracterizada por la “epidemia de la descortesía”. Fundó revistas, creó radios alternativas y señales de TV comunitarias, publicó libros entre los que se destacan, “La fábrica de infelicidad” (2000), “Después del futuro” (2014) y Fenomenología del fin. Sensibilidad y mutación conectiva (2017). En esta oportunidad plantea cómo sobrevivir en un escenario de fascismo emergente, de vértigo y agresividad a la orden del día.

–A menudo plantea la frase: “El capitalismo está muerto pero seguimos viviendo al interior del cadáver”. ¿Qué quiere decir con ello?

–La vitalidad y la energía innovadora que el capitalismo tenía hasta la mitad del siglo XX se acabó. Hoy se ha transformado en un sistema esencialmente abstracto, los procesos de financierización de la economía son los que dominan la escena y la producción útil ha sido reemplazada. En la medida en que no se podía pensar el valor de cambio sin primero recaer en el valor de uso, siempre creímos que el capitalismo era muy malo pero promovía el progreso. Hoy, por el contrario, no produce nada útil sino que solo se acumula y acumula valor.

–¿Por qué no nos relacionamos?

–La abstracción de la comunicación ha producido un proyecto de intercambio de signos financieros digitales que, por supuesto, no requiere de la presencia de personas para poder efectuarse. Los cuerpos se aíslan: cuánto más conectados menos comunicados estamos. Me refiero a una crítica al progreso que ya se ha discutido tenazmente con Theodor Adorno y Max Horkheimer en Dialéctica de la Ilustración. En la introducción del libro señalan que el pensamiento crítico y la democracia firman su condena a muerte si no logran comprender las consecuencias tenebrosas de la ilustración. Si no entendemos que la mayoría de la población reacciona de una manera miedosa al cambio todo terminará muy mal.

–¿En qué sentido?

–Creíamos que Adolf Hitler había perdido y no es verdad. Perdió una batalla, pero todavía gana sus guerras. Los líderes Rodrigo Duterte (Filipinas), Jair Bolsonaro, Donald Trump, Matteo Salvini (Italia) y Víktor Orbán (Hungría) representan los signos de un nazismo emergente y triunfante en todo el mundo.

–¿Por qué se vive con tanta violencia y agresividad?

–Puedo responderte con la reproducción de una frase que leí en el blog de un joven de 19 años: “Desde mi nacimiento he interactuado con entidades automáticas y nunca con cuerpos humanos. Ahora que estoy en mi juventud, la sociedad me dice que tengo que tener sexo con personas, las cuales son menos interesantes y mucho más brutales que las entidades virtuales”. Esto quiere decir que al relacionarnos –cada vez más– con autómatas perdemos la expertise, la capacidad de lidiar con la ambigüedad de los seres humanos y nos volvemos brutales. En efecto, miramos con mejores ojos a las máquinas. La violencia sexual es la falta de aptitud del sexo para poder hablar. De hecho, vivimos hablando de sexo, pero el sexo no habla. No logramos comprender el placer del deseo del cortejo, de la ironía, de la seducción y, en este sentido, lo único que queda cuando rascamos el fondo del tarro es la violencia, la apropiación brutal del otro.

–Si la capacidad emotiva se ha perdido y la de razonar se está desvaneciendo, ¿qué nos queda como Humanidad?

–No hay salida del nazismo global. Lo único que queda como respuesta es el trauma, a partir de la readaptación del cerebro colectivo. El problema fundamental no es político, sino cognoscitivo: la victoria de Bolsonaro no representa solo una desgracia para el pueblo brasileño, pues, también es una declaración de muerte para los pulmones de la Humanidad. Te lo digo como asmático: la destrucción de la Amazonia que se está preparando implica una verdadera catástrofe. Mientras que el final de nuestros recursos se aproxima, la evolución del conocimiento social, algunas veces, demanda dos o más siglos.

–Si ya no podemos imaginar, será imposible construir futuros.

–Por supuesto, si no imaginamos no podemos actuar. La imaginación depende de lo que conocemos, de nuestras trayectorias y experiencias y, sobre todo, de nuestra percepción empática del ambiente y del cuerpo ajeno. Ya no vivimos emocionalmente de manera solidaria. Los jóvenes hoy están solos, muy solos. Necesitamos construir un movimiento erótico para curar al cerebro colectivo. Se trata de volver a unificar al cuerpo y al cerebro, a la emoción y al entendimiento. Desde aquí, #NiUnaMenos es la única experiencia mundial que, desde mi perspectiva, recupera estos vínculos. Debemos aprender de este fenómeno y extenderlo a otras áreas, recuperar derechos, volver a vivir la vida.

lunes, 21 de agosto de 2017

Guts and Grease: The Diet of Native Americans



 BY 


The hunter-gatherer’s dinner is front page news these days. Drawing from the writings of Dr. Boyd Eaton and Professor Loren Cordain, experts in the so-called Paleolithic diet, columnists and reporters are spreading the word about the health benefits of a diet rich in protein and high in fiber from a variety of plant foods 1,2. It’s actually amusing to see what the modern food pundits come up with as examples of the “Paleolithic Prescription.” Jean Carper offers a Stone Age Salad of mixed greens, garbanzo beans, skinless chicken breast, walnuts and fresh herbs, mixed with a dressing made of orange juice, balsamic vinegar and canola oil.3 Elizabeth Somer suggests whole wheat waffles with fat-free cream cheese, coleslaw with nonfat dressing, grilled halibut with spinach, grilled tofu and vegetables over rice, nonfat milk, canned apricots and mineral water, along with prawns and clams. Her Stone Age food pyramid includes plenty of plant foods, extra lean meat and fish, nonfat milk products, and honey and eggs in small amounts.4
Above all, the food writers tell us, avoid fats, especially saturated fats. The hunter-gatherer’s diet was highly politically correct, they say, rich in polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fatty acids but relatively low in overall fat and very low in that dietary villain-saturated fat. This is the one dietary factor that health officials tell us is responsible for all the health problems that plague us-everything from cancer and heart disease to obesity and MS.

Remarkable Health

That the hunter-gatherer was healthy there is no doubt. Weston Price noted an almost complete absence of tooth decay and dental deformities among native Americans who lived as their ancestors did.5 They had broad faces, straight teeth and fine physiques. This was true of the nomadic tribes living in the far northern territories of British Columbia and the Yukon, as well as the wary inhabitants of the Florida Everglades, who were finally coaxed into allowing him to take photographs. Skeletal remains of the Indians of Vancouver that Price studied were similar, showing a virtual absence of tooth decay, arthritis and any other kind of bone deformity. TB was nonexistent among Indians who ate as their ancestors had done, and the women gave birth with ease.
Price interviewed the beloved Dr. Romig in Alaska who stated “that in his thirty-six years of contact with these people he had never seen a case of malignant disease among the truly primitive Eskimos and Indians, although it frequently occurs when they become modernized. He found, similarly, that the acute surgical problems requiring operation on internal organs, such as the gall bladder, kidney, stomach and appendix, do not tend to occur among the primitives but are very common problems among the modernized Eskimos and Indians. Growing out of his experience in which he had seen large numbers of the modernized Eskimos and Indians attacked with tuberculosis, which tended to be progressive and ultimately fatal as long as the patients stayed under modernized living conditions, he now sends them back when possible to primitive conditions and to a primitive diet, under which the death rate is very much lower than under modernized conditions. Indeed, he reported that a great majority of the afflicted recover under the primitive type of living and nutrition.”6
The early explorers consistently described the native Americans as tall and well formed. Of the Indians of Texas, the explorer Cabeza de Vaca wrote, “The men could run after a deer for an entire day without resting and without apparent fatigue. . . one man near seven feet in stature. . . runs down a buffalo on foot and slays it with his knife or lance, as he runs by its side.”7 The Indians were difficult to kill. De Vaca reports on an Indian “traversed by an arrow. . . he does not die but recovers from his wound.” The Karakawas, a tribe that lived near the Gulf Coast, were tall, well-built and muscular. “The men went stark naked, the lower lip and nipple pierced, covered in alligator grease [to ward off mosquitoes], happy and generous, with amazing physical prowess. . . they go naked in the most burning sun, in winter they go out in early dawn to take a bath, breaking the ice with their body.”

Greasy and Good

What kind of foods produced such fine physical specimens? The diets of the American Indians varied with the locality and climate but all were based on animal foods of every type and description, not only large game like deer, buffalo, wild sheep and goat, antelope, moose, elk, caribou, bear and peccary, but also small animals such as beaver, rabbit, squirrel, skunk, muskrat and raccoon; reptiles including snakes, lizards, turtles, and alligators; fish and shellfish; wild birds including ducks and geese; sea mammals (for Indians living in coastal areas); insects including locust, spiders and lice; and dogs. (Wolves and coyotes were avoided because of religious taboos)8.
According to Dr. Eaton, these foods supplied plenty of protein but only small amounts of total fat; and this fat was high in polyunsaturated fatty acids and low in saturated fats. The fat of wild game, according to Eaton, is about 38 percent saturated, 32 percent monounsaturated and 30 percent polyunsaturated.9 This prescription may be just fine for those who want to promote vegetable oils, but it does not jibe with fat content of wild animals in the real world. The table below lists fat content in various tissues of a number of wild animals found in the diets of American Indians. Note that only squirrel fat contains levels of polyunsaturated fatty acids that Eaton claims are typical for wild game. In a continent noted for the richness and variety of its animal life, it is unlikely that squirrels would have supplied more than a tiny fraction of total calories. Seal fat, consumed by coastal Indians, ranges from 14 to 24 percent polyunsaturated. The fat of all the other animals that the Indians hunted and ate contained less than 10 percent polyunsaturated fatty acids, some less than 2 percent. Most prized was the internal kidney fat of ruminant animals, which can be as high as 65 percent saturated.
Sources of Fat for the American Indian10
SaturatedMonounsaturatedPolyunsaturated
Antelope, kidney fat65.0421.253.91
Bison, kidney fat34.4852.364.83
Caribou, bone marrow22.2756.873.99
Deer, kidney fat48.2438.526.21
Dog, meat, muscle28.3647.768.95
Dog, kidney25.5441.857.69
Elk, kidney61.5830.101.62
Goat, kidney65.5728.140.00
Moose, kidney47.2644.752.11
Peccary, fatty tissues38.4746.529.7
Reindeer, caribou, fatty tissues50.7538.941.25
Seal (Harbor), blubber11.9161.4113.85
Seal (Harbor), depot fat14.5154.2316.84
Seal (harp), blubber19.1642.2215.04
Seal (harp), meat10.6954.2123.51
Sheep (mountain), kidney fat47.9641.372.87
Sheep (white faced), kidney fat51.5839.901.16
Sheep, intestine, roasted47.0140.307.46
Snake, meat26.3644.540.09
Squirrel (brown), adipose17.4447.5528.6
Squirrel (white), adipose12.2751.4832.3
Game fat, according to Eaton383230
Politically correct paleo-dieters also ignore the fact that the Indians hunted animals selectively. The explorer Vilhjalmur Stefansson, who spend many years with the Indians, noted that they preferred “the flesh of older animals to that of calves, yearlings and two-year olds. . . It is approximately so with those northern forest Indians with whom I have hunted, and probably with all caribou-eaters.” The Indians preferred the older animals because they had built up a thick slab of fat along the back. In an animal of 1000 pounds, this slab could weigh 40 to 50 pounds. Another 20-30 pounds of highly saturated fat could be removed from the cavity. This fat was saved, sometimes by rendering, stored in the bladder or large intestine, and consumed with dried or smoked lean meat. Used in this way, fat contributed almost 80 percent of total calories in the diets of the northern Indians.11
Beaver was highly prized, especially the tail because it was rich in fat. But small animals like rabbit and squirrel were eaten only when nothing else was available because, according to Stefansson, they were so low in fat. In fact, small animals called for special preparation. The meat was removed from the bones, roasted and pounded. The bones were dried and ground into a powder. Then the bones were mixed with the meat and any available grease, a procedure that would greatly lower the percentage of polyunsaturated fatty acids, while raising the total content of saturated fat.12When a scarcity of game forced the Indians to consume only small animals like rabbits, they suffered from “rabbit starvation.”
“The groups that depend on the blubber animals are the most fortunate, in the hunting way of life, for they never suffer from fat-hunger. This trouble is worst, so far as North America is concerned, among those forest Indians who depend at times on rabbits, the leanest animal in the North, and who develop the extreme fat-hunger known as rabbit-starvation. Rabbit eaters, if they have no fat from another source-beaver, moose, fish-will develop diarrhoea in about a week, with headache, lassitude and vague discomfort. If there are enough rabbits, the people eat till their stomachs are distended; but no matter how much they eat they feel unsatisfied. Some think a man will die sooner if he eats continually of fat-free meat than if he eats nothing, but this is a belief on which sufficient evidence for a decision has not been gathered in the North. Deaths from rabbit-starvation, or from the eating of other skinny meat, are rare; for everyone understands the principle, and any possible preventive steps are naturally taken.”13

The Whole Animal

Ruminant animals, such as moose, elk, caribou, deer, antelope and, of course, buffalo were the mainstay of the Amerindian diet, just as beef is the mainstay of the modern American diet. The difference is that the whole animal was eaten, not just the muscle meats.
Beverly Hungry Wolf describes the preparation and consumption of a cow in The Ways of My Grandmothers, noting that her grandmother prepared the cow “as she had learned to prepare buffalo when she was young.” The large pieces of fat from the back and cavity were removed and rendered. The lean meat was cut into strips and dried or roasted, pounded up with berries and mixed with fat to make pemmican. Most of the ribs were smoked and stored for later use14.
All the excess fat inside the body was hung up so the moisture would dry out of it, recalls Beverly Hungry Wolf. It was later served with dried meat. Some fats in the animal were rendered into “lard” instead of dried.
All the insides, such as heart, kidneys and liver, were prepared and eaten, roasted or baked or laid out in the sun to dry. The lungs were not cooked, just sliced and hung up to dry. Intestines were also dried. Sapotsis or Crow gut is a Blackfoot delicacy made from the main intestine which is stuffed with meat and roasted over coals. Tripe was prepared and eaten raw or boiled or roasted. The brains were eaten raw. If the animal was a female, they would prepare the teats or udders by boiling or barbecuing-these were never eaten raw. If the animal carried an unborn young, this was fed to the older people because it was so tender. The guts of the unborn would be taken out and braided, then boiled too. The tongue was always boiled if it wasn’t dried. “Even old animals have tender tongues,” she recalls.
trad-guts-sittingbullThe hooves were boiled down until all the gristle in them was soft. The blood was also saved, often mixed with flour or used to make sausages in the guts.
The second stomach was washed well and eaten raw, but certain parts were usually boiled or roasted and the rest dried. “Another delicacy is at the very end of the intestines—the last part of the colon. You wash this real good and tie one end shut. Then you stuff the piece with dried berries and a little water and you tie the other end shut. You boil this all day, until it is really tender and you have a Blackfoot Pudding.”
According to John (Fire) Lame Deer, the eating of guts had evolved into a contest. “In the old days we used to eat the guts of the buffalo, making a contest of it, two fellows getting hold of a long piece of intestines from opposite ends, starting chewing toward the middle, seeing who can get there first; that’s eating. Those buffalo guts, full of half-fermented, half-digested grass and herbs, you didn’t need any pills and vitamins when you swallowed those.”15
The marrow was full of fat and was usually eaten raw. The Indians knew how to strike the femur bone so that it would split open and reveal the delicate interior flesh. Eaton and others report that the marrow is rich in polyunsaturated fatty acids but Stefansson describes two types of marrow, one type from the lower leg which is soft “more like a particularly delicious cream in flavor” and another from the humerus and femur that is “hard and tallowy at room temperatures.”16 According to Beverly Hungry Wolf, the grease inside the bones “was scooped out and saved or the bones boiled and the fat skimmed off and saved. It turned into something like hard lard.” More saturated fat the professors have overlooked!
Samuel Hearne, an explorer writing in 1768, describes the preparation of caribou: “Of all the dishes cooked by the Indians, a beeatee, as it is called in their language, is certainly the most delicious that can be prepared from caribou only, without any other ingredient. It is a kind of haggis, made with the blood, a good quantity of fat shred small, some of the tenderest of the flesh, together with the heart and lungs cut, or more commonly torn into small shivers; all of which is put into the stomach and toasted by being suspended before the fire on a string. . . . it is certainly a most delicious morsel, even without pepper, salt or any other seasoning.”17
Sometimes the Indians selected only the fatty parts of the animal, throwing the rest away. “On the twenty-second of July,” writes Samuel Hearne, “we met several strangers, whom we joined in pursuit of the caribou, which were at this time so plentiful that we got everyday a sufficient number for our support, and indeed too frequently killed several merely for the tongues, marrow and fat.”
Certain parts of the animal were considered appropriate for men or women. The male organs were for the men, as well as the ribs towards the front, which were called “the shoulder ribs, or the boss ribs. They are considered a man’s special meal.” For women, a part of the “intestine that is quite large and full of manure
. . . the thicker part has a kind of hard lining on the inside. My grandmother said that this part is good for a pregnant mother to eat; she said it will make the baby have a nice round head. Pregnant mothers were not allowed to eat any other parts of the intestine because their faces would become discolored.”18

Sacred Foods

All of the foods considered important for reproduction and all of the foods considered sacred were animal foods, rich in fat. According to Beverly Hungry Wolf, pemmican made with berries “was used by the Horns Society for their sacred meal of communion.” Boiled tongue was an ancient delicacy, served as the food of communion at the Sun Dance. A blood soup, made from a mixture of blood and corn flour cooked in broth, was used as a sacred meal during the nighttime Holy Smoke ceremonies.19
Bear was another sacred food-altars of bear bones have been found at many Paleolithic sites. Cabeza de Vaca reports that the Indians of Texas kept the skin of the bear and ate the fat, but threw the rest away. Other groups ate the entire animal, including the head, but recognized the fat as the most valuable part. According to colonist William Byrd II, writing in 1728, “The flesh of bear hath a good relish, very savory and inclining nearest to that of Pork. The Fat of this Creature is least apt to rise in the Stomach of any other. The Men for the most part chose it rather than Venison.” Bear grease was thought to give them resistance by making them physically strong. “We eat it sometimes now and everybody feels better.”20
Bear was also considered an important food for reproduction. When Byrd asked an Indian why their squaws were always able to bare children, the Indian replied that “if any Indian woman did not prove with child at a decent time after Marriage, the Husband, to save his Reputation with the women, forthwith entered into a Bear-dyet for Six Weeks, which in that time makes him so vigorous that he grows exceedingly impertinent to his poor wife and ’tis great odds but he makes her a Mother in Nine Months.”

Fat-Soluble Nutrients

Indians living in coastal areas consumed large amounts of fish, including the heads and roe. Price reported that in the area of Vancouver, the candle fish was collected in large quantities, the oil removed and used as a dressing for many seafoods. Shell fish were eaten in large amounts when available.
Animal fats, organ meats and fatty fish all supply fat-soluble vitamins A and D, which Weston Price recognized as the basis of healthy primitive diets. These nutrients are catalysts to the assimilation of protein and minerals. Without them minerals go to waste and the body cannot be built tall and strong. When tribes have access to an abundance of fat soluble vitamins, the offspring will grow up with “nice round heads,” broad faces and straight teeth.
Certain fatty glands of game animals also provided vitamin C during the long winter season in the North. The Indians of Canada revealed to Dr. Price that the adrenal glands in the moose prevented scurvy. When an animal was killed, the adrenal gland and its fat were cut up and shared with all members of the tribe. The walls of the second stomach were also eaten to prevent “the white man’s disease.”

Plant Foods

A variety of plant foods were used throughout the North American continents, notably corn (in the temperate regions) and wild rice (in the Great Lakes region). Dry corn was first soaked in lime water (water in which calcium carbonate or calcium oxide is dissolved), a process called nixtamalizacionthat softens the corn for use and releases vitamin B3, which otherwise remains bound in the grain. The resulting dough, called nixtamal or masa, can be prepared in a variety of ways to make porridges and breads. Often these preparations were then fried in bear grease or other fat. Many groups grew beans and enjoyed them as “succotash,” a dish comprised of beans, corn, dog meat and bear fat. As an adjunct to the diet, corn provided variety and important calories. But when the proportion of corn in the diet became too high, as happened in the American Southwest, the health of the people suffered. Skeletal remains of groups subsisting largely on corn reveal widespread tooth decay and bone problems.21
Tubers like the Jerusalem artichoke (the root of a type of sunflower) were cooked slowly for a long time in underground pits until the hard indigestible root was transformed into a highly digestible gelatinous mass. Wild onions were used to flavor meat dishes and, in fact, were an important item of commerce. Nuts like acorns were made into gruel or little cakes after careful preparation to remove tannins. In the Southeast, pecans contributed important fat calories. In the southern areas, cactus was consumed; in northern areas wild potatoes.
Staples like corn and beans were stored in underground pits, ingeniously covered with logs and leaves to prevent wild animals from finding or looting the stores. Birch bark was used to make trays, buckets and containers, including kettles. Water was boiled by putting hot rocks into the containers. Southern Indians used clay pots for the same purpose.
In general, fruits were dried and used to season fat, fish and meat-dried blueberries were used to flavor moose fat, for example. Beverly Hungry Wolf recalls that her grandmother mixed wild mint with fat and dried meat, which was then stored in rawhide containers. The mint would keep the bugs out and also prevent the fat from spoiling.
The Indians enjoyed sweet-tasting foods. Maple sugar or pine sugar was used to sweeten meats and fats. In the Southwest, the Indians chewed the sweet heart of the agave plant. In fact, the Spanish noted that where agave grew, the Indians had bad teeth.22

Fermented Foods

Use of sour-tasting fermented foods was widespread. The Cherokee “bread” consisted of nixtamalwrapped in corn leaves and allowed to ferment for two weeks.23 Manzanita berries and other plant foods were also fermented.
The Indians also enjoyed fermented, gamey animal foods. The Coahuiltecans, living in the inland brush country of south Texas set fish aside for eight days “until larvae and other insects had developed in the rotting flesh.24 They were then consumed as an epicure’s delight, along with the rotten fish.” Samuel Hearne describes a fermented dish consumed by the Chippewaya and Cree: “The most remarkable dish among them. . . is blood mixed with the half-digested food which is found in the caribou’s stomach, and boiled up with a sufficient quantity of water to make it of the consistence of pease-pottage. Some fat and scraps of tender flesh are also shred small and boiled with it. To render this dish more palatable, they have a method of mixing the blood with the contents of the stomach in the paunch itself, and hanging it up in the heat and smoke of the fire for several days; which puts the whole mass into a state of fermentation, which gives it such an agreeable acid taste, that were it not for prejudice, it might be eaten by those who have the nicest palates.”25
A number of reports indicate that broth and herbed beverages were preferred to water. The Chippewa boiled water and added leaves or twigs before drinking it.26 Sassafras was a favorite ingredient in teas and medicinal drinks.27 Broth was flavored and thickened with corn silk and dried pumpkin blossom. California Indians added lemonade berries to water to make a pleasantly sour drink.28 Another sour drink was produced from fermented corn porridge.29 In the Southwest, a drink called chichi is made with little balls of corn dough which the women impregnate with saliva by chewing. They are added to water to produce a delicious, sour, fizzy fermented drink.30

Guts and Grease in a Glass

Modern food writers who assure us we can enjoy the superb health of the American Indian by eating low fat foods and canned fruits have done the public a great disservice. The basis of the Indian diet was guts and grease, not waffles and skimmed milk. When the Indians abandoned these traditional foods and began consuming processed store-bought foods, their health deteriorated rapidly. Weston Price vividly described the suffering from tooth decay, tuberculosis, arthritis and other problems that plagued the modernized Indian groups he visited throughout America and Canada.
Modern man has lost his taste for the kinds of foods the Indians ate—how many American children will eat raw liver, dried lung or sour porridge? How then can we return to the kind of good health the Indians enjoyed?
Price found only one group of modernized Indians that did not suffer from caries. These were students at the Mohawk Institute near the city of Brantford. “The Institute maintained a fine dairy herd and provided fresh vegetables, whole wheat bread and limited the sugar and white flour.”31So the formula for good health in the modern age begins with the products of “a fine dairy herd”—whole, raw, unprocessed milk from cows that eat green grass, a highly nutritious substitute for guts and grease and one that every child can enjoy, even native American children who are supposedly lactose intolerant. Add some good fats (butter, tallow and lard), aim for liver or other organ meats once a week (but don’t fret if you can’t achieve this with your own children), make cod liver oil part of the daily routine, eat plenty of meat and seafood, and augment the diet with a variety of plant foods properly prepared, including a few that are fermented. Keep sugar and white flour to a minimum. It’s a simple formula that can turn a nation of hungry little wolves into happy campers.
Meanwhile, be skeptical of government guidelines. The Indians learned not to trust our government and neither should you.
The authors are grateful to Don Coté for his help with this article.

Sidebar

Native Americans and Diabetes

American Indians know all too well the havoc that Type II Diabetes can wreak on the human body. What they may not know is that Uncle Sam is to blame.
Thousands of American Indians depend on the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR). What do participants receive? It should come as no surprise that the commodities are loaded with carbohydrates with very little protein on the menu and even less fat. And the fats Indians do receive are loaded with trans fats. These foods are cheap and the multinational giants that produce them are equipped with lawyers and lobbyists to ensure that their products are the ones our government buys. The federal government feeds 53 million people per day. Is it any wonder they’re out to cut costs, whatever the consequences to our health?
Even in light of the latest research on the ill effect of excess carbohydrates on the human body, federal agencies have no choice. The National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act of 1990, also known as Public Law 101-445, states that all federal agencies shall promote the current US Dietary Recommendations in carrying out any federal food, nutrition or health program. The USDA Food Pyramid is more than a recommendation; it’s a federal prescription written in stone. And it’s speeding the death of most if not all Americans.
The Indians are hit harder and faster than the rest of us because they are only two generations away from the “old way” of life, based on game animals and fish. Uncle Sam will never admit that the Indians were tall, lean and healthy just two generations ago. If ever someone wanted proof that humans weren’t designed to eat a grain-based diet, look at the American Indian population-almost all of them are battling overweight, diabetes, and heart disease. Addictions are common. Yet many Indians have vivid memories of life before federal handouts, a time when diabetes and other diseases of civilization were unheard of among the Indians.
The US government has failed miserably when it comes to treating its native peoples. But without a change in US law, Indians will continue to receive a recipe for death. One possible remedy is the Tribal Self-Governance Project, created by Congress in 1988, which allows tribal governments more flexibility in the decision-making and administration of their contracted programs. Indians must take a stand and demand that government subsidies reflect their native diet. Better yet, Indians who can should refuse their “gift” from the government and return to hunting and fishing-the only way to reclaim their health.
Michael Eades, MD
Drs. Michael and Mary Dan Eades are the authors of Protein Power Lifeplan (Warner, 2000)

References
  1. S. Boyd Eaton, MD with Marjorie Shostak and Melvin Konner, MD, PhD, The Paleolithic Prescription: A Program of Diet & Exercise and a Design for Living, Harper & Row
  2. Loren Cordain, PhD and Boyd Eaton, “Evolutionary aspects of diet: Old genes, new fuels. Nutritional changes since agriculture,” World Review of Nutrition and Dietetics 1997:81
  3. Jean Carper, USA Weekend
  4. Elizabeth Somer, MA, RD, “Stone Age Diet,” SHAPE, October 1998
  5. Weston A. Price, DDS, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, (619) 574-7763, pages 73-102
  6. Ibid., p 91
  7. The explorer Cabeza de Vaca is quoted in WW Newcomb, The Indians of Texas, 1961, University of Texas.
  8. Ibid.
  9. Eaton, op cit, p 80
  10. USDA data, prepared by John L. Weihrauch with technical assistance of Julianne Borton and Theresa Sampagna
  11. Vilhjalmur Stefansson, The Fat of the Land, MacMillan Company, 1956
  12. Frances Densmore, “Chippewa Customs,” Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 86, page 43
  13. Stefansson, op cit
  14. Beverly Hungry Wolf, The Ways of My Grandmother, pages 183-189
  15. John (fire) Lame Deer and Richard Erdoes, Lame Deer Seeker of Visions, Simon and Schuster, 1972, page 122
  16. Stefansson, op cit, page 27
  17. The Journals of Samuel Hearne, 1768.
  18. Hungry Wolf, op cit
  19. Hungry Wolf, op cit
  20. Inez Hilger, “Chippewa Child Life,” Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 146, page 96
  21. William Campbell Douglass, MD, The Milk Book, Second Opinion Publishing 1994, page 215
  22. Personal communication, Florence Shipek, expert on the Californian coastal Indians.
  23. Mary Ulmer and Samuel E. Beck, Cherokee Cooklore, Museum of the Cherokee Indian, 1951
  24. Cabeza de Vaca, op cit
  25. Samuel Hearne, op cit
  26. Frances Densmore, op cit, page 39
  27. “Wildman” Steve Brill with Evelyn Dean, Identifying and Harvesting Edible and Medicinal Plants, Hearst Books, New York, 1994, page 220
  28. Personal communication, Florence Shipek, op cit
  29. Mary Ulmer, op cit
  30. Keith Steinkraus, ed, Handbook of Indigenous Fermented Foods, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1983
  31. Weston Price, op cit, page 31
This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly magazine of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Spring 2001.

viernes, 22 de agosto de 2014

El mito 100% renovables

Renewable-Energy2

Lo que dicen los técnicos y las evidencias

No es posible mantener una generación eléctrica estable de origen 100% renovable debido a la intermitencia y a la falta de una tecnología de almacenamiento adecuada. Siempre es necesario mantener un respaldo de fuentes convencionales.
El pasado 27 de junio se inauguraba un proyecto de especial importancia para la industria de las renovables y para un pequeña isla del archipiélago canario de poco más de diez mil habitantes. Se trata de la Central Hidroeólica de El Hierro, un intento de crear un sistema de almacenamiento hidráulico para abastecer la isla con energía eólica. La noticia ha sido recibida con mucho entusiasmo desde muchos sectores, y he leído en muchos medios que se trata de la primera isla del mundo auto-abastecida con energía renovable al 100%.
Pues tengo que convertirme en el indeseado aguafiestas que va a explicar que El Hierro no es la primera isla en intentar el abastecimiento de renovables y que no ha conseguido, al menos de momento, el publicitado 100% renovables. Analizaremos detalladamente los tres casos de islas que han reivindicado el autoabatecimiento 100% renovables y extraeremos algunas enseñanzas con el objetivo de que los lectores puedan valorar con mayor criterio las noticias relacionadas con las posibilidades reales de las fuentes de energía renovable.
Antes de continuar me gustaría hacer una aclaración para no dar pie en los comentarios a juicios de intenciones:
Soy pro-renovables y considero que deberían ser –y sin duda lo serán– una parte importante del mix energético del futuro.
Pero también soy pro-aritmética y, como veremos, hay cuentas que no están nada claras en el marketing general de las virtudes de las renovables. Por otra parte también tengo que dejar claro que estoy a favor de reducir –y eliminar lo antes posible– el uso de combustibles fósiles en la producción de energía, puesto que la reducción de emisiones de CO2 es una estrategia prioritaria –y urgente– en la mitigación del cambio climático.

La isla danesa del viento

samso
En 1985 y poco después del accidente de Chernóbil,  Dinamarca abandonó sus planes para construir centrales nucleares y decidió apostar por la energía eólica. Mantuvo sin embargo su flota de centrales térmicas con la imposición, eso sí, de un impuesto que gravase el uso de fósiles con el fin de incentivar el de renovables.
Los daneses se comprometían en Kyoto a reducir durante los noventa sus emisiones un 21% respecto a los niveles de 1990. Esa decisión tuvo al menos tres consecuencias: el desarrollo de un industria eólica que ha lanzado internacionalmente a empresas como Vestas y Bonus –esta última absorbida por el gigante Siemens–, generosos subsidios para i+D+i en renovables –gracias al impuesto sobre los combustibles fósiles– y la victoria en 1997 de la isla de Samsø en un concurso de desarrollo sostenible que la llevaría a partir de 2005 a producir más energía eólica de la que consumían sus habitantes. [1]
Mapsamso
Isla de Samsø
Samsø es una isla de unos 4.000 habitantes que se encuentra en la costa este de Jutlandia (la península de Dinamarca) y un lugar perfecto para montar aerogeneradores fuera de la costa. De hecho 10 espectaculares aerogeneradores de 2,3 MW y 63 metros de altura forman parte del paisaje costero de la isla, que se ha convertido en atracción turística a unos 6 euros el ticket de visita en bote –más de medio millón de visitantes pasan por Samsø cada verano–. A esos aerogeneradores se unen otros 11 sobre tierra que añaden la potencia suficiente para producir más energía de la que necesitan sus habitantes, que además utilizan biomasa y placas solares con el objetivo de cortar completamente su dependencia del petróleo. También se produce biodiésel a partir de aceite de colza.
Pero la realidad es que el viento no siempre sopla en la isla y las tareas de mantenimiento de rotores de 40 m de pala girando hasta 17 rpm provocan que sea una de las centrales térmicas de carbón de la península de Jutlandia la que mantenga las luces siempre encendidas en Samsø. La isla se encuentra rodeada al sur, este y oeste por tres de estas centrales térmicas de carbón. Sólo una de ellas emite más CO2 en un mes del que ahorran los aerogeneradores en una año, lo que nos sirve para hacernos una idea de la escala del proyecto.
Ese mismo inconveniente se traslada a escala nacional. Después de casi tres décadas de apuesta eólica [2],  el país ha disminuido sus emisiones de CO2 un 10% respecto a los niveles de 1990 –todavía lejos del objetivo del 21%– y, sin embargo, las emisiones per cápita son un 22% más elevada que la media europea [3].  El consumo de carbón básicamente se ha mantenido estable desde 1981 y  el consumo de gas ha aumentado de cero a unas 10.000 tep en el mismo periodo. Su excedente de emisiones es de unos 5 millones de toneladas equivalentes de CO2 (EUA), curiosamente coincidente con el superávit  de su vecina nuclear (e hidráulica) Suecia. No sólo la apuesta nuclear sueca ha compensado el incumplimiento danés de emisiones de CO2, sino que sus presas hidráulicas sirven como almacenamiento del excedente en los picos de producción eólica de los aerogeneradores daneses. Por supuesto, los suecos pagan por el servicio pero cobran más caro cuando exportan de nuevo su electricidad a Dinamarca en los valles de producción eólica: ¡Magnífico negocio!
Podemos extraer algunas enseñanzas del caso danés:
  1. Una mayor penetración de renovables no garantiza necesariamente una disminución importante de las emisiones de CO2. Depende de la fuente de energía que se utilice como carga base de la red. No es lo mismo utilizar para ello térmicas de carbón que ciclo combinado y/o nuclear.
  2. Sin un medio de almacenamiento adecuado, una red eléctrica no puede gestionar el problema de la intermitencia de generación de las renovables.
Volveremos a estos aspectos en las conclusiones.

Energía solar y cocos: el caso de los atolones de Tokelau

Tokelau_on_the_globe
Tokelau es un pequeño grupo de atolones del sur del pacífico, protectorado de Nueva Zelanda,  de unos 1.500 habitantes asentados en tres atolones: Atafu, Nukunonu y Fakaofo. El punto más elevado está a tan solo 5 m por encima del nivel del mar, por lo que sus habitantes son conscientes del peligro que suponen los efectos del cambio climático en última instanciadebido a la quema de combustibles fósiles, aunque la contribución de una población tan pequeña al problema global es obviamente insignificante.  Y sin embargo, en la conferencia del clima de Dubai en 2011, el presidente de Tokelau anunciaba que al año siguiente la comunidad se abastecería en un 100% de energía solar y aceite de coco como biodiésel.
En octubre de 2012 se conseguía nominalmente el objetivo. Dejaron de utilizar los generadores diésel que consumían 200 litros diarios con un coste de 800,000 dólares anuales y que sólo proporcionaban diariamente entre 15 y 18 horas de electricidad. Y ahora poseen tres plantas fotovoltaicas en tres de los atolones con 4.032 paneles con una capacidad aproximadamente de 1 MW en cada atolón, con 392 inversores y 1.344 baterías de almacenamiento. En momentos de baja producción, los generadores diésel utilizan el aceite de coco como combustible para cargar las baterías. Un estudio de viabilidad estima que se necesitarán un 20-30 litros de biodiésel diarios por atolón, lo que supone una producción de unos 200 cocos diarios.
Sin embargo, los datos de funcionamiento real no son tan optimistas, aunque se acercan bastante (88%) al estimado 90% de generación solar y 10% de generación diésel. En la siguiente tabla vemos que sólo se ha logrado que la energía solar genere 100% de la electricidad en determinados meses y en un solo atolón
El proyecto ha costado algo más de 7 millones de dólares, para una comunidad con un PIB de algo más de 300.000 dólares, aunque con el ahorro de importaciones de diésel podrán recuperar la inversión en aproximadamente una década.
Sin embargo, la vida media de las baterías y los inversores está en torno a 10 años, por lo que tendrán que ser reemplazadas a un coste estimado de unos 4 millones de dólares. En unos 25 años tendrá que ser reemplazado el generador diésel que sirve como respaldo y la mayoría de los paneles solares. Los costes anuales de mantenimiento se estiman en algo menos de 150.000 dólares con lo que el proyecto no parece que supondrá un ahorro significativo para los habitantes de la isla (ver última tabla en [4])
¿Qué enseñanzas podemos extraer de este caso?
1. Toda instalación de solar (y en general de renovables) necesita contar con una instalación paralela convencional, en este caso un generador diésel.
2.La independencia energética es una quimera, puesto que una comunidad pequeña depende del exterior para la fabricación y el reciclaje de los elementos necesarios para la instalación.
3. La generación de energía solar — como la generación con cualquier tipo de fuente– produce residuos. Si bien la generación solar es mucho más “amigable” con el medio que la generación utilizando fósiles, no debemos obviar este hecho.

El proyecto Hidroeólico de El Hierro.

cartel-garonas-del-viento-el-hierro
Comentábamos al principio de esta entrada que el pasado 27 de junio se ha inaugurado laCentral Hidroeólica (CHE) de la isla de El Hierro, un proyecto que trata de crear una cierta independencia del petróleo en una pequeña isla de 10.000 habitantes.
El País nos proporcionaba algunos datos sobre la CHE, de los que destaco:
El sistema consiste por tanto en dos depósitos de agua (el superior, con capacidad para 380.000 metros cúbicos; el inferior de 150.000) conectados por dos tuberías de tres kilómetros y entre los que se produce un salto de agua de 700 metros; un parque eólico; una central hidroeléctrica; una central de bombeo y la actual de motores diésel.
La central, que ha costado 67,5 millones de euros, está promovida por Gorona del Viento El Hierro, S. A., empresa participada por el Cabildo de El Hierro en un 60%, Endesa con un 30% y el Instituto Tecnológico de Canarias con un 10%. Endesa también es la propietaria de la central térmica.. Según explica la promotora, el nuevo sistema evitará el consumo anual de 6.000 toneladas de diésel (equivalentes a 40.000 barriles de petróleo que llegan en barco a la isla) y supondrá un ahorro de más de 1,8 millones de euros anuales. Además, se evitará la emisión a la atmósfera de 18.700 toneladas al año de CO2, añade.
Aprovecharé en este ejemplo  para hacer un par de cálculos sencillos para valorar en primer lugar los costes de las renovables. Utilizaré como comparación los costes de la energía nuclear.
Aclaración importante: comparo con la energía nuclear por dos razones. La primera porque se trata de otra fuente con bajas emisiones de CO2 como las renovables. La segunda, porque argumentos sobre costes han sido utilizadas como crítica a la construcción de nuevos reactores nucleares. Utilizaré en principio los datos oficiales para ver a continuación que son excesivamente optimistas o, siendo políticamente incorrecto, que se trata de propaganda.
Un primer cálculo simple nos lleva a deducir que la Central se amortizará en unos 40 años (67,5 millones/1,8 millones anuales de ahorro), más o menos del mismo orden que la amortización de una central nuclear.
La potencia eólica instalada en El Hierro es de 11,5 MW. Un reactor como el de la criticada planta nuclear de Olkiluoto en Finlandia tiene una potencia de 860 1600 MWe y se calcula que costará finalmente unos 8.500 millones de euros, con un sobrecoste sobre el previsto de unos 5.500 millones.
Asumiendo una factor de carga generoso del 50% para el parque eólico (menos de un 25% sería algo más realista, como veremos más abajo) y uno tirando a lo bajo del 80% para la central nuclear, tenemos que el escalado del coste del proyecto de El Hierro a la potencia del reactor nuclear sería
860 MW 1600 MW/11,5MW × 80/50 × 67,5 M€ ~ 15.000 M€
Es decir, el coste por unidad de energía parece del mismo orden en ambos proyectos es más de el doble aún incluyendo el sobrecoste del reactor de Olkiluoto. No he escuchado a nadie utilizar ese coste como argumento en contra de la construcción de la CHE. Pero no se vayan todavía, aún hay más.
Sergio González  y Juan Lorenzo Falcón son dos ingenieros que participaron en el proyecto y que han salido al paso recientemente con algunas aclaraciones interesantes. Respecto a los costes, parece ser que el ahorro de 1,8 M€ que mencionaban las fuentes oficiales no sólo es ficticio sino que el nuevo sistema de generación de la isla supondrá un sobrecoste de entre 1,8 y 4,7 M€.
El coste actual (año 2012) del sistema eléctrico de El Hierro sin la CHE es de 13,1 millones de euros, de los que 3,3 son costes fijos de la inversión y 9,8 son costes variables de combustibles. Por tanto, es la central con el coste medio de generación más alto de toda España.
El coste futuro del sistema eléctrico de El Hierro con la CHE será 14,9 millones de euros, de los cuales 7,8 son para la Diesel y 7,1 para la nueva central si consigue producir el 55% (24.000 MWh) de la energía eléctrica de la isla.
Pero si no consigue producir sino el 25 % de la demanda (10.900 MWh, más cercano a la realidad) el coste sería entonces 17,8 millones de euros, de los cuales 10,8 ingresaría la Diesel y 7,0 ingresaría la C.H.E. (Nótese que a medida que se reduce la producción de la central hidroeólica aumentan los ingresos de la diesel, debido al diferencial en los costes variables entre ambas tecnologías).
Y respecto al eslogan 100% renovables, se muestran así de contundentes
En la isla se consumen cada año unos 15.150 teps en hidrocarburos (177.000 MWh aprox.) de los cuales el 23% se destina a la generación eléctrica con grupos diésel. La producción eléctrica a partir de las energías renovables es actualmente insignificante con un 0,8%.
No hay ningún documento escrito que indique que la producción de la nueva central renovable fuera a sustituir más allá del 70 % de la energía eléctrica consumida en la isla. Sin embargo, debido a la estacionalidad del régimen de vientos en la isla, la mejor estimación de producción de la CHE no supera el 55 % de la demanda, sin entrar en ninguna otra restricción técnica para garantizar la seguridad del sistema eléctrico insular.
¿Qué queremos decir con esto? Que la máxima producción teórica de la CHE sería de unos 24.000 MWh al año, lo que equivaldría al 13,6% del consumo energético de la isla, porcentaje que, con una estimación incluso de 8 MWh adicionales por el coche eléctrico, alcanzaría un tope de un 15,5% de renovables. Nos podemos preguntar qué pasa con el resto. La respuesta es que seguiremos abasteciéndonos de fuentes derivadas del petróleo.
 ¿Qué enseñanzas podemos extraer de este caso?
  1. Otra vez aparece el “renovables 100%” como un eslogan que no es realista.
  2. De nuevo la CHE demuestra que es necesario contar con una instalación paralela convencional de generadores diésel.
  3. La implementación de un sistema eléctrico basado en renovables puede ser extremadamente caro.

Pro-renovables sí. Pero pro-aritmética también.

El ex-director de Red Eléctrica en Canarias, Santiago Marín, ya proporcionaba interesantes datos sobre la CHE del El Hierro en una entrevista de 2009 que coinciden básicamente con las afirmaciones recientes de Sergio González y Juan Lorenzo FalcónEso no significa ni mucho menos, que todos los proyectos que hemos mencionado –y en particular el de la CHE de El Hierro– no sean necesarios para implementar en la práctica ensayos del potencial real de este tipo de energías. Porque siendo sin ninguna duda nuestro principal problema medioambiental el cambio climático, no tenemos demasiadas opciones a la hora de implementar una generación eléctrica libre de emisiones de CO2. Máxime en pequeñas redes eléctricas aisladas como la de la isla de El Hierro o los atolones de Tokelau.
Pero todavía hay problemas que no hemos resuelto, como el de la intermitencia en la generación que en última instancia es un problema de almacenamiento. Ya hemos visto como Dinamarca tiene que re-comprar más caro su exceso de producción eólica como cuotas de almacenamiento hidráulico en las presas suecas. La CHE de El Hierro resuelve ese problema de la misma manera, con la ventaja de que para la construcción del depósito superior de agua se contaba con un cráter volcánico que disminuyó mucho los costes, siendo aún así un proyecto muy caro, como hemos visto. Aparte está el hecho de que un sistema que tiene que convertir la eólica en hidráulica para luego generar electricidad es especialmente ineficiente.
saharasolar
En principio no tiene por qué ser un problema irresoluble, aunque sí caro y complejo de implementar, por lo que requerirá tiempo. La idea básica es conectar redes eléctricas para aprovechar los recursos de generación renovable y almacenamiento a nivel regional. A nivel europeo existe una iniciativa de interconectar una red de alta tensión en continua con menos pérdidas y mayor capacidad de transporte, además de mayor estabilidad ante conexiones de redes que sufren la intermitencia regional de la generación de fuentes renovables. Por ejemplo, el proyecto INELFE de un tendido de 2 GW de 64 km entre Francia y España supondrá un desembolso de unos 700 millones de euros. Si añadimos la mayor complejidad y los costes de mantenimiento, podremos entender fácilmente por qué cuando alguien menciona el hecho de que la producción solar de una pequeña fracción del Sahara (menor de unos 200 × 200 km) sería suficiente para cubrir las necesidades energéticas de la humanidad, se olvida del inmenso problema que supone el transporte de esa energía sin excesivas pérdidas a centenares de kilómetros de distancia. De hecho, la idea, que fue formalizada en el proyecto DESERTEC, ha sidoabandonada recientemente.
Tenemos un problema urgente del abastecimiento de una demanda creciente de energía a nivel mundial. Y asociado, tenemos el problema aún más urgente del cambio climático. Necesitamos actuar pronto. Pero las renovables no están listas todavía para asumir ellas solas el reto –para una visión más optimista ver este enlace–. Sólo tenemos la posibilidad de seguir con el desarrollo de las renovables mientras decarbonizamos la generación eléctrica con más nucleares y más gas natural que vayan sustituyendo progresivamente al carbón y al petróleo. Pero la realidad contradice nuestros deseos. En un mundo donde extraer petróleo y gas es cada vez más caro, el regreso al carbón parece inevitable. El consumo mundial de carbón está aumentando. Y como está demostrando  recientemente la política energética alemana, una visión de las renovablespoco realista puede llevarnos a empeorar la situación. Tras su apagón nuclear, Alemania ha reabierto viejas e ineficientes centrales térmicas de carbón y programado la construcción de nuevas centrales, aumentando sus emisiones de CO2 en estos últimos años. El pensamiento mágico asociado a las renovables llevó al gobierno alemán a creer que podría sustituir su producción nuclear por renovables básicamente en una década. Sonaba realmente bien, sobre todo en los oídos de Los Verdes. Pero nadie mencionaba el lado oscuro del plan: el regreso al carbón. Y en el fondo nuestro objetivo no es la generación 100% renovables. Es la generación 100% libre de CO2. Y como hemos visto, ambos objetivos no tienen por qué ir siempre necesariamente de  la mano.
Mi agradecimiento a Jesús Rosino por sus comentarios y sugerencias.
[2] Jamet, S. (2012), “Towards Green Growth in Denmark: Improving Energy and Climate Change Policies”,OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 974, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k962hjpwwvj-en
[4] TOKELAURENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECT CASE STUDY. New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) to showcase the Tokelau Renewable Energy Project. IT Power Renewable Energy Consulting 2013.