45 Comments

1. LarryD:

Sigh. Far easier said than done. There is no quick way to get away from oil-based fuel for transportation, that is the sticky problem.

That said, if the following were done we’d be importing less oil in 5-15 years:

Give Shell the go-ahead on shale oil.

Allow oil exploration and recovery in several of the currently off limits areas of the US (e.g. ANWR)

The environmentalists will block both, I expect.

Nuclear power is the answer for most electrical energy production, but the environmentalists oppose that too.

Nov 28, 2007 - 9:20 am 2. Roger:

What you say makes sense, LarryD, but only if you also go equally hard for alternative energy. This could be done with a new Manhattan Project. That would shut the environmentalists up, at least enough of them. Btw, I consider myself an environmentalist in many ways.

Nov 28, 2007 - 9:31 am 3. Charlie (Colorado):

Roger, last I saw a comparison, the equivalent cost per gallon for the most available, feasible replacements for gasoline was between $6 and $10 a gallon. Tell me you really believe that any administration or political party majority in Congress would survive one election if they proposed $10 a gallon gasoline.

Life gets to be so much clearer when you learn to think of the laws of economics as physical laws, like gravity and conservation of mass-energy (to which they’re strongly related, actually.)

Nov 28, 2007 - 9:33 am 4. Roger:

Well, we all know that, Charlie, don’t we? That’s why it takes cojones – and that’s why we are in the shape we’re in.

Of course, longterm, we are in much better economic shape by making breakthroughs in alternative energy because it is something we can do and they can’t.

Nov 28, 2007 - 10:09 am 5. rjschwarz:

There is no quick way to energy independence. Well that means we better get seriously on the road now if it’s a long slog.

Nov 28, 2007 - 10:33 am 6. AlanC:

Roger, listen to people like Charlie and Larry. There is NO “alternative” fuel that will make a significant contribution to this discussion.

It all has to do with physical law. There are some ideas about Hydrogen that are worth pursuing but I really don’t think that there’s a lack of research funds there.

Things like ethanol, wind, wave, etc. are watermelon wet dreams that won’t amount to a hill of beans.

Go nuclear as much as possible and you’ll have the electrical energy that you need to produce hydrogen and charging up those electric vehicles.

Nuclear is what every person that is serious about “global warming” should be pushing, but, they aren’t are they?

Nov 28, 2007 - 11:18 am 7. Roger:

I am completely pro-nuclear. Where did you get the idea I am not. Building reactors does not negate other sources.

Nov 28, 2007 - 11:25 am 8. Wellspring:

Roger, you’re absolutely right. The problem with all these summits and meetings and paper treaties is that the arab nations simply don’t want peace. They benefit from the appearance of negotiation, but that’s it. So inevitably Israel gets pushed into more immediate concessions in exchange for peace that is never actually delivered. I wasn’t at all surprised when Clinton tried to shoot the moon at the end of his administration, but it’s sad that this is the Bush plan, too. It won’t work, though it might help make things worse.

And you’re right that energy independence is the solution.

I agree with LarryD that this is far easier said than done. The biggest obstacles are political. Commissioning just a few nuclear plants would give us the power capacity to reduce oil consumption for electricity. And give us power to spare.

Long term, I think our best bet would be to get ground vehicles onto the electrical grid. Either directly, though electric cars, or better yet indirectly through hydrogen fuel cells or other similar technologies. There are a ton of technological barriers to these technologies, and rather than do a Manhattan Project to try to pick a winner and push it through to production, our best bet is to dump cash into research in general.

We don’t need to totally replace foreign oil. At a certain point, our reduction in consumption will drive prices down to the point where the oil nations simply don’t have the leverage to have us by the balls.

I used to support ANWR drilling, but the problem is this: it’s a short-term boost. The best subsidy to alternative power would be to clear the litigation siege on nuclear power companies, and let the market keep oil prices high enough that alternative energy and energy efficiency measures remain good economic choices. So by all means lets cave in to the Greens– if we get expanded nuclear in exchange.

Nov 28, 2007 - 11:28 am 9. Boojum:

Given the environmental and political implications, nuclear is the lesser of two evils. I believe the French get over half their power from nuclear.

I suggest a line be added to the annual tax form – Would you like to contribute a dollar to alternative energy research?

The good news is that SUVs are no longer the in-thing. Joe and Jane America are getting the hint – too bad it took $90 a barrel for oil for them to buy more responsibly.

Nov 28, 2007 - 11:55 am 10. Insufficiently Sensitive:

There needs to be a very public exposure of that Saudi minister minus headphones, blowing off Olmert’s speech, coupled with an equally public exposure of the State Department ‘diplomat’ who invited him. And some serious questions of said ‘diplomat’, like ‘what’s the benefit of inviting this guy, other than putting his picture on TV’? I don’t doubt that media will use a promo pic of the minister as proof that the conference made huge strides toward ‘peace’, and suppress his head-in-the-sand moment.

I don’t know how Baker/Hamilton succeeded in metastasizing their world view hallucinations throughout the State Department and its Secretary (and apparently the President), but it’s a disaster for the democratic world.

‘Addiction to oil’ is too glib and misleading. An industrial civilization uses energy for the benefit of everyone’s lifestyle. If not oil, then coal (and the Canadian tar sands are economical producers at anything over $70/barrel). All the ranters about alternate energy sources turn off their earphones, just like the Saudi prince, when the discussion might turn to a comparison of two items:

1. How much carbon-based energy does the current world use?
2. What’s the infrastructure and economic cost needed to replace it with a, b, c, etc etc etc?

Those who dodge those questions should clearly tell us what they personally would give up to ensure that world energy consumption decreases sufficiently to defund the Saudis and all the other oil producers of the world. And if they’re urbanites (as most of us are now), how will they be provided with food, clothing and shelter and the transportation to deliver them?

Nov 28, 2007 - 12:00 pm 11. Godzilla:

If the world is to avoid a nuclear conflagration (at SOME point the Islamofascists are going to get their hands on nuclear weapons), then a concerted effort must be made to move away from oil. Period. We made it to the moon in a decade. Governments, ad hoc venture capitalist organizations, concerned groups of people forming in internet umbrella organizations pooling money toward private industry (in competition with car manufacturers, if need be, and definitely with oil), or sundry other long-term ideas, etc., need to get started and soon. Because it will take years of concerted effort.

Once oil has been marginilized, then ultimatums can ring into the middle east. Either they put a lid on their terroist activity or they suffer severe consequences.

Hell, we could nuke them then, without hurting ourselves, AND help solve global warning at the same time. The left might even go for it, with that carot floating in their faces.

The last two sentences were tongue-in-cheek. But getting free of oil, which will dry up the money supply of the whacked out islamo-dictators and thier terrorist cohorts, is the most viable (and ironically, environmentally sound) plan that I can think of.

Nov 28, 2007 - 12:25 pm 12. heather:

this Annapolis event has been more than a waste of time for everyone concerned.

The trouble is that it keeps the movie going for the folks, while outside the theatre, the Bastille is being torn down.

This is how the Bush Administration shall be judged by history: it put off working for genuine independence from Middle East oil, in order to keep the price of a barrel of oil below $100, so that the American people could continue to slumber on, and shop quietly in their peaceful malls.

That is the action and attitude of a Dhimmi.

Nov 28, 2007 - 12:41 pm 13. Webutante:

Oh, OK……if I must, if you insist….as long as you know—really, really, really know—-it’s NOT because of global warming and Al that I’m starting to tighten my energy belt. It’s because I want my choices to cause—no make–those scandalous Saudis put on their earphones at the next “peace” conference with Israel. Now that’s something I do.

Nov 28, 2007 - 1:49 pm 14. Insufficiently Sensitive:

Heather! What do you propose that the Government do to become ‘independent’ of Middle East oil? Forbid automobiles? Shut down power plants? Allow no one to travel more than five miles from their home? Spend three times the gross national product to cover all the red states with solar collectors to run the blue states’ Blackberries and light rail?

Seems that those who propose that some all-powerful Government (let’s call it the Sultan) do Something Big so the rest of us don’t have to act are themselves acting as dhimmis.

Nov 28, 2007 - 1:53 pm 15. David Lott:

If the problem is a shortage of oil, a logical remedy is to find more. This simple fact seems to escape a majority of us, especially elected representatives.

“Alternative energy” and conservation have a significant role to play, as does nuclear. However, even assuming some major technical breakthroughs in vehicle propulsion, oil is still necessary for cars, aircraft, shipping.

All responsible studies conclude that will need large amounts of oil for at least half a century, maybe more.

So why are we not scouring North America for oil? There are many places in North America where oil is known to be present, likely or possible that are not being explored.

We need to ease the political restrictions on exploration, and find and produce oil and gas in our own hemisphere. We have the technology to produce without destroying the environment in the areas of production. If you don’t believe that, look again at the coastal production off California, which was predicted to be an environmental disaster and has been no such thing.

Nov 28, 2007 - 6:02 pm 16. heather:

My argument is not that the “government should do something” and make energy independence just go away. My argument is that, by participating in such shows as Annapolis, the American public is encouraged to believe that everything is ‘alright’, when it is not.

And so long as the majority of people believe that everything is ‘alright’, then the nation will not concentrate on doing what must be done: actually and really becoming independent from Middle Eastern Oil.

Annapolis reveals to all who look that the West is Dhimmi, ready to allow the Middle East to openly sneer at the President of Israel, and by extenstion, the President of the US.

As a Canadian, of course, I know we live under the protection of the US, and therefore can lie back and opine wisely, that this whole ‘war thing’ is optional. I just received an email from a Canadian, saying that ‘you can’t fight a war half a world away.’ Interesting. From a man who is part of Canada’s present day “navy.”

It is really time for the US to get real with the Middle East – and with its so-called ‘allies.’ I fully expect this to occur when the next attack occurs on American mainland soil. Right now, it is more comfortable to be Dhimmi.

Boy, do I despise Condi.

Nov 28, 2007 - 6:40 pm 17. Insufficiently Sensitive:

Says Heather: “My argument is that, by participating in such shows as Annapolis, the American public is encouraged to believe that everything is ‘alright’, when it is not.”

Huzza, says I, well said. And will add that the eager staging of this Annapolis convention, while the intransigence of Arafat’s heirs is plain for all to see, is one of the crudest parodies of diplomacy to appear since the League of Nations.

Bush used to insist that the first step of the ‘road map’ – that is, the end of terrorism against civilians – be taken before any further steps be taken along that road. Now he’s forgotten that common-sense principle, and is encouraging all the participants (a cast of characters bloated beyond all usefulness) to participate in some Grand Revue onstage just for the theater of it.

Taking Arafat’s murderous caudillo heirs as some sort of equivalent to Israel’s democratic government is indeed a form of dhimmitude. Who the hell thought this charade up?

Nov 28, 2007 - 8:35 pm 18. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

The Manhattan Project was, of course, conducted in secret. If it had been done in the open, and in today’s political/social environment, would it have been allowed to continue?

Indeed, I wonder if ANY of America’s infrastructure–railroads, navigation improvements to rivers, interstate highways, electrical transmission grids–could have been built in today’s climate.

Let’s try a thought experiment. Suppose someone invented a technology that turns *dirt* into an oil equivalent at a cost of $65/bbl and with absolutely no pollution from the conversion process. Miraculously, the oil equivalent burns more cleanly than regular oil, and reduces most pollution by 50% and CO2 by 25%.

Only certain kinds of dirt will work, and the conversion plants need to be large and ugly. Hence, the dirt is transported by rail from its point of origin to the nearest conversion plant.
What happens to this technology?

To start out with, investors are nervous, because any sustained fall in oil prices below $65/bbl will leave them with stranded costs. Now the advocacy groups and politicians get in on the act. In every single area where plants are slated to be built, lawsuits are filed. People living near the rail lines object to the increased traffic and they, too, file lawsuits. Environmentalists denounce the new technology because it still involves some CO2 emission and because of the “noise pollution” from the dirt transportation. They demand something more “sustainable” and “earth friendly.” Various groups come forth and argue that every single one of the places where the dirt is mined is a historic, sacred, or environmentally-sensitive area.

It would probably be 10 years before the first plants are on-line, and 20 years before there would be enough of them to make a real difference.

And real-world energy solutions are not likely to be as attractive as my miraculous dirt converter.

Nov 29, 2007 - 5:43 am 19. Boojum:

The harsh fact remains that we have to keep the Arabs happy because we need their oil. And that means pressuring the Israelis to make some concessions to the Palestinians.

When we are energy independent we can tell the oily sheiks to go to hell.

Nov 29, 2007 - 6:04 am 20. Insufficiently Sensitive:

“… we have to keep the Arabs happy because we need their oil.”

Uh, no. They sell oil on the world market, as do all other producers. There’s no magic valve in the market that would shut off American oil deliveries exclusively, so there’s no valve-tender who needs coddling.

Nov 29, 2007 - 6:21 am 21. Wellspring:

Insufficiently sensitive: We actually don’t use very much middle eastern oil at all. Most of ours comes from our own supplies and central America. The issue is that their contribution is so gigantic to the total world market that they have a price setting power. Their physical oil may not make it into our cars, but their decisions affect the world market as surely as if they did.

People who are pooh-poohing nuclear I think don’t realize the output of even a single reactor site. It’s gigantic. Using the same grid we already have. So nuclear really could kick the fossil fuels habit in less than a decade with a dedicated construction program. The obstacle isn’t technical, it’s stopping the vicious legal obstructionism that the environmentalists put up whenever a nuclear plant is built. THAT’s the major time and cost factor in a plant.

Converting our vehicles over to electric, hydrogen, flywheels or some other transmission and storage technology does indeed require a technological breakthrough. And that could appear next year, ten years from now, or later. We just don’t know, and we don’t know which technology will turn out to be best.

When I say alternative energy, I fully realize that solar, geothermal, hydro, wind, etc are limited technologies with limited total power potential (and, by the way, their own ecological footprints – there’s no such thing as a perfect technology). And I fully understand the ever-increasing demand for power and its implications. That’s why I support nuclear. It can deliver the electrical half of our power demand in the amounts that are actually practical. And the obstacles are legal, not technological.

It’s ridiculous that we’re denying ourselves the obviously superior choice just because the environmental lobby is reflexively, superstitiously afraid of atomics.

Nov 29, 2007 - 7:18 am 22. dryfuss:

The above all have good & bad possitions to take & consider, but have we the general public demanded that the AMERICAN CAR INDUSTRY, stop shutting down those inventors that have come up with some good alternatives, because of their tie in to foreign oil.
This is not a new fact, but one that has been allowed by our government for the past 25 years. It, like the Computor was sold to Japan, and they used our plans & ideas to produce, a financial
bonanza for them. When are we going to sit down with our Unions
and start back in USA Production. We don’t even produce the shoes we use on the picket lines asking for more money, time to wake up and see the future of our wonderful country. We need to start being in charge of how public funds are put to use here not abroad. An
old but true asying, ” YOU CAN NOT BUY FRIENDSHIP ” it usually
turns against the giver.
When Israel gave up land this past year with an active produce business of hothouses etc. and they were willing to show the Palistinians moving in, what happened, they distroyed a flurishing
business they could have had. This is proof that peace with neighbors is not what they want, at least not till they learn not to hate.
If we start applying American past & present ingenuity we can close the time it will take to need less from the main oil producing countries. We our smart enough to protect our green and if we
bring the cost of solar for the family home into a reality for all, this will start a large reduction in
home heating. It may hurt the gas & electric companies bank books but they will figure out other ways to keep going. It will save our need to fight wars and loose our young for products that have
been a thorn in our backs for years.

Nov 29, 2007 - 7:36 am 23. dclydew:

I think there are a number of problems in America right now that make anything, energy independence included, nearly impossible. Most of them are political… particularly the Us vs. Them mentality that has gripped the two major parties. Look at these comments… there have been real world examples that clearly show that both oil drilling and nuclear plants can be dangerous… there can be major problems. However, rather than agreeing that there are real concerns, nuclear energy and drilling in ANWAR are simply stated as great solutions if it weren’t for THEM (those damned Americans that aren’t Us)!

On the flip side, both of those solutions could be done more safely, at a lower risk (not risk free, but a lower risk) if we worked on responsible solutions… instead the Left simply rants about THEM and their evil energy options and complete disregard for the environment. America has always been greatest when Americans work together. As long as we stay in this cesspool of suspicion and hatred for our fellow countrymen… we’ll be at the mercy of Arab Thugs, Chinese Corporations, Terrorists and entropy.

Working together, we could probably make several power options feasible within a decade. Bio-fuel is not a positive gain, only because corn is a rather bad bio to use in fuel making. Sugar cane, saw grass and hemp are much more productive and all three of those crops can net a positive energy gain, rather than a negative. However, that would require farmers switching out crops and their existing equipment. Wind energy is already proving a net positive in some areas of the planet. Solar energy works great in some applications… together those three solutions could replace a great deal of the oil we use on a daily basis.

Oil is ‘best’ because it gives us the easiest bang for our buck. We can run power plants and cars and mowers and everything on gas/oil/petrol and we already have the infrastructure. If, however, Americans (all of us) were willing to make some sacrifices now, we’d be much better off in the future (just like every other time we’ve made sacrifices as a nation). It would require changes in the way people think (but so did our escape from the depression), it would require changes in our daily routines (but so did winning WWII), it would require investments from private corporations and the federal government (Sorry libertarians and conservatives, sometimes the feds are necessary).. a healthy dose of reality for all the environmentalists (yes, there’s risk, but here (insert safety/security solutions) is how we can mitigate most of it)…

The Amish are making huge strides in alternate power sources.Individuals have found ways to use solar and wind options to reduce their power consumption. Some countries are already producing net positive energy alternatives. However, it would mean that we (individuals) may have to invest in a roof mounted system of wind and solar devices, rather than the PS4 or the new Triple Core XTANIUM computer system with three terabyes of RAM (even if it would make World of Warcraft look “awesomer”). We might have to spend money on getting our cars modified… or even get rid of some vehicles that simply aren’t sustainable.

It means that the government might have to quit being stupid and allow farmers to grow hemp. It means that the government might have to provide some tax breaks and incentives for farmers to get of the corn crops and try some new options. It means that corporations with nuclear research, should be open and honest about the risks and vocally promoting realistic safety and security improvements so that people are less afraid…

It would take work, sacrifice and an end to the pathetic Us vs Them that’s infected the brains of so many citizens. Sadly, I don’t know if that’s even possible at this point.

Nov 29, 2007 - 7:58 am 24. AlanC:

Haven’t read all the comments yet, but, re: my last…..

Roger, I never meant to imply that you weren’t pro-nuke. I do think though that wasting attention on marginal technology (wind wave etc.) the real push that is needed doesn’t happen.

That real push is nuclear power.

Now, to all those who clamor for the “Apollo” or “Manhatten” project approach I would just point out that the situations are not the same.

The problem with (to take one example) hydrogen powered vehicles available is NOT the base technology. It is the problem of infrastructure.

How long would it have taken to put men on the moon if they had to be able to leave from every single city and town?

The rebuilding of the infrastructure will take decades, just as it did the first time. There needs to be a market answer why that should be started now.

Nov 29, 2007 - 8:48 am 25. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

The French nuclear company Areva just signed a $12B deal to supply reactors and power to China. Westinghouse has also done some large nuclear deals with China.

Anne Lauvergeon

Nov 29, 2007 - 9:03 am 26. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

something screwed up in previous comment..

Anne Lauvergeon, CEO of Areva, is said to be an extremely charming person. Maybe she needs to come over to the US for a while and see if her charm can be applied to some opinion leaders on the issue of nuclear power.

Nov 29, 2007 - 9:06 am 27. Lem:

Most energy waste occurs in the home.

There is new type of water heater that only heats the water as needed reducing the amount of time the heater is on. The old system tries to keep a big water tank heated regardless of use.

There are a number of ways home owners can be ‘incentivised’ to get rid of their big old water tanks.

BTW ñ This would also help reduce the amount of water wasted to the cycle of reheating, not to mention tank leaks. It would not only reduce your gas/electric bill but it would reduce your water bill.

Its a win, win, win. Envirnmt, pocket books and independence.

Nov 29, 2007 - 9:08 am 28. LarryD:

To go into detail on the limitations of “Alternative Energy” I’ll have to start my own blog.

The short version is that none of them scale well. And they have their own ecological footprint as well, as WellSpring mentions.

Except for algae, all of the bio-fuel crops compete with food production for resources (water, fertilizer, land, the farmers time and energy). And algae has its own scaling issues. People don’t realize just how much fuel it is we’re talking about replacing. Bio-fuel is already running into scaling issues.

Wind turbines don’t work when there isn’t enough wind. Or when there is too much. This narrows the siting down a lot, and the power output isn’t reliable (i.e., steady, predictable output, 24/7). Tidal or wave power, same problems. And they are all diffuse, so you need large collectors. Not that these are useless, just limited.

Ground based solar, also diffuse, also unsteady, even if you discount cloud cover (which you can, if you’re siting in, say, Arizona). And last I read, the entire life-cycle energy use hadn’t reached break even yet. They’ll get there, the efficiency of photovoltaics is improving, and manufacturing methods are improving too.

Space based solar, until we get cheap orbital capability, too expensive to even discuss.

Hydro-power, all the good sites are already developed, and the environmental lobby will try to block any new ones.

Geo-thermal power, the US doesn’t have very many sites that can be developed, too limited to make any significant impact.

Electric or hybrid cars, two problems. Energy storage and recharging. The current best contender for energy storage is batteries based on lithium. But try and scale that to replace even a tenth of the current fleet, and the first question that has to be asked is, where are you going to get enough lithium? And even the lithium batteries don’t last the lifetime of the car. So, the batteries are going to have to be replaced (and one hopes, the lithium recovered and recycled) and the cost of that is an issue.

A hybrid car recharges from its on-board engine, so it doesn’t have a serious charging problem, but an all electric one does. It takes a lot of kilo-Watt Hours, even with the superior efficiency of electric engines, to run a car. And everyone goes on a long drive once in a while.

We can, over time, replace all of our electrical production with nuclear energy (there’s fusion research going on that I am real hopeful about). But our transportation technology has been based on oil for over a century, that infrastructure going to take a long time to replace, and we don’t even have a viable replacement technology yet. So, we aren’t going to get from here to there quickly, and we don’t even know where “there” is, yet.

And some of the most vocal environmentalists will never shut up, because their agenda isn’t what they claim (they wouldn’t be behaving the way they are, if it were). Watermelons indeed (”Green on the outside, Red on the inside.”)

BTW, the price of oil is probably near it peak for some time to come. Demand has softened, and once that happens, it tends not to rebound quickly. In the oil market, both demand and supply respond sluggishly, because both depend on capital expenditures. Oil fields (three big new ones found within the last few years) take time to put into production. And demand reduction often means replacing expensive items (cars, water heaters, dryers, house insulation) with a long service life. Systems with that kind of feed back tend to oscillate, so demand will probably stay soft for a while, even as more production comes on line. Not as long as last time, because China’s demand will grow a lot, as they move to second and first world levels of prosperity.

Nov 29, 2007 - 9:20 am 29. Lem:

I mention the water heater system because while at my sister’s new house in GA I saw the old system. The house is in an aprox. two year old development in Jefferson GA.

Why do builders continue to build with obsolete technology?

Nov 29, 2007 - 9:34 am 30. dryfuss:

Lem you are right, I called regarding the new heater and was told I would have to break walls and replumb the intire house. Like solar they make it cost prohibitive for the majority of home owners. Most
contractors around the country for the lower price homes and tract divisions get a break from the manufacturers to select old inventory for a price, again the profit over the right way to improve our using less energy.

Nov 29, 2007 - 10:09 am 31. Wellspring:

LarryD, great comment.

One thing I’d add is that when practical nuclear fusion is finally developed, it will still be decades before it can be deployed– and you can bet that when it is it will have its own share of trade-offs. In the meantime, fission has a good safety record overall, is ready today and even one or two reactors could make a big difference.

I’d also add that hybrid cars are an EFFICIENCY technology. Very important, and short run the most practical answer, but there’s a limit to how much oil you save through efficiency alone.

Electric and hydrogen fuel cells are technologies that shift energy consumption to the grid– but if you’re using fossil fuels to generate your electricity you aren’t actually saving anything, you’re just moving where the power is generated.

I forgot biofuels altogether– and you gave a great summary of some of the challenges there.

Nov 29, 2007 - 10:26 am 32. AlanC:

Two points.

Dryfuss, you sound like a conspiracy paranoid. Exactly, in detail, who is the THEY that is hiding all the good stuff? Are you one of the guys selling carbuerators that us water?

There are all sorts of trade offs and oil is far and away the most efficient, reliable, CHEAP alternative at this time. Until you can revoke the laws of physics it will remain so for quite a while.

Lem, that “new” tankless water heating has been around for decades if it was so wonderful all along don’t you think that everyone would have been using it? Do you think it might have something to do with the cost of the electricity it takes to run them? Or maybe you like the gas fired water heaters. Oh, you don’t heat with gas? Well just add some more plumbing.

For the current situation there are new values for the trade offs. 10 years ago those values were different and they’ll be different 10 years from now. You pay your money and make your choice.

Nov 29, 2007 - 10:47 am 33. Lem:

…”tankless water heating has been around for decades if it was so wonderful all along don’t you think that everyone would have been using it?”

Many people die every year because they didn’t use a seat belt. It took a near death experience for my governor to even start.

When it comes to selecting what is best, what ‘most people’ choose to do is not necessarily the best gage.

Nov 29, 2007 - 11:47 am 34. dclydew:

Ah, I love the American Can’t Do Spirit…

“But biofuels might cut into food production”

Some farmers are being paid NOT TO GROW anything. A large number of farms and farmland stand empty in our plains states, because they’re not feasible for corn and other food production, but would be fine for sawgrass or hemp.

“It is expensive!!!”

So what? How much did we spend cleaning up after 9/11, how much are we spending on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? How much are we spending on retrofitting cars to comply with emission standards? How much for retrofitting power stations? We’re already dealing with an energy solution that is expensive… the others would be expensive, but they wouldn’t have the Middle East in charge of the market. For us, thats probably worth as much if not more in the long run than any investment we’d make in alternatives.

Solar, on its own isn’t a solution… but solar in conjunction with wind, biofuels and power stations (even if they still use carbon fuels), would work.

Newer windmill designs have begun to overcome some of the technical issues with wind (too little wind, wind coming from the wrong direction). Its not a panacea, but the pathetic naysaying here reminds me of the naysaying before our current engagement in Iraq. a thousand excuses why it won’t work, without a single point about the fact that Americans are bull headed enough to make practically anything work (if we want to).

Almost every energy option negated above works. Not perfectly, not with a positive hit to our pocket books in the short term, but if I have to choose between paying $5 at the pump with the House of Saud on my back, or $6 for alternatives….

I’ll consider the $1 a donation to world peace.

Nov 29, 2007 - 12:55 pm 35. AlanC:

Oh, so now that NEW technology actually has been around for a while and it was just those iggerant peasants that were too stupid to use them, huh?

Tell me, Lem, are you a supporter of Hillary’s “we’re goting to take things away for your own good” type of government?

10 years ago this was a bad economic choice, now it might be a better one. As a result, more new installations will occur. It’s called freedom of choice.

Nov 29, 2007 - 12:57 pm 36. dclydew:

AlanC,

I think that was Lem’s point… just because people didn’t buy it, doesn’t mean its bad technology… only that people didn’t buy it.

Nov 29, 2007 - 1:13 pm 37. LarryD:

Wellspring: … when practical nuclear fusion is finally developed, it will still be decades before it can be deployed …

I’ve discussed this with M. Simon.

Optimistically, we might be able to start deploying fusion power plants about a decade after the technology is developed, and that is starting with a slow rate of deployment, ramping up over time.

The reason I’m hopeful is that the technology may be very close to being developed. The advantages are: the technology doesn’t require heating steam to power turbines (which are time consuming to build); the fuel is far from rare, and non-toxic; no radioactive waste;

Nov 29, 2007 - 1:29 pm 38. LarryD:

dclydew, let me put it to you in the form of a question.

For September 2007, US Gasoline consumption was 277,316 thousand barrels. 1% of that is 2,773 thousand barrels. How much acreage of {pick any biofuel crop} would it take to replace that much fuel?

Now, how much of US total arable land is that?

Nov 29, 2007 - 1:50 pm 39. dclydew:

Well, ok… keep in mind that this isn’t going to be exact, but I’ll give it a shot.

277,316,000 barrels @ 55 per = 15,252,380,000 gallons (does that sound about right?)

Flax Seed, which can produce about 51 gallons per acre, per harvest would require about 300,000,000 acres. That sounds pretty bad. However, let’s not forget that diesel (which biofuel is in line with), and diesel engines utilize fuel differently than gasoline, a rough average comparing cars in the 80’s and 90’s indicates that most gas powered cars get anywhere between 20 and 30 miles to the gallon (obviously some newer cars are much better than that) Diesel for passenger vehicles are often rated at 40 to 50 miles to the gallon. So, if were were dealing only with petrol based diesel, we’d need 138,658,000 gallons rather than the 277… number above we need only 2,718,784 acres. That’s a lot, no doubt… but according to http://www.ers.usda.gov/StateFacts/US.htm it appears that we have several million acres still usable… and that sheet doesn’t include some of the arable land that’s been abandoned since the Depression. Lots of farmland in places like Iowa are home to meth labs, pot farms and other illegal activity, because the entire area has been abandoned. (Consider that Flax is also about Middle of the Road in Biofuel production, pumpkin seed is slightly higher, sunflowers are about double the productivity, Castor beans are triple the productivity (151 Gal per acre). If we were to determine a useful way of growing alge, we could pull in about 820 gal per acre… theoretically up to 5000 gal per acre. All of this assumes that whoever did the measurements weren’t on crack at the time)

Further, as I stated several times, none of this is a panacea. Biofuels are useful, but not by themselves. It would require yet further refinements to fuel economy in vehicles, more public transportation for urban access, and other fuels… a hybrid that was battery powered/biofueled would be much better than one that was simply biofueled or battery/petrol.

Yes, it is not a simple task. It will require work, it will require innovation, it will require rethinking a lot of stuff we take for granted (like One Solution for energy for the whole continent)… but it is not impossible to wean ourselves from foreign oil.

Please note that I am not arguing for energy independence for Global Warming reasons (though if their theories are right, it would be beneficial to get off of carbon), nor for economy (I doubt energy will ever be ‘free’ no matter what the idealists like to think, but a more stable energy cost would be better than a wildly fluctuating one). I don’t care if we use shale and American dug oil and solar and wind and nuclear and biofuels…. as long as we’re no longer the gimp for a bunch of people that hate our guts.

IMHO, the first step should be for local cities/counties/states to examine what options would work for them. Some areas could feasibly run their entire grid off of wind, because of the conditions of their climate and weather. Others may be better off with nuclear power or a combination of power options. The second step should be a change in the individual consumption of energy, I just put in light bulbs that give me the equiv. of 60 and 75 watts of light, but use only 14 and 18 watts of actual electricity. If every American used those bulbs instead of the less efficient ones, we’d have a huge drop in home energy consumption.

Another key step is in working with producers… companies that build electronics can build more energy efficient electronics, they could get rid of “standby mode” on many home electronics systems which would further reduce home energy requirements (Who actually needs a little digital clock running on their VCR when they are asleep in bed?).

Energy independence will require a HUGE investment from everyone. It will mean reducing the energy requirements of the stuff we use, as well as finding sources for energy that’s feasible. Anyone who says differently is probably selling something.

Nov 29, 2007 - 3:26 pm 40. LarryD:

1 barrel of oil or related product = 42 gallons.

The wind isn’t even predictably intermittent, at least with solar you know when night is. Load balancing is a serious issue with wind, wave, tidal, and solar power. Unless your solar collectors are in orbit.

“It is expensive!!!”

Let’s see… That was in reference to space based solar power (SBPS). Even the NSSO’s Space Based Solar Power Interim Assessment found that:

“SBPS cannot be constructed without safe, frequent (daily/weekly), cheap, and reliable access to space and ubiquitous in-space operations. …”

“The SBPS Study Group universally acknowledged that a necessary pre-requisite for the technical and economic viability of SBPS was inexpensive and reliable access to orbit.”

The startup costs for SBPS are huge, I doubt you’d ever get Congress to fund it (it wouldn’t buy enough votes). But if you ever got it up and running, it would be, for all practical purposes, inexhaustible.

But without “inexpensive and reliable access to orbit“, it’s not viable.

Nov 29, 2007 - 3:48 pm 41. Insufficiently Sensitive:

“Biofuels are useful, but not by themselves.”

“I don’t care if we use shale and American dug oil and solar and wind and nuclear and biofuels….IMHO, the first step should be for local cities/counties/states to examine what options would work for them”

This looks like a proposal to develop multiple parallel infrastructures, and simultaneously involve central planning from a galaxy of local constituencies.

What a tangled mess, all complicated by input from every axe-grinding special interest in town.

I’d expect that if the gummint-knows-best faction isn’t allowed to seize control of the course of energy development, the normal course of human ingenuity will employ technology and entrepreneurial energy to devise a solution that does provide energy ‘for the masses’ and a decent profit for the entrepreneur who does it. As long as the profit-haters cannot acquire sufficient power to queer the deal.

As an example, look how cellphones unexpectedly ate the lunches of the pole-and-wire companies.

Nov 29, 2007 - 5:05 pm 42. Boojum:

LarryD;

Fusion does produce radioactive waste, however, far less of it and with a fraction of the half-life of fission waste.

IS;

If every American used those bulbs instead of the less efficient ones, we’d have a huge drop in home energy consumption.

Christmas lights use up a lot of energy. I can’t see why people need six light-up Santas on the front lawn. Now if folks can be convinced to light up the house the week before Christmas instead of the day after Thanksgiving, we might all be off to a good start…

Nov 30, 2007 - 6:32 am 43. LarryD:

Boojum: Fusion does produce radioactive waste, however, far less of it and with a fraction of the half-life of fission waste.

You’re thinking of Deuterium-Deuterium fusion,
I’m thinking of Aneutronic fusion, specifically the proton-(11)Boron reaction in a Polywell device.

Nov 30, 2007 - 8:07 am 44. LarryD:

The second step should be a change in the individual consumption of energy, I just put in light bulbs that give me the equiv. of 60 and 75 watts of light, but use only 14 and 18 watts of actual electricity. If every American used those bulbs instead of the less efficient ones, we’d have a huge drop in home energy consumption.

Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs (CFL). Wal-Mart is pushing them. Some people have issues with them (they see flickering, the color bothers them, etc), but I don’t have any problems. I’m converting over most of my lights as I replace bulbs.

Energy efficiency has been going up in the US for years, something that goes unrecognized by most people.

Nov 30, 2007 - 10:38 am 45. LarryD:

FYI, some scientists at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory have figured out a way to prospect for geothermal sites that don’t have any surface indications (hot springs, etc).

This makes geothermal a lot more promising for the US, unfortunately it’s not going to replace oil so much as coal and natural gas, as long as the environmental lobby doesn’t block geothermal development. I.e., geothermal can make our electrical power cleaner, but it doesn’t move us off of oil.

Dec 3, 2007 - 10:28 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: