This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: Here's How We Get to Energy Independence
Submitted by Brad Schaeffer
Here's How We Get to Energy Independence
Respected columnist and author Thomas Friedman has been among the most audible voices in warning the USA about our dependency on foreign oil and our need to end our addiction to this commodity post haste. But his latest call for a $1.00 per gallon gasoline tax to curtail our fuel consumption, the proceeds of which would go towards deficit reduction, misses the mark.
First of all, where Mr. Friedman is absolutely correct is his concern itself which is well founded. Consider: in 1970 the USA imported 30 percent of its crude oil. That figure has effectively doubled in the last thirty years to just shy of 60 percent.
Not since the ill-fated Axis powers of World War II has such a powerful nation so relied on foreign entities to supply its daily energy needs. This is a potential national security nightmare. (Indeed, as much as losses in the field, Germany and Japan were brought to their knees by choking off their energy supplies and causing their military machines to grind to a halt.)
However, Mr. Friedman’s proposal of imposing altered behavior on consumers via a $1.00 gallon gas tax, even one phased in over time, will unduly penalize many lower and middle class workers who have little choice at this time but to commute (this is not like a voluntary consumption tax on soda) and for whom their annual fixed costs would increase anywhere between $500-$1,000 depending on the location and vehicle gas mileage.
Moreover, his idea places inordinate faith in the federal government to properly spend any new tax revenues they do receive with any modicum of discipline needed to pay down the deficit.
Imposing a draconian gas tax at this time, with 15 million already unemployed, with the economy in a precarious position, is not quite the medicine needed at the moment. In fact, it could make matters much worse. I don’t think it takes an economics guru to conclude that $1.00/gallon on top of an already high $3.18 national average could negatively impact consumption in other areas (and we are still very a much a consumption-based economy).
In just one example, an interesting study done by the Center For Business And Economic Research at Ball State University simulated the impact of a $1.00 price increase from a benchmark of $3.00 gallon (not via taxes, just a market rise) on the economy of Indiana. It concluded that the economic activity in that state would be lower by almost -2% and employment by roughly -1.3 percent.
It also offered that tax revenues would decline by -.5 percent. When economic activity falls, tax revenues do as well. Human behavior is unpredictable and it is not a given that $1.00 tax on gasoline will translate into a $1.00 net increase in revenues to Uncle Sam. There is the law of unintended consequences to consider.
I admit that this is just one report in one state, but I suspect similar studies will show the same. Even though numbers can be tortured to say anything to support a policy initiative, common sense dictates that a dollar steered towards higher commuting costs will have a negative impact on the rest of consumption and thus the overall economy all else being equal.
The most far-fetched component of Mr. Freidman’s “one little gasoline tax” proposal is that the extra revenues (should they materialize) will be diverted towards “paying down the deficit.” A noble idea, but if Mr. Friedman honestly believes that Congress will take this windfall and actually use it to for its intended purpose rather than employ clever accounting tricks to steer the cash to their favorite pet projects, well, I have a Social Security “lock box” stuffed with IOUs I’d like to sell him.
Still, if there was no other alternative to Mr. Friedman’s proposal, then I would give it serious consideration. But the fact is, we do have alternatives, both to give us some short-term relief and long-term stability.
As of yesterday we need to immediately open up ANWR and the shallow off-shore regions to exploration and drilling. I love caribou as much as the next person, but this must be done. Even the most conservative estimates tell us that by 2018 if development were green-lighted today, ANWR could be producing as much as 780,000 and then slowing to 710,000 barrels a day by 2030. Also it is estimated that 18 billion barrels of crude oil are contained in areas currently off-limits to drilling for environmental reasons. No nation has denied itself so much abundance of its own domestic natural resources as has the USA.
To be sure, there are environmental risks to an aggressive drilling policy. But environmentalists need to consider the consequences of the USA being cut off from 2/3 of its energy needs...unrealistic given that friendly Canada is our single largest outside supplier, but not impossible. There is no greater killer than the effects of poverty resulting from a collapsed economy.
Rationing the transportation of goods due to lack of petrol means limited delivery of food to our cities, medicines to rural areas, heating oil for homes and businesses in the northeast during the winter, etc. The humanitarian and health consequences would soon be apparent to even the most ardent of green advocates.
Beyond “drill baby drill” our real pathway to true energy independence lies in resurrecting the Synthetic Liquid Fuels Program. This program which began with such fanfare under Jimmy Carter was cancelled under the Reagan administration.
The reasons were ostensibly that it was against free-market principles but the real factor was that oil prices had collapsed and the immediate economic peril had passed. Reagan’s vision was myopic and based on the false premise that arose from the oil glut of the 1980s that oil would be inexpensive well into the next century. But now with turmoil all across the Mideast before us, global demand expanding, and oil trading at $100bbl and climbing, we find ourselves in the position of pouring literally trillions of dollars into the coffers of some potentially hostile regimes with whom we are in an economic and military death embrace.
Although I harbor a conservative’s mistrust of government in my DNA, I do know that government does have its role. Those F-15s that give us top cover while we drive on our interstate highway system demonstrate that. Of course what do these examples have in common? They fall under the auspices of national security. And energy independence must be treated as a national security matter and at least partially funded with tax dollars as we fund our armed forces.
Consider: the USA has more coal than the Middle East has oil. Furthermore, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), an agency of the Dept. of Defense (DoD) has estimated the cost of a 100,000 barrel per day 21st Century Coal-to-Liquids (CTL) synthetic fuels plant will be about $6 billion.
Other private sector estimates place the figure higher at $10 billion. Even that higher figure is about the cost of one and a half months of the Iraq war. (A war we are waging primarily because there is oil there remember.) So for the price of the Wall Street bailout—$700 Billion—the DoD could have been on its way to building between 70 and 100 new CTL plants, which would produce up to ten million barrels of synthetic CTL fuel per day.
That is still a high price tag for initial investment. And like many national security initiatives, there is little profit to be made from being the first mover of the technology. (Although in this case the technology goes back almost a century, but it would be a new implementation in this country on a mass scale).
Thus relying solely on the private sector to innovate and invest our way out of this energy dependence problem is problematic for now. That is, unless the government subsidizes the initiative through direct investment. This could even be a profitable venture. Estimates vary as to the profitability break-even cost of CTL, natural gas to liquid (NGL) or biomass refining. Some firms show the profit point to be $45 per barrel. Other estimates vary above and below this level by roughly $10bbl.
Carbon capture technology for cleaner conversion that might be part of any legislation pushes that level even higher.
Still, unlike in the 1980s, clearly we are now above the break-even threshold and thus are the conditions ripe for a hybrid semi-public entity model that could be subsidized by the feds to make up the shortfall should the price of oil dip below that $45bbl level.
Most analysts see this as most unlikely unless the oil producing nations purposefully flood the markets to kill such initiatives to protect their franchise. But they have their own problems in their streets at the moment. If anything, as Mr. Friedman also points out, the price of crude oil will continue to rise.
The current administration is so focused on touting the merits of a ‘new green economy’ that it is missing the potential of an old fashioned synfuels economy already within our grasp. The construction and plant employment opportunities, the increase in economic activity as a new industry emerges from the ashes of our industrial blight, as well as the incredible potential windfall of a ‘mid-east oil independence dividend’ down the road by no longer maintaining a military presence in the regions from which so much of our current energy needs flow is self-evident.
Every month $20 billion of our treasury goes just to maintain our low intensity combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the staggering financial drain of supporting bases on the periphery.
And there is no end in sight to our involvement in the Mideast without first eradicating our reason for even caring what goes on there…which means an addiction to the commodity we import from the region. Unlike many other ‘shovel ready’ projects that were anything but, synfuels development presents a very real and beneficial investment on many levels.
There is historical precedent that shows the viability of a synfuels program.
But for Allied bombings, Germany was on its way to producing 60 million bbls of synfuels annually into 1946. (A small amount relative to today’s consumption, but scalability is there). Again, when South Africa was the target of punitive sanctions because of Apartheid, they implemented via Sasol a massive synfuels program out of necessity…proving that where there’s a will there’s a way.
And we need not replace all imported oil of course. We currently import a little over 3 million bbls a day from nations in the Mideast and Africa. This amount is quite replaceable by synfuels. I do not mind importing from such stable and friendly nations as Canada for example.
Rather than trust it with a satchel of new gasoline taxes, the federal government could be better utilized through the DoD. In fact, the military is already making strides in synfuels development. The Air Force has already run successful synfuels tests on converted B-52s and have put forth an aggressive goal to have 70 percent of its aviation fuel coming from coal-based sources by the year 2025. They get it. Thomas Friedman does too…even if his solution is off-sides.
Today, there are currently 700 automobiles for every 1,000 Americans; 500 for every 1,000 Europeans. There are only 30 for every 1,000 Chinese. But that figure is expected to balloon to 240 per 1,000 by the year 2035. The world’s thirst for oil is only going to increase, and with it the price. $100 crude is not an anomaly.
It is a harbinger of things to come. Increased exploration of our abundant proven reserves, combined with a sweeping synfuels program to utilize other energy resources within our borders are our surest bets to achieving attainable energy independence.
Certainly more so than a whimsical $1.00/gallon tax (a number the very roundness of which implies to me that it’s the result of whimsical caprice rather than any serious analysis) that would hamper if not kill an already teetering recovery while diverting yet more capital away from the private sector and into the black hole of “deficit relief.”
Like Thomas Friedman, I wonder if history has ever seen such a time where so much of a nation’s own capital was handed over to its enemies for them to use against it—in order to import a product it already has plenty of at home.
Taxes should not be used to change our collective behavior by weaning us off the candy through making it prohibitively expensive; this ignores just how vital oil is to our daily lives. With a more realistic viewpoint that our 19 million bbl per day appetite for oil cannot be just taxed away, I propose we simply take an existing, available and proven century-old technology and ramp it up to make the candy ourselves. More drilling and synfuels may not be sexy or hip solutions.
But they are real and, most important, a part of the here and now. Not the distant future…a future over which we will have little control should the status quo remain unaltered.
Bradley P. Schaeffer is C.E.O./Principal of INFA Energy Brokers, LLC
»
- 12437 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
To those of you in ND that now have flames shooting out of your kitchen faucets,due to fracking,, aren't you glad your taxes support the EPA?
I would sue to get concrete catch basins built, ala Gibraltar.
Though CIT happens. Maybe you should ride mules to work, and have a better case.
We are awash in hydrocarbons that can be converted into liquid fuels. A study done for the Secretary of Defense, Dr. Theodore K. Barna., OSD Clean Fuel Initiative, (http://www.westgov.org/wieb/meetings/boardsprg2005/briefing/ppt/congress...) shows that the US has over 2X the hydrocarbons than Arab OPEC has. The only issue is cost.
Algore farts don't count.....yet.
Read that. Very interesting. Reminds me of Carter's synfuels program of 1979! Now on a more comprehensive basis and on a much more urgently needed footing. But NOW also knowing what we know, we have to retrofit into the analysis the associated ECOLOGICAL costs for all the options. Big tall order. I would first maximise renewable options, THEN look at these others involving fossil fuels. But all routes must be studied and very urgently. Its a mega R&D deal and it won't stop the upcoming financial melt down tsunami. But may contribute for later resurrection of flattened economy in the context of the new energy price structure after the world wide crash.
The most serious issue we face right now is the fact that most people don't understand that there is no solution to the problem, if by "solution" you mean business as usual, or close to it. There is only long, grinding, wind down to 400 GDP per capita.
It's like we're on an island and we have 5 days of food left and the big chief and his cronies are talking about solutions, and I'm saying - "there is no solution. This will be solved by starvation."
America is dead. We're all currently attending the funeral.
and the masses rally around the chief and his cronies because they would rather believe his lies about how everything is fine. Even when they see him loading up his boat to sail away, they cling to denial.
In that way, we have the most appropriate President EVER for the times we face. We went for the gold trim package president, the silliest, most trifling guy imaginable...a continuation of a trend running for a couple decades now. The nation has a silly, denial mentality where basically superstition and magical thinking has been elevated to a religion.
My mom (90 YO) says that as a child she heard discussions about how it was impossible for America to continue because they could never produce enough wood for heating homes/cooking or enough fodder for horses as the population grew.
The problem is not in limitations of our resources but in our inability to use the resources we have well and an unwillingness to search for solutions incrementally (i.e. improve fission nuclear power and use it while researching future technologies, such as fission). We are always in love with the "future" technology and hating the current technology.
We have the technology currently to keep us going until the future technology is ready. We are just too childish to accept that "perfect is the enemy of good." Civilization must survive until the "perfect" future technology is ready. Unless we keep the energy flowing today, we will never get to the perfect future. (It won't be perfect either but that is the future's problem.) The auto was hailed as much cleaner than the horse because it didn't leave piles of manure everywhere you walked in the city.
We just need to have an adult discussion (see the article above) about what the real options are and quit BS'ing ourselves about wind (cannot work economically or environmentally), electric cars (cannot work period, even ignoring the environmental cost), solar (cannot work economically or environmentally).
We need to grow up, study the science, and make an informed decision. Seems beyond our capabilities so I expect in 50 years our (few) descendants will curse our stupidity and wish they had our problems.
I am not going to debate your statements about alternatives. If the are indeed true, your "adult discussion" is equivalent to the "Ol Yeller" moment for about 6 billion people. Was that what you were implying?
No goggles while swimming for you!
Libs......
That post is a potpourri of confused facts.
At the very first, European countries don't pay $1 more per gallon, they pay double the US price. Yes I know the US is more vast in size, but most american people could choose to buy their next car with double the mileage of their current, and it needs no expensive Hybrid or electric cars to achieve that.
And if the author dislikes that "we find ourselves in the position of pouring literally trillions of dollars into the coffers of some potentially hostile regimes" [in the Mideast] then he should welcome a gasoline tax which would us use less oil and therefore pay less to those regimes (but more to Uncle Sam).
Up the price!
Pay like the rest of the world!
Drill all you want, but it won't solve the problem.
TRY USING LESS!
Production...
Wake me up when the world produces more than 85 million barrels per day. Until that happens, we peaked in 2005 by definition. Everything else is moot. Stop with all the techno-pollyanna bullshit solutions that a) Don't scale up, b) Don't have anywhere near the energy density of oil, c) Have terrible ERoEI's, and D) We don't have the time and/or capital for.
While a fan of no political party I would like to note that the blindness of our president can only be intentional, no one can naturally be that stupid and make it to the point in life where you can spend 500 million dollars to get a job that pays 400k per annum.
Yet still he yammers on about Sputnik, while solution lies in our own energy labs, like Oakridge where molten salt reactors were pioneered and tested. The data is in our own damn databases and we are too corrupt, or stupid to use it.
President Obama in his recent SOTU address said that “this is our generation’s sputnik moment” referring to the need to use science and technology to develop cheaper clean energy (among other things). It seems the Chinese were listening because last week they announced a focused effort to achieve technological leadership in thorium molten salt reactors.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/30/china-announces-thorium-reactor-en...
Maybe he is planning on a massive whale breeding campaign and moving the country back to whale oil? Sputnik - lets do the time warp again.
=
yeah, sputnik was the russians' satellite lol. A great moment in US history for sure.
Let me just talk about NeObama- he's a triumph of the goals of the diversity cult. He was elected as part of a fetish to absolve the guilt by a mass of white people who, even if we DID accept "sins of the father" have no historical relation to the slave trade. Even fuckin FARRAKHAN has scholarly literature discussing how jews were in most cases primary movers in the slave trade, so much so that in brazil on jewish holidays, the slave auctions were not held for lack of buyers and sellers. He claims that among nations, France, Holland, Portugal, Spain, and England were the primes, which lets off the hook, oh, only the MAJORITY of white americans on basis of national ancestry alone (Germans are the largest caucasian ethnicity here with large amounts of scandinavians as well as slave peoples like Irish and Scots).
Obama was to get a black President, to slay the dragon of racism, which the diversity cult holds as the greatest obstacle facing life on earth, even greater than the Precambrian dieoff or errant comets.
So who should EXPECT anything from a guy intended to be a token other than token behavior??? The motherfucker wasn't elected on merit, never at any point in his entire sorry coke-snorting, cockmunching life has he ever shown merit sufficient to warrant his position. He's a fucking TOKEN in the purest sense of the word, and the avatar of a movement which does not care in the least about progress, mankind, truth, or things like sputnik.
The constant bombardment of the US majority with messages that are patent lies has led to a state of total cognitive dissonance and has deified bullshit and appearance.
Don't expect anything from a nonsense President other than nonsense. And don't expect much from a populace that came of age in a climate of limitless prosperity to detach coldly from their silly, asinine fetishes.
Right now, we need to be cutting funding to schools and cutting the kids who perform poorly loose and focusing on those who do well. But this will not happen. The diversity cult and the insaniacs behind it will defend their imaginary world to your last drop of blood. Really, this nation will have to go through a civil war which will undo most of what we stupidly thought was social "progress" in the last 40 years if we are to survive. I'm not holding my breath.
Only stupid people vote. That's why we end up with (seemingly) stupids in office.
TPTB had to come up with another character, a hard thing to do after Bush. Yeah, they've really been stretching it, that's for sure!
Sadly, blacks really didn't get a clue with Condi Rice. I mean, here was a black WOMAN! WOW! Two for one! Seems there was a big failure to connect those points to the fact that she lied us into mass death in the ME. (wasn't she from a big California college? yeah, go ahead people, let's see you defend this piece of shit)
Not voting is a vote of approval for the status quo.
Good job.
At least vote for the people who will rule you locally.
Not voting is a vote. Sure.
That is why by the way most countries with elections rescale the results to the total of cast ballots.
Not voting is not voting. It is not accounted.
Not voting means "I don't care, everything is fine for me." Which usually supports the status quo as nothing changes unless somebody pushes for change. You know, real change. Not just the one you can believe in.
So.....you voted for Palin?!
Are you talking to me with this false dilemma shit?
You're aware there were other candidates on the ballot, right? I did not waste my vote on a major party candidate. I voted for sanity and real change.
And what candidate represented sanity and 'real change' again?
Seems you wasted your vote on a losing candidate; no win: no change.
So on what candidate did you waste your vote on? :-)
I voted against McCain / Palin, but not because I believed Obama was anything but the usual centrist demagogue.
I've yet to see an election where a candidate that represents my views was on the ballot, so I vote to prevent the worst.
So you voted for Ralph Nader then?
Why, did he suddenly become more electable than Ron Paul?
I agree with many of Ralph's positions, but he has the charisma of a leper with Tourette's and, like it or not (Gavin pun!), it is a job requirement.
Subtle. I like the way you think.
Purchase precious resources of the natives with wampum shells...er fiat until the natives don't have enough dino sauce to fly planes around anymore.
ANWR and the coast of California are a stategic reserves for air superiority for the next 100 years.
Succinctly put!
It's sad how many people on this forum express opinions without facts or understanding.
We need to understand the problem before we can begin to discuss responses to our predicament.
Those with little understanding should be quiet, listen, and learn.
We're in serious trouble and time is rapidly running out.
Downing Effect. They do not grasp that they cannot grasp.
There are a few intelligent people here; we all immediately recognize who knows anything as if we have the Force. Those who have inferior intellects, while still perhaps being above average, are not capable of making such a recognition.
Isn't it amazing how smart the people who agree with us are?
What is even more amazing is that truly intelligent people typical defer to those that demonstrate superior intellect in a given discipline. Moreover, they have the ability to ask the right questions and interpret the answers to determine their true intellectual standing in said discipline.
I'll give you a personal example: I didn't tell Ed Witten how to do String Theory and he never told me how to optimize the trigger logic for a $150 million scientific experiment.
I can assure you that Trav and I do not agree on a lot of things.
I refrain from opening my mouth to express uninformed opinion. I assess statements for their veracity prior to contesting them.
Therefore, people who agree with me tend to be as right as I am.
It is the height of idiocy (Downing Effect/Dunning-Kruger) to assume that all things are somehow matters of opinion, and that uncertainty as to one's opinion somehow makes the TRUTH unknowable. Opinions can be dead wrong, even if some of them (existence of God) cannot be proven
Wow! Two great benefits: Oil and fresh caribou meat.
Seems to me that most of the negative effects of a carbon/gas tax could be mitigated by using the proceeds to fund a national divided.
Fight income inequality, dependence on foreign oil, and pollution in one swoop.
That's what the world needs. Carbon Credit Derivatives.
We would be saved.
Tax?
You trust the government to do something? Social Security ran a surplus for almost it's entire existence. You know what the surplus was "invested" in? Treasury bills. The government spent it and replaced the money with treasury bills.
What are treasury bills essentially? They are IOUs from the government?
So there is no surplus. In fact, the 2+ trillion dollars of the surplus isn't even included in the national debt, although all the other treasury bills are.
So - you want to trust the government, this lyng, thieving, stealing government, with another tax to fix something?
You can't trust them, and you won't oversee them, and even if you do oversee them, they'll just ignore you and do whatever they want anyhow. After all, that's why we're still in Iraq and Afghanistan after voting in Democrats who promised to stop both wars in 2008 and 2010, if only they were elected. They are liars and thieves. Realize they are.
Love the Freudian typo.
Anyone know if you can refine uranium/thorium from coal mine tailings without glowing in the dark?
I think I'm gonna build my own neighborhood nuclear reactor and to hell with govt. It is just a steam engine, for God's sake. How hard could it be?
you may wish to consider the causes of death of nuclear pioneers who used to fuck around with small amounts of this shit. Oh, and have some Borax handy in a bucket with a rope
Can't I get a hazmat suit on EBay?
I'll just get the illegals to do the hands on part. I'll even give their survivors free electricity. I'm a giver.
Just go to Nevada:
Supply--Thorium is abundant in the Earth's crust. It is the 36th most plentiful element in the crust--four times as common as uranium and 5,000 times as plentiful as gold. According to the U.S. Geological Survey's 2006 Mineral Yearbook, the United States is estimated to have 300,000 tons of thorium reserves (about 20% of the world's supply), more than half of which is easily extractable. Considering only the readily accessible portion, this national resource translates to nearly 1 trillion barrels of crude oil equivalent--five times the entire oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. In addition to the naturally occurring reserves, the United States currently has 3,200 metric tons of processed thorium nitrate buried in the Nevada desert. That supply is roughly equivalent to 21 billion barrels of crude oil equivalent when used in an LFTR with only minimal processing effort.
http://energyfromthorium.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=ar...
So what are we waiting for?
Isn't it immoral for the US to ramp up the price of oil when we have alternatives?
Green Tech is evil. It kills brown people.
The article is a bunch of BS.
synfuel is expensive.
Conservation is the cheapest and most commonsense alternative.
This is more denial.
Period.
gh
Your intentions are true, but brush up on Jevon's Paradox
this paradox can only be overcome by iron-fisted rule. I nominate myself for that role.
Its never late to start seriously go for energy independence. However, talking about it , not doing does not get You anywhere. Just leaves You on the needle of imported energy longer, with costlier and longer rehabilitation.
We're saving all of it for stragic reserves. My name will be Ho Chi Min, and all of our soverign weath will be transferred when the pumps open.
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE FROM F'N WHO? ... and who are "we" by the way?
I subscribe to the idea that the main world currency is oil, not gold. Energy independence will never come as long as the monpolistic oil bankers control the system.
"the hand that gives is above the hand that receives"
You will not have energy independence until you no longer need oil or gas for that matter. The scary thing is that the fiat distibutors are also the oil distributors, just with other names... who controls the price of commodities and finances the oil companies?
Isn't that the ultimate truth of socialism? Anyone who gives you something, can also take it away.
that is the ultimate truth of dependence...be it on socialists, capitalists, or fundamentalists.
now get back to work or you'll catch another pink slip.
The last thing this country should do is sqaunder off it's energy reserves so people can drive big SUVs. It's a stategic asset.
If you haven't noticed, this nation is irrevocably bankrupt. We're not getting out of this one boys and girls. We have a national debt that has grown on average of 9.4% since we've gone off the gold standard. By 2020, that national debt will be at 33 trillion dollars if we slow down to this historical rate of only 9.4%. That's 9 years away. Our deficits for 2009 and 2010 are above the growth of 9.4% just so you know.
We are already insolvent. There is no way to pay off the national debt or even stop it's growth at this point which means we can't service it.
Drilling for oil will just put off the inevitable, allow a party to go on for a little longer, and that's it. We need to stop the party first, then we can drill.
Laws of Energy:
1.energy is income for the kleptocrats in USA.
2.Gov policy is used to support kleptocrats in the keeping of energy cost high to the economy.
3. social movements such as "green movement"
are set up and/or co-opted by the kleptocrats
4. Dems and Repubs are coopted by kleptocrats
5. USA could be energy independent thru multiple technologies..all of which are suppressed by Kleptocrats.
6. Nuke, Nat gas, extraction of our own oil, coal
electric grid modernization,better public transport system,Encouraging populace to live in more concentrated small communities (to reduce commuting)..can be done today, they are not because the Kleptocrats wealth depends on Big Banks.
7. Major banks are insolvent, kleptocrats are insolvent with them, that is why the FED is pouring fiat into them.
8. Kleptocrats need the current system to keep them solvent..capital going to any of the above solutions for energy use, will cause their wealth base to collapse.
9. as long as MSM /kleptocrats need capital to offset criminal losses in debt..little capital is available to support any techology of energy independence.
10. current USA gov as a tool of the kleptocrats will never provide an environment for the developement of low cost energy..the answer to energy and financial independence for America is the same for both..the elites must be removed from power.
god, I hate the drill baby drill crowd.
first natural gas is cheaper and causes less co2, conservation goes a long way, no reason we can't be as energy efficient as europe or Japan, We have the greatest wind resources of any nation on earth.
there are lost of things we should be doing with an eye towards the future before we start massive projects that take years to build that don't get us ready for the future.
Increased domestic supply just delays the oil habit, and doesn't get rid of it. Since Nixon presidents have been calling for getting off the oil but, there has never been any sustained effort Why because the oil industry kills it.
Maybe because they could not get off.
Occam's Razor can be a bitch, eh?
Wind has been demonstrated again and again to be money wasting, rent seeking boondoggle.
What part of "it doesn't work" don't you get.
There is no replacement for liquid hydrocarbon fuel for transportation (for the foreseeable future).
There is no replacement for nuclear power for electrical production for the foreseeable future (assuming we use coal for liquid fuels)
It's not the oil companies ( you idiots), it's the laws of physics.
You can't run cars on batteries (except as children's and green idiot's toys).
You can't make electricity that we can afford with windmills or solar panels (Only makes sense in remote areas where money is no object).
The green Bozos in Europe have already proved this to anyone with a brain. Watch as Great Britian unravels from blackouts as they gut their electricity production capacity to install giant, bird chopping fans. In the recent winter storms, windmills produced at <5% rated capacity. How can you afford to install 20 times the number of windmills you need? Will any birds be left. Can the economy function when the cost of electricity goes up by a factor of 5-10 (probably a factor of 100- 200 is what it would take to produce all electricity using wind).
Your green utopia is a myth. Either it is natural gas, oil coal, and nuclear (while doing research on fusion along with a fuel unlikely, but possible sources of liquid fuel like single cell, genetically engineered sources) or mass starvation and collapse of civilization. Be honest, that's what you really want isn't it?
The sad thing when we are starving (and freezing) in the dark will be that we did to ourselves because we chose a political class that was too stupid to do math and therefore couldn't pass hard science courses so they could understand basic physical laws (or economics courses either, for that matter).
You make many proclamations without a shred of material evidence (and with plenty available to the contrary). It's difficult to pick which of your false premises to tear down first. Your nuclear and coal powered future is a disgusting myth too and your boss should hire a better shill.
Please lay out which laws of physics you believe to be the obstacle to a sustainable 20-30Tw of generation which will last indefinitely (millions of years at a minimum) and then tell us how long your conventional power sources will last under the same expected load. Can you even get to a hundred years with population growth included?
I can see no false claim, except maybe the bird shredding.
He is also talking about cost which you seem to ignore when dreaming about "indefinitely lasting sustainable generation". Why aren't you off the grid with your own solar panels, battery room and electric car?
king-
On the North side of NY 104, East of Rochester, NY, (probably in Ontario, NY) there is a solitary windmill. Probably 250 kw machine. Lit up at night, American flag flying.
Local (great) AM radio station, WHAM, used to (maybe still do, haven't been there for a while) include in their traffic reports, descriptions of Canada geese who had been hit and 'thunk' landed on a car.
So, bird shredding is real. Helo (military) rotor wings get to be tested vs. birds and tree branches.
Ignoring cost? Moonbats are all about ignoring costs and environmental impact of the decisions they make to feel better (junk away: viz. Prius' nickel battery's environmental impact.)
You, King, hit the basic question! And the answer is: a) the first cost is unachievable, b) the maintenance costs are outta' sight (and he wouldn't know what to do anyway), and c) even if O&M costs are disregarded, the whole thing doesn't work in lifecycle cost terms. Interpreted for moonbats: "it is unsustainable, even with Gov't subsidy."
- Ned
{so why is there an electricity windmill north of 104 you ask. apparently, this guy wanted old RG&E to give his shop some electricity. They were happy to do so for a price. negotiations ensued. guy not happy but needs power for the shop. RG&E lays in the line. guy pissed. guy erects an electrical windmill, on the shores of Lake Ontario (good breeze there, nay 0.5 mph minimum) and sells electricity. How does he sell it? He has an outgoing meter that registers how many kw-h he has delivered to the grid. He has an incoming meter where he pays for the power he uses as a part of his contract.
Arbitrage bitchez: he buys power at like 9 or so and sells it at the avoided cost: like 20 or so. All on the same line that he had to pay for.
Why can he sell at a fixed and highest price that the system recognizes? SUBSIDY for inefficient power producers.}
Clarification: I should have written "amount of bird shredding". I don't believe we get to "Will any birds be left."
Cost is very difficult to measure when things like tax incentives for big oil and the enviro effects of nuclear are waived off as negligible when they are anything but. Will it still be relevant to discuss 'cost' when the denominator of $/bbl (or $/g of fissile material, or $/ton of coal) is ZERO?
To me, energy is much more important than a fictional concept like money. You guys are all about 'something I can hold' instead of 'paper' right? Well I'm about 'something that can accomplish work' (in the physics sense) instead of a 'scorekeeping device'. As far as I'm concerned the 'expense' of research on space-based solar and fusion would be 'worth it' in the long-run if we could SAVE BILLIONS on securing resources I'd rather we not use (and leak all over the Gulf of Mexico, or sludge-slide over Tennessee, or Chernobyl) in the first fucking place.
I have a 4kw PV array on my roof and my neighbor has a windmill that's spinning like a top 6 days a week since we live 1/4 mile from the Pacific, but I focus my efforts on not wasting energy (drive < 5k per year, never get above the 1st tier of power pricing, etc).
Sure, just pick the points that suit you, interpolate into the infinite future (denominator of zero), and otherwise question the general concept of "money" (and with it cost-benefit-analysis, and actually supply and demand market forces as well).
How much kWh did your PV produce last year? What percentage of your annual electricity consumption was that? What was the cost of installation (and if applicable maintenance) for the PV before and after tax incentives?
Very likely you are using the power grid as your "battery" and waiving off the cost as negligible?
It's nice that you are such an idealist to invest into PV, but that doesn't imply that this is the thing for everybody to do or that everyone can afford it.
What 'infinite' future? There's what...400 years of coal reserves? My whole point was that sustainable is preferable to 'will end' sources.
Yes, I question 'money' if it leads people down a blind alley of assuming they can consume without limit because there's still gas at the pump today (as long as we're talking about errant extrapolations).
About 12kw (baseline is 9.8kw) and I push back about 40% of that (depending on the season). I could install more modules in my backyard and may if/when PG&E is no longer able to deliver the goods due to TSHTF.
I don't know the details of the install / incentives as I rent and the array was put in by my landlord > 5 years ago (or $12k ago), but when I looked into doubling the capacity it worked out to about $6k/kw of generation (can abuse the existing inverter) of which about $10k would be eligible for incentives. It would break even within a couple years (sooner for less conservative power users who would hit the 2nd or 3rd tier past baseline load). Without the tax incentives, it would break even in about 10 years...about half the realistic lifespan of the modules).
I cannot parse your numbers. So you have a 4kW PV, at least that what the makers labeled it, which cost $24k without the inverter.
How many kWh energy output does it produce: on a bright cloudless day, or in an average month, or for the whole last year? (1 kWh is 1000 W continously generated [or consumed] for one hour.)
Or were you saying 12 kWh generation per day?
12kWh is my average power use per day (360kWh/mo). 9.8kWh is the baseline load from PG&E for pricing (~290kWh/mo).
The generation is ~3.9kWh/day on average (~115kWh/mo) which is pretty good for a fixed array near the beach, but I've got no irradiance blockers and there's a constant breeze to keep the modules from losing efficiency due to thermal effects.
Snowball777:
Nyet, tovarich. You can start with the operational history of the Carter-Era windfarms at e.g. Altamont Pass and above Palm Springs. Go on out there and inspect for yourself.
Now, let's get physical:
1. How much land is required to get to your 20-30 Tw generation capacity.
2. Where is that land? Correlary: can you spell "I-squared-R" and 'splain it?
3. Current nuclear plants are responsibly under 60 years total life with anticipation to 80 years. In answer to item 1, one can have like 3,000 MWe on a thousand acre site. That, mon ami, is power density.
Human operational experience argues against this nonsense as a general solution. Physics? Let's try fruid mechanics. This will limit the zone of effective wind speeds and atmospheric conditions (gust, ice, rain...) to limit possible capacity factors.
- Ned
I've driven past them many times. How many of those nuke plants can you build? How many without gov guarantees for insurers? Yeah, thought so.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/sad1109Jaco5p.ind...
The energy problem is not a technology but a human socio-behavioral one.
There is something called Water Fuel Cell (WFC) and Stan Meyers ( 80-s and 90-s ) not to speak of the other dozen or so fuel saving technology. For most of them it is a pure practical effect without an underlying theoretical base. There is absolutely no research money given for saving, GDP decreasing, technologies. The "problem" with all of them that they are durt cheap, and the % of GDP they will add is inconceivably small compared with the % of GDP they will take out, even though, they will take out A LOT of inefficiency. This leads one to think what exactly does GDP measure ...
Jesus Christ, must we really suffer such analytical horseshit as this moronic piece, which proposes turning coal to the fuel--at scale. EROI much, ding-dong? Where are you going to get all the freaking energy to create synfuels at scale, which will wind up being energy-negative? No wonder this country is in so much trouble.
GG
When will you young people wake up and deal with reality? There are no more Saudi Arabias, North Seas or Texas fields. My generation burned it all, and you are totally screwed. 6 billion of you are going to starve to death by 2050. You don't wanna be one of them, learn how to do something besides surf the net, pretend to daytrade and jerk off.
"it's the laws of physics"
When someone proclaims the "Laws of physics" it is clear that he or she has not idea what they are talking about. Some friends of mine, working in renown National Physics Research labs, do absolutely clueless experiments and get some vague results and in private conversations share how everything is done to fit the "laws of physics" as we know it. And this is the biggest problem, trying to fit nature in our understanding for nature.
For all of you who do not have clue what I am talking about, please watch "the tunderbolts of the Gods", the opening of the movie is quite revealing, and will make you REALLY open your mind:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374#
For those of you who want to dive in the theoretical concepts, google the papers:
"Dirac Equation and the Sea of Infinite Energy" by Donald L. Hotson 2002 Infinite Energy:
www.zeitlin.net/OpenSETI/Docs/HotsonPart1.pdf
www.zeitlin.net/OpenSETI/Docs/HotsonPart2.pdf
http://blog.hasslberger.com/docs/HotsonIE86.pdf
there are 3 papers around 60 or so pages, ones you read it and understand you will never ever say lightly "the laws of physics"!
And a simple fact that will blow you out. The speed of the electrons on the wires is not 2/3 of the speed of light but more like 3-4 miters per second.
Now think what is coming to you, if not electrons, from the power station or how "a tick" from the exchange will come to you over the wires in less then a second.
"Throughout space there is energy. ... it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature." - Nikola Tesla
Looks like the abiotic guys have passed the baton to the zero-pointers...
Have you ever solved the Dirac Equation? Do you know what Hawking Radiation is? Can you connect the dots?
Don't know if you are referring to me but...
I have degrees in Chemistry (BS with highest honors) and a graduate degree in Physics.
You greenies are always talking about how people without credentials should shut up and you should only believe the peer-reviewed articles.
I don't really go along with that but I have the credentials and have published peer reviewed physics articles. How does it feel to get the same stuff back at you?
And by the way. It is the laws of physics (and economics and practical engineering) that tell you that windmills, solar panels and the other greenie horse shit won't work...today. We can keep doing research in certain areas (windmills and battery powered cars will never work) but we have to keep modern society running until we find other answers to our energy needs.
A few hints: power cells, solar panels, bio-fuels and cold fusion (the last one is a joke--cold or catalysed fusion happens--quantum tunneling, don't you know--but it isn't useful) can be improved but aren't ready yet for broad application. Maybe some day, worth researching but if we don't use conventional sources of energy until they are ready, civilization will end and we will be back to splitting wood and dying at 30.
If you think Al Gore is a scientist, you are part of the problem.
Well... I only have a Ph.D. in physics along with 20 years experience in basic research, along with experience on Wall Street modeling CDOs, ABS and the like...
And after rechecking the thread, I have no idea why you think my post was directed at you. Perhaps you missed the sarcasm in my reply to this epw chap....
Not one mention of conservation. Telling.
um...anyone who studied basic mechanics as a frosh knows that electrons drift at mundane speeds in an electrical circuit
Right, trav!
However the propagation of an event (like flipping the light switch from off to on) to start or stop the electron movement occurs at 2/3 of light speed.
And actually, epwpixieq-1, it's even worse: even light doesn't move at light speed... unless in an absolute vacuum!!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374#
has some science in it, but it is very much on the fringe. They make some tantalizing points about comets, but to suggest that the sun is not fusion powered is silly.
If your point is that we don't have everything figured out, there is no need to reach for the fringe; we have the historical idea that around 1900, physics explained everything, except for that curious phenomenon of nuclear decay. Fast-forward to today, and there are curious phenomenon that are not well understood, but by the same analogy, practical use is likely many decades away.
Wind is safer more efficient and cheaper every single day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA0urIMYmH0, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoQohr4k4Rg , http://www.gizmag.com/torque-vectoring-gears-for-smaller-more-efficient-.... You are worried about birds, good: http://www.bird-x.com/products-sonic-bird-repellers-c-5_6.html The dutch have used windpower for centuries. It's proven itself as effective as hydroelectric.
Electrical energy storage is growing even faster. Ultracapacitors are made from common materials usually rated for one million charge/discharge cycles, are lighter than lithium ion and can be recharged as fast as electricity can be put into them. There are buses in asia that are powered by ultracaps. Normal car batteries are recycled and replaced onto the market every single day. Batteries in general get better and more interesting all the time: http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/air-fueled-battery-for-electric-...
Solar is approaching $1.00 / watt for pv. http://cleantechnica.com/2010/11/16/sunpower-ramps-up-production-soon-do... Parabolic solar dishes are made from common materials and are typically even more efficient too.
Or you could use the super cheap variety and insulate your home better:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DusWlsJtVfE
Or the incredibly efficient home cooling tech: http://www.coolerado.com/
Or we can talk about algae based biofuels that already exist and can be grown in wastewater in the desert, algae which can be made to double it's mass every 5 hrs during the day. It can already be found either diy or large scale, price drops daily.
Or many, many other technologies that are lined up like the Rockettes to replace the evil we participate in daily known as oil.
Who do you work for IH?
Flywheels!
Are awesome ways to store energy.
"Wind is safer more efficient and cheaper every single day:..."
Just looked outside to our local windmill. Yep, very, very safe. Wind speed is about 3 mph, puppy ain't turnin' at all.
Wind power cost is like $0.125/kw-h. That is why they have to sell it at a premium as "green electricity."
Don't quite know how you figure "efficient", but "cheaper" is not even close.
Compare nuclear and coal at like $0.035/kw-h (all up cost, including decommissioning fund funding).
Please elucidate regarding Denmark's and Spain's wide use of wind and the peaking coal plants that are needed because (to use a technical term) wind's capacity factor sucks.
- Ned
Cheaper (much cheaper) than it was even recently. Not cheaper than the subsidized insanity you seem to like. Did you see the windbelt video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZ0v-CK63-4 That tech works with super low windspeeds the other wind video above is for motor wind which is super cheap and designed for wind speeds as low as .5 mph. The Tacoma Narrow's bridge vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-zczJXSxnw
You are right though, bad design doesn't help unless we choose to learn from the mistakes we make.
Please identify the subsidies; all I see is applicants bringing in applications and bags o' cash to the regulators at all levels. Plus taxes.
Subsidies? Try here: http://www.capewind.org/
I have said before that opposing this mess is the only thing I ever agreed upon with dear departed Teddy. Yep, our Dear Governor signed the deal in the stillness of the night. It was only going to cost everyone just a cup of coffee a day. Now it is a Super-Duper Grande cup, and growing.
And sure, you can get blades to work at skosh speeds. Then they have to feather at normal speeds, otherwise they exhibit the Huey effect and shatter.
I'm commenting on bad design concept (rather, design concept that is economically ineffective, can not scale, does not support grid stability, and can not be placed near the point of use). I-squared-R losses eat up, what, 1/3 or so of delivered power?
I've been working with/associated with this "technology" since the days of Jimmy Carter I, and his truly subsidized "wind program" from the "Department of Energy." Check out the maintenance status of the farms at e.g. Altamont Pass or above Palm Springs. Real operational experience to examine. Why are the machines so badly maintained? Who will clean up this mess?
Other OE is from Spain and Denmark. Did you figure out how much additional pollution peaking units make as they run up and down (vs. their being in base load)? Last I looked, each "green" job cost ~2.6 real jobs.
- Ned
Now we're hashing it out. I wonder if the huey effect would work with motor wind design, I read they just level out in ouput instead of breaking up, probably because each blade is supported on each end (?). The windbelts are for lower speeds too. What is it that breaks in the big wind turbines, the bearings, there are great ways to deal with that now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOTWx69mghM
Seems cheaper and quicker than starting new fission projects we obviously don't have money for. I still worry about the security vulnerabilities associated with fission.
I don't know how many times these guys and Blacklight Power will have to have their products replicated and varified before they start beta testing but I think it looks promising.
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece
"This would become the world's first commercially-ready "cold fusion" device. Licensees are mentioned, with contracts in the USA and in Europe. Mass production should escalate in 2-3 years. Presently Rossi says they are manufacturing a 1 megawatt plant composed of 125 modules. These modules should begin shipping in about three months. On January 31st, 2011, Rossi wrote: "The cost to produce the catalyzer is 1 cent per MWh generated; the life expectancy is 20 years; the cost impact is between 1 and 1.5 cents per MWh."
I'll have to defer to your experience as a career pro at all of this, I'm just a geek with a soldering iron but today is very different than yesterday.
The tractor and electricity cost a lot of folks jobs too... We already need a lot more local food and farmers, education and training to keep up with the new technologies, manufacturing jobs, engineers, chemist and techs. Green jobs exist, I created one, way more reliable than my old job. It saddens me when people believe they can't contribute to making the transition from oil, coal and nuc' fission. I think it's a fading way of thinking the belief that someone or thing needs to get shafted to maintain any semblance of our way of life. Getting off the grid is easier and less expensive than it has ever been and it needn't been done entirely in one step. We've faltered a lot to get this far and there will no doubt be plenty more screw ups but at least we are turning toward a more positive goal. Why slag the idea in general, every little piece of the puzzle is unique with it's own tradeoffs and benefits?.
Dup post, too much caffeine and I'm getting excited.
Traditional fission is cheap because it's subsidized. Trad' fission has never made a profit anywhere ever. Did you factor in the costs of building plants? I was in Europe immediately after Chernobyl, it sucked. There are these little sticking points like the fact we are creating enemies faster than we can kill them and traditional fission plants are a serious security vulnerability, not just stuxnet, physically. Coal, now that's the donkey's donkey. We could cut out the middle step and just grind up the miners alive, compost them and use the biogas in our CNG vehicles to drive up to the mountain top removal site for the self congratulations party. My aim is for self sufficiency, it lessens the imagined need for any kind of middleman including a government. What's your goal? I do guess the easiest thing for us all to do would be quit and kill ourselves but I can't get past the idea we can make stuff work. It's so funny listening to all of the no - talk, if everything really is pointless why do you go on? I love the de-centralizing of energy control, I'll be stoked when other folks don't make my decisions for me about where or how I get my energy.
Great stuff; keep up the positive...wait for it....energy!
b2bm:
"Traditional fission is cheap because it's subsidized. Trad' fission has never made a profit anywhere ever. Did you factor in the costs of building plants?"
See above, but this nonsense, well: a) please list subsidies {I'll give you one-U production has some}, b) never made a profit? and c) yes, the mortgage is considered. Up to like half of the total plant cost is financing costs when it goes on the bars/into the rate base.
Now, the profit thing. We'll take FPL in honor of a certain poster who can't get trolls to spell his handle correctly.
http://www.psc.state.fl.us/library/financials/EI802-DOCS/ANNUAL-REPORTS/...
Wow, those guys pay a lot of taxes. No wonder why they keep their four nuclear units around--so they can lose money and not pay as much in the way of taxes. Yep, really fools the Cracka'z up in Tallahassee. Those fools can't figure out what is going on, can they?
- Ned
{We can do the same thing with Exelon (nee Commonwealth Electric, you know the one? Bill Ayers' daddy used to run the whole lashup) if you want. APS has a huge consortium in on Palo Verde; all them fools can't figure it out either.}
Is that half the projected cost or half of the 300% inflated final cost?
New_Meat, your costs per KWh appear to be cherry-picked or seriously out of date.
Looking at multiple reports, the construction and operational cost of a nuclear power plant results in $/KW-h ranges:
$0.07 http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/
$0.08-0.11 http://keystone.org/spp/energy/8780
$0.05-0.15 http://www.uraniumcitizensinquiry.com/submissions/submission120.ppt
The last is a roll-up of multiple reports. The meta-analysis is that the EIA and MIT studies are the most optimistic. The MIT report states that nuclear is not cost effective unless carbon emissions are taxed at $100/ton. Ratings agencies have their own estimates, and they are 2-3x higher than the MIT numbers.
The S&P estimate for wind is $0.07/KW-h.
The average price for US electricity in 2009 reported at:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/tbla8.pdf
is $0.098/KW-h ; it also shows that for 2008-2009 when overall electricity consumption decreased, renewable generation increased by 9%.
(California is still paying ripoff prices $0.18-0.32/KW-h (my average is $0.24) as a result of the Enron + collusion debacle.)
I'm happy to finally see photovoltaic cost beat nuclear, at least at high noon; I like no moving parts, even if the capacity factor (duty cycle) is not 100%. Since almost all life on the planet is ultimately solar powered, it is a proven technology.
None of the studies included a comprehensive and uniform analysis of environmental externalities; in the long run, that could make a big difference. In the next 10-20 years, maybe forever, a mixed strategy will need to be used. For example, here in California, the highest demand time for electricity is hot, sunny days, precisely when solar power works best.
Data that I used were EIA which matches NEI. But, more importantly, used FPL costs as the Florida PUC is rather picky about putting any costs into the rate base. Last look was at 2009 data (so mid '10). FL regulated prices arount 7 cents per. But, as you say, they didn't get into the CA situation where price was capped but cost was at the "market"
You and Leo ;-). And, actually, the capacity factor is around 40%. So energy storage is a problem as is transportation. Inverter losses are tricky. Albedo change plus I-squared-R losses make PV into a net heat gain times almost 2.
I trust the S&P wind cost estimate as much as I trust their security ratings. Try this out--If cost were .07 and sell were your .24, why would about a third of the machines in Altamont Pass and Palm Springs farms remain out of service? 0.07 was sorta' the target for Cape Wind, before the deal was signed. Today, not so low, with no cap in sight.
- Ned
You keep mentioning transmission losses as if that isn't a problem that affects all centralized generation tech.
If most of the WWS was local generation, why would that still matter?
windfarm location<--where the wind is. Check out why T. Boone's wind plan fell apart.
Power coming out of the machines is at what? 480v? 1kv? Lots of apparatus to get the 345 kv line fed.
Of course, that is if you plan on "production" quantities of machines. Watch Cape Wind as the next example of this nonsense falling apart, one seagull at a time.
- Ned
{of course, I'm looking at this as a generation source as part of e.g. Eastern U.S. grid. If it is one machine for your house, by all means, have at it.}
My understanding is that roof top albedo changes and heat dissipation are not big factors w.r.t. global warming when compared to CO2 or water vapor.
I*I*R is not a problem if you use liquid nitrogen superconductors ( see American Superconductor )
Lack of maintenance on some early wind farms could be for lots of reasons. There is no reason to suspect that wind power is harder to maintain than hydroelectric (but maybe superconductors can help make it harder ;^)
"Vanadium Bitchez", to write in the parlance of our times. Development of sources and technologies using this element will replace some of our current oil based methods within the next 5 years.
Vanadium based batteries have significant improvements in output & recharging speed without the thermal problems found in current Li, Ni, and Pb based batteries. The watt capacity is tremendous.
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/Vanadium+Energy+Holy+Grail/3949...
Vanadium-Lithium battery cells are more than 3x more powerful than what's out there today and can recharge in 15 minutes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subaru_G4e#cite_note-autotrader-ca-1
Vanadium-Redox batteries can scale from small household products up to grid level size uninterupptible power supplies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_battery
The limiting factor to mass market batteries using Vanadium has been the lack of reliable supply. To date, most Vanadium has been isolated as a by-product of oild production, or other substances.
This is changing within the next 1-3 years with the development of Vandium focused mines.
Energizer Resources (enzr, egz-tsx-v), Largo Resources (lgorf), Apella (apaff), and American Vanadium (rmrcf) are all large scale mines with significantly concentrated Vanadium deposits. They are all planning to take advantage of these techonolgical developments.
Ummm, I'm gonna have to see your Vanadium and raise you some Thorium.
A thorium reactor diagram:
http://www.thorium.tv/en/thorium_reactor/thorium_reactor_1.php
and the science behind the only logical and practical at this time replacement for both the current uranium based reactors and any other types of large scale electrical and heat/energy needs such as desalination of sea water into fresh potable water.
http://energyfromthorium.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=ar...
We already have 4,000 or more years of materials mined and stored in the Nevada desert thanks to our swell nuclear weapons programs. Who thought massive death bringers (Atomic Weapons)might inadvertantly sustain us through our peak oil years with the cast off waste byproducts?
Kinda like rain on your wedding day, isn't it ironic?
Interesting. Like good advice, I just didn't take. Will put thorium on the radar.
A Vanadium Redox is commercially available today, however.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Vanadium_Redox_Batteries
And Moral-Hazard man has invested in the car battery version.
http://www.electricforum.com/electric-cars/why-did-warren-buffett-invest...
Vanadium use is on the front end of the curve at this point.
Do you have any thoughts or reco's regarding Lightbridge Corporation?
Vanadium and thorium are varsity players for sure. It's getting crowded in here, all these great ideas.
Super camp drag queen voice "Ooh I love it!, You go girls!"
The focus on crude is reflection of systemic corruption in the political process. All proposed solutions are being driven by a special interest agenda on the right & the left. Drill baby drill is no more viable then using agriculture to fuel our cars. Plug in hybrids are a joke, we have a grid straining close to collapse and suddenly the solution is to have everyone plug in their car? Yet all the while we are sitting on a 500 year supply of nat gas in our own back yard. But hey, without our never ending pursuit of black gold there'd be no reason to show off all our shiny toys to "friends" in the middle east. After all, what would the world look like if we just packed our bags and went home. God forbid we can't just leave those people to their own devices, preacher told me thats where the anti-christ will come from.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcW_Ygs6hm0
Drill baby drill, is like most good propaganda short, easy to remember and once implanted, easily manipulated to produce a knee jerk reaction in the victim with the slightest of social/media stimulus.
It really works, as a slogan/propaganda it short circuits all logic circuits and loops directly back to a feeling of certainty and positive superiority over your opponent/advesary.
Lets map the function:
1 question - running out of oil?
a. where oil? in ground/sea! How we get? Drill!
Answer
Drill baby drill.
no real reasoning necessary, its a simple as watching a pretty woman undress and getting wood in your trousers. Stimuli and response.
Which takes us to the real meat of the discussion , why was the slogan "drill baby, drill" necessary? Large embedded fixed costs in existing drilling, transporting and refining technologies, makes those invested in such things reticent to change while they can continue to derive substantial income from such activities. Any and all alternatives turn these valuable resources into substantial liabiliites. ie financial losses on a tremendous scale.
The game is as always, to squeeze as much money out of the system before off loading the expensive antiquated equipment/paradigm to the suckers. ie when they nationalize oil in the U.S. - it means they have found something else and the taxpayers are gonna get stuck with the clean up, maintenance and tear down and environmental impact of the oil and gas industries.
So we get Thorium, when they can't make anymore money on the oil/gas game.
We have always drilled in Oceania!
Natgas is coming. But we have to drill baby drill right now to have an orderly transition. We are in the midst of an economic crises so anything to keep energy cheap for a five more years will make the eventual natgas conversion less stressful on the economy.
Take a gander at
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7460
and you are welcome to try and refute the following set of articles
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7191#berman
Also be sure to explain to me why CHK just sold their Fayetteville shale gas play to BHP...
I dont refute the articles except that we dont know what the slope will look like. In the meantime we need to use it all up before the third world has a chance to get any.
Umm... a modern twist on "Sauve qui peut".. and pray tell what after we "use it up"?
Well I'm convinced. Drill it.
Drill baby drill is not just a slogan but an imperative right now. We need to use up all the oil before the third world has a chance to catch up, then we can switch to natgas that is domestically produced. Our coal reserves should then be the coup de grace. We can handle global warming a lot better than china and it would pobably net increase our food production. China and India will never comply with cabon caps anyway. Let 'er rip.
We will make the third world regret their failure to accept carbon caps. You want a warmer climate china and india? OK we will give it to you. We got plenty of water and temperate zone agriculture
Just getting caught up on this discussion from last night....
I'm really surprised no-one has mentioned the one source of infinite energy.
You just hook up a generator to an electric motor, give the cord a pull, and the sucker just puts out continuous electricity!!!!
Jeez, you guys, wake up!
lol,gh
gotta keep those lights on...
gotta keep those cars a runnin...
thorium, vanadium, adamantium....
all this unicorn energy is s'posed to come the guys in charge of us.....the ones who brought us entertainment hollywood couldnt cook up.....THEY are gonna implement "alternative" tech to keep yer ass drivin to piggly wiggly?....all the while the only source of energy capable of producing ALL of the green smegma-tech is slippin further and further....anwr,bakken, all of it will be exploited and it'll be mordor, a fucking calamity. maybe instead, do without.
kill me now.
Our energy policy amounts to economic self-immolation! It won't just harm us. It will destroy us! Just what Obama's czar Carol Browner ordered -- DEdevelopment of the United States!
http://pesn.com/2010/07/14/9501672_Terawatt_Research_LLC_defies_free_energy_stereotypes/
Followed them for years. Magee and Webster join and the web site goes dead 6 months later. Disapeared without any notice? Phone number will not take calls. Must have worked too well? Would have really sucked if everyone would have had there own power plant in their basement - polution free and running non stop with a 200$ per year maintenance contract.
http://pesn.com/2010/07/14/9501672_Terawatt_Research_LLC_defies_free_energy_stereotypes/
The Everyman Outlook is "Build Nukes, Or STFU."
It isn't hard.
The "everyman" appears to know fuck-all about the actual cost of building nuke plants, how many could realistically be built, the safety concerns they present, the cost of handling waste, and the sustainability and costs of the input materials.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants
i don't think we'll get to energy independence until we've used-up everyone else's.