E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Sandy Huffaker / AP file
A rainbow is visible looking west from Palm Springs, Calif., with an array of wind turbines in the foreground. Will wind power and other technologies provide a rainbow of hope for our energy future?
Experts from around the world today unveiled a six-point game plan for "decarbonizing" the world's sources of electric power over the next 20 years. The Equinox Summit's closing communique, issued at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario, adds some new twists to the usual prescriptions for breaking our reliance on fossil fuels. But the big question is: Who'll pick up the ball?
We'll focus on that question during the next episode of "Virtually Speaking Science," airing at 1 p.m. ET Saturday on Blog Talk Radio and in the Second Life virtual world. My guest on the show is Martin Hoffert, professor emeritus of physics at New York University, who'll lay out the energy challenges that lie ahead.
"These are the types of challenges that engineers and scientists would love to work on, but there's no money," Hoffert told me.
At this week's Equinox Summit, scientists, policymakers and entrepreneurs gathered together under the auspices of the Perimeter Institute and the University of Waterloo to draw up recommendations to close the anticipated gap in electric power generation.
Jatin Nathwani, executive director of the university's Waterloo Institute for Sustainable Energy, pointed out that an estimated 16.5 terawatts of power are generated today, with all but 2.5 terawatts coming from fossil fuels. By the year 2050, experts project that the world will need at least 30 terawatts. The energy-generating capacity from renewable sources would have to increase sixfold just to hold the current level of greenhouse-gas emissions steady, Nathwani noted.
"In simple terms, all new growth to be met will have to be non-carbon sources of energy," he said.
The recommendations touch on advanced power-generation technologies as well as strategies for using that power more efficiently:
Advanced nuclear power: International collaborations can accelerate next-generation nuclear technologies, such as accelerator-driven, thorium-based systems and integral fast reactors with a fully closed fuel cycle. Closing the nuclear fuel cycle means that the nuclear waste from one cycle is folded into the fuel for the next cycle. "Nuclear waste can fuel our energy future," said Danish policy researcher Jakob Nygard. Passive nuclear safety systems reduce the risk of a Fukushima-style reactor leak.
Geothermal power: Power companies are already starting to take advantage of the heat stored in the earth, but more could be done. Robin Batterham, former chief scientist for the Australian government, said 50 percent of the world's baseload power could come from geothermal by 2050. "The key question to me is, why isn't geothermal happening faster? ... The answer is fairly simple: The larger and more extensive resources are very deep," he said. To tap those resources, drillers might have to go 3 to 5 kilometers (2 to 3 miles) deep. The summit task force recommends developing 10 large-scale, $1 billion drilling projects "to demonstrate what the real risks are," Batterham said.
Better batteries: Solar cells and wind turbines could conceivably close the energy gap — if it weren't for the fact that they don't generate electricity on a 24/7 basis. What's needed are better technologies for large-scale power storage. WWF-Canada's Zoe Caron said advanced battery technologies are under development in China, the United States, Austria and elsewhere, but "essentially the batteries have not penetrated the market yet." More demonstration projects are needed, she and her summit colleagues said.
Smart cities: Two-thirds of the world's population could be living in mega-cities by the year 2040, said Marc McArthur, manager for the Ottawa Cleantech Initiative, and that suggests that initiatives such as smart metering, "intelligent buildings" and superconducting conduits have a big role to play in making future energy use more efficient. Neighborhood-based pilot projects would serve as "a bridge to the future and also a catalist for change," McArthur said.
Urban electric mobility: Information technology can help match up city residents with appropriate modes of electric transportation, ranging from buses and light rail to shared bicycles and automobiles. Felipe De Leon, a Costa Rica-based consultant for Anaconda Carbon, said the success of ventures such as Netflix and Zipcar, and the rise of concepts such as cloud computing, demonstrates the appeal of "access without ownership" — an approach that can easily be applied to urban mobility. "The trend is moving toward increased access and sharing," he said.
Rural electrification through flexible solar power: The electric-power challenge isn't limited to urban areas. "Quite a bit of stress has been laid on the necessity to provide a leg up to the nearly 2 billion people on the planet who do not even have electric light," Canadian-born nuclear physicist Walt Patterson told me. The summit task force put special emphasis on organic solar cells that could be as flexible as a sheet of plastic and produced on glorified inkjet printers. "There are a lot of industry players who are spending billions on this," the Global Governance Institute's Aaron Leopold said. He envisioned the development of cheap solar-powered battery packs that could produce enough electricity to run a small appliance, and yet would be so portable "you can wrap it up, put it in your backpack and carry it 50 miles down the road."
Over the next few months, the ideas floated at the Equinox Summit will be turned into a detailed policy document titled "Equinox Blueprint: Energy 2030."
The summit's organizers said they were heartened by the progress they've made so far. "After this summit, we can face the future smiling, and with energy," said physicist Neil Turok, the Perimeter Institute's director.
Jason Blackstock, a senior fellow at Canada's Center for International Governance Innovation, said one of the strengths of the summit was that the attendees were taking on the responsibility for moving the Equinox process forward. "A year from now, the next metric is, how many of these steps have we taken?" he told me.
Manhattan Project for energy innovation?
But New York University's Hoffert cautioned that government leaders will eventually have to put more money into energy research and development. Lots more money.
"The private sector is not going to be able to do this alone," he told me. "That's like saying private companies could have figured out a profitable way to go to the moon. We would not have a commercial aviation industry if there had not been a massive aerospace industry that developed out of World War II and military aircraft."
Just as the Manhattan Project of the 1940s laid the foundation for commercial nuclear power, and just as the Pentagon's ARPANet of the 1960s laid the foundation for today's Internet, it will take government leadership (and government funding) to lay the foundation for tomorrow's energy economy, Hoffert said. That foundation may draw upon cleaner coal technology, with carbon capture and storage. It may incorporate advanced nuclear options. It may even take advantage of space solar power, collected by satellites and beamed down to Earth via infrared lasers. But in any case, the world's energy ills can't be solved by science alone. At least that's the way Hoffert sees it.
"I think that this is basically a political problem," he said. "People who have backgrounds in science and engineering have to get more involved in the political debate. We don't want to do that. By nature, we're geeks. Why do we have to deal with those entities instead of sticking to technologies that we can understand in a rational way? But the world could be destroyed by irrational people, so we have to find a way to make that connection."
What do you think? Are science and technology, free markets and good intentions enough to guarantee our future energy needs, or will it take another government-led Manhattan Project to get the job done? Check out the resources available at the Equinox Summit website, read Hoffert's insightful commentary in the journal Nature, and join us on Saturday for "Virtually Speaking Science."
You're welcome to attend the "Virtually Speaking Science" talk in the Second Life virtual world: Just teleport yourself to the Stellanova Auditorium at 10 a.m. SLT (1 p.m. ET) on Saturday.
You can connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page or following @b0yle on Twitter. Also, give a look to "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
I see no mention of tidal power. As long as the moon and the tides exist we can harness that energy. We presently possess the technology. We just lack the political will. Wales, New Zealand and South Korea are presently using tidal power. The excuse that , "I don't live near a coast", is invalid. We have electrical grids and transformers.
I've always thought that we could make use of the great currents of the various oceans. the gulf stream off the atlanic coast comes to mind...
There's a lot of energy lost when moving power long distances. Besides, I don't think that there's enough potential from tidal power for more than a fraction of the needed electricity.
Does anyone think that the Republican politicians in the U.S. are going to get behind the massive research and development funding, or much funding at all, that this vitally necessary alternative energy development requires?
All I can say is that I'm glad that I'm personally at an age where I probably won't be around for more than 30 years or so, so I won't have to deal for too long with the environmental consequences of not dealing sufficiently with climate change.
Without these efforts the planet is in store for some very unpleasant times.
Does anyone think that any of this will matter after the current crop of democrat leadership destroys the economy in its quest for redistribution and social justice?
When we look back at the great societies of history, we never say, "Wow, what a great time to live in. They had such low taxes and small government." Instead, we admire their achievements, how they took on challenges, how they built community spirit, and toiled for the public good. Even the monumental achievements of certain oppressive societies, such as ancient Egypt or the Mayans, are based upon their propensity for a strong government that advances knowledge and engineering skills. They are admired for their accomplishments, and not their ideologies.
So why do some people think that having a do-nothing-but-stop-abortions-and-illegal-immigrants government could ever be considered utopian or benenvolent? Really, how happy would a society like that make us? Pretty miserable, if happiness comparisons between the socialistic societies of Europe and our laissez-faire one are any indication.
The whole purpose of having a government is to meet challenges like global warming or travelling to Mars or educating our children comprehensively or finding the best form of justice to advocate for the public good, and discovering solutions these problems that no one individual or corporate entity could find on its own. Even national defense is subject to this view, because otherwise what are we defending ourselves for?
Let's meet the energy and climate crises head on, then use our natural and social resources to solve these issues and move into a much brighter future. There will always be problems to solve. Let us finally concur that government is a large part of that work, and fund it appropriately.
Sheesh!
Umm When has the Govt accomplished any of these things? If anything our Govt is completly useless because they are more concerned with their terms pandering to special interests in the hopes of getting re-elected.
Actually dealing with the problems and goals our country would like to acheive is a foot note of thought.
"Instead, we admire their achievements, how they took on challenges, how they built community spirit, and toiled for the public good."
Thats odd, every time I think of historic socialist experiments I think of lack of achievement, citizen suffering and inevitable financial collapse. Lets compare.
Extreme right: Tyranny by small group who believe only they know whats best for everyone, proven because everyone will not believe as they do so they need guidance.
Extreme Left: Tyranny by small group who believe only they know whats best for everyone, proven because everyone will not believe as they do so they need guidance
E. R.: Concentration camps to isolate and eliminate discidents and undesirables. Control of access to information and indoctrination in public schools.
E.L.: Gulags and re-education camps to isolate and eliminate discidents and undesirables. Control of access to information and indoctrination in public schools.
E.R.: State owns everything and everything for the state. Increased productivity and scientific advancements through and for the benefit of the state.
E.L.: State owns everything and everything for the state and ever smaller portion of wealth distributed by the state. Decreasing workforce productivity and scientific stagnation.
E.R.: Secret Police to instill fear and enforce ever decreasing personal liberty.
E.L.: Secret Police to instill fear and enforce ever decreasing personal liberty.
E.R.: Financial stability leading to improved quality of life for general population. Eventual collapse of system by population desiring personal liberty.
E.L.: Financial collapse caused by lack of productivity and ever increasing social welfare demand of population. Eventual collapse of system by population that desire personal liberty and financial stability, desire to gain from effort.
Personally I would like to live in neither system, I kind of liked the way the Republic was designed to be and strived for. Maximum liberty to the population with minimal government intrusion. The freedom to succeed or fail based on individual merit. A system of check and balances to limit government power of any one group( the public, the states, the president, the judicial). Read "The Federalist Papers" and understand what this Republic was envisioned to be and how the citizens have repeated every mistake that led to the fall of every Republic in recorded history. I also suggest looking into history and find one socialist/marxist/communist system that had any measure of success ..... other than stagnant and relatively small religious groups. As government systems Monarchy probably has the longest track record. As an economic system capitalism is the only one that has ever worked for a culture above tribal and early survival farming level, but it does need limited restrictions to prevent monopolies and price fixing. Socialism has never worked and never will above small primitive farming or tribal level, collapse is the inevitable end.
So how would you classify Communist China in all of this? I would concede that they are not necessarily "communist" but certainly there are elements of state control and ownership in many areas. And they are a bigger society than the U.S. in terms of population.
Please note that I'm not trying to come out in support of totalitarianism or communism... I tend to lean towards mixed capitalism, but to ignore that there have been groups that are communistic (hey, how about professional sports as another example with revenue sharing, salary caps, "redistribution of wealth" in terms of strength of schedule and draft picks going to poor teams??) and have experienced growth or success seems one-sided.
One day, I dream that commenters will end this Republican/Democrat finger-pointing and finally realize that all the politicians in Washington are collectively ruining this country. Debasing the dollar is the one thing that all the politicians are good at. When I was much younger I remember the day I could have bought Gold for $35 an ounce. The price has gone up over 40 times! This is what our politicians have done to us. Just since the financial crisis the price of Gold has just about doubled.
Your house value has not doubled - it has gone down in value. Your wages have not doubled - hopefully you still have a paycheck coming in. Gas prices have gone up. Food prices have inched up a little. Our national debt has increased by what, 40% since the financial crisis? And the folks in Washington are talking about spending (in Gold terms) 800 million ounces of Gold we do not have just next year. Ft. Knox holds nowhere near that amount of Gold.
So lets review, did your teachers in school tell you, ever, that politicians will destroy the value of money therefore, buy Gold is the best investment the average person can make? Well did they? No, they did not. Now, if you have a great idea and can turn that idea into a substantial money maker that multiplies your money faster than Gold, obviously that is the best thing to do. But, for the average person, Gold is the best investment simply because one can virtually be assured that politicians in Washington will never pay off our national debt. We can be assured that the price of Gold will go higher - which of course means the value of the dollar will be lower.
I could have, and I should have, bought 100 ounces of Gold at $35 an ounce for a cost of $3,500. Today it would be worth $150,000. But there are zero history teachers in this country that imprint in their students mind the reason Gold is far far better than dollars. There are zero math teachers, science teachers, economics teachers or any teachers for that matter that teach that point of utmost importance. Politicians will debase the currency and Gold holds value better than most other asset classes.
We need to reverse the trend. We need to hire teachers that have the proper training in how to live our financial lives. We need teachers that tell us never to buy too much house. When we bought our most recent house my wife was still in the belief that one should be as much as you can afford - rather than only as much as you need. Teachers need to teach buying 10-year mortgages rather than 30-year mortgages. They are not trained to do that and in all likelihood they have a 30-year mortgage themselves.
It is not Democrats or Republicans. It is all politicians. They will never do what is in the interests of the American people. They will always debase the currency. But, they should never be able to fool YOU. Just do a Google search and lookup the price of Gold over time. It will become obvious to you that deficit spending and increasing the national debt is what politicians in Congress do. We have to keep voting all of them out until the value of the dollar stabilizes and then we pay off the national debt.
None of this will happen in my lifetime. But this needs to happen for my grandchildren.
You sir have hit it right square on the head! OUr country is so dumbed down due to lack of proper education to fill our kids minds with knowledge and the ability to actually function in society that if it doesnt change the USA is doomed to fall by the way side.
Rome was a great country once but it eventually fell into ruin. The USA isnt immune to be trampled into the dust of history.
For the Green Power people, here are a few examples of what is presently happening:
1. Wind power - Name ONE wing power facility that has operated over their expected service life and been energy efficient or made money... Look at the Wind farms in Hawaii that are not in service, after only 10+years... Look at the Wind farm in CA that is being forced to relocate, due to Raptor deaths... Look at the amount of rare earths that are utilized in every 3mega-Watt generator = 2+tonnes - China thanks you...
2. Solar power - Germany has been installing home systems for over 20+years. Utilization rates are 5% of installed capacity and service life is around 25+years... The thermal-solar system being built in Blythe, CA is expected to last 30+years. It is affecting the desert water-table levels and associated endangered plants and animals. It is also destroying 2,000+years of American Indian heritage in the geoglyphs & other religious sites...
3. Ethanol - In the USA it is driving up food cost & effecting aquifers. In Brazil it is resulting in decimating the rain-forest. While it results in lower MPG, higher maintenance cost, and questionable TOTAL energy savings. Even Al Gore - has stated that Ethanol has not delivered on the promises and was a bad investment...
4. EV - With the amounts of rare earths used and very limited recycling, these have yet to prove their practical use. Other than transferring the pollution to other peoples back-yard and supplying Gov rebates to the elites and GE. I'm sure the Leaf is working well for those in Japan during the rolling black-outs...
5. High Speed trains - use the same amount of energy to move one passenger/miles as a jet passenger plane... If the trip is shorter than 4+hours it takes more time and uses MORE energy... The CA - HS train is being built in China, using loans from China, and large amounts of US Taxpayer funds...
Obama's policies have doubled the average cost of crude oil during the last 3 years and almost shut-down the US drilling industry. While promoting policies that INCREASE the US dependency on China's rare earths and products derived from them...
The World is turning to NG to power their transportation needs. Converting NG to fuel their jet passenger planes(Qatar), using NG to power their electrical generation needs, and to power their mass-transit systems, taxis, buses, trains, & subways. The USA is sitting on the Worlds largest NG reserves and a projected 500+year supply of 'hydrated methane'...
If the USA removed the 'long haul' trucking from the US roads and placed it on trains. It would result in a immediate 10x energy savings per ton freight/mile transported. A side benefit would be longer service life for the public roads and bridges. The trains and 'short haul' trucks could also be converted to CNG... Just this would save more crude oil than is presently IMPORTED...
Converting ICE vehicles to NG is simple, inexpensive, and can be maintained by the average auto mechanic... No electronic degree, special tools, or environmental pollution concerns...
You are a complete fool if you believe Natural Gas is the way of the future. Watch the movie GasLand. You must work for the fossil fuel industry. No more drilling. Period. You are pathetic with all your propoganda.
Gasland? You when the movie where they purposely left out that there has been trouble with methane in water since 1936? Long before fracking?Gasland is nothing but an inaccurate propaganda film.
Your comments are well taken. Your suggestion just isn't sexy enough for the 'sky is falling' people.
Too bad.
First, ethanol is made from feed corn AFTER the proteins are removed ... There is NO competition for food! I'm not a fan of ethanol subsidies by let's not spread misinformation just to make a point. It's not an either/or situation.
Ethanol is made from FEED corn (not from corn for human consumption). For the majority of ethanol plants in the U.S., the key co-product of ethanol production is dried distillers grains (DDG). This is the high protein feed product that remains after LOW-VALUE starch is removed to make fuel. As corn yields increase, the demand in many sectors are flattening. Ethanol production has not reduce food availability either for humans nor stock. So its really either put it in production for fuel or have the gov't buy and store it as part of price supports.
The production of ethanol from corn uses only the starch of the corn kernel. All of the protein, minerals, and nutrients remain. One bushel of corn produces about 2.7 gallons of ethanol AND 11.4 pounds of gluten feed (20% protein) AND 3 pounds of gluten meal (60% protein) AND 1.6 pounds of corn oil.
Next, we should focus on METHANOL rather than ethanol. Methanol is already available at a lower price per BTU than gasoline without a subsidy. Plus methanol can be made from nearly any biomass.
Cars can easily be made to automatically adjust using ethanol, methanol, or gasoline or any combination. Remember, the US make autos for the Brazilian market. They have the technology and it's only a couple of hundred dollars per car. The real issue is why doesn't congress mandate that all gasoline engines be flex-fueled?
Obviously Brazil has solved the issues of flex-fueled vehicles (FFVs) and the gas stations ... What's our problem? At least Brazil isn't sending money to oil sheiks who fund terrorists.
As for NG, I’ve had some experience with use a natural gas (actually butanol) pickup. The biggest issue is storage. It had a heavy fuel tank and we figured it held about equivalent of 10 gals of gasoline. We were constantly stopping to fuel up.
I doubt if you’ll ever see 18-wheelers convert to NG unless it just becomes dirt cheap. Diesel is still king when it comes to efficiency. It just wouldn’t be practical to use a NG 18-wheeler. It would take more NG and more stops to refuel. Time=money in the trucking business.
Diesel are also easier to maintain. So maintenance is also an issue … You’d have retrain all your mechanics which is another cost.
It would be simpler to convert the NG to methanol (not ethanol tho you could do that at extra costs). With an FFV you could easily switch between methanol and gasoline at will. Thus making it an easy transition off oil. Methanol can also be made from biomass.
LoboSolo,
Just like Rice farming (which I do), the farmer has the choice of planting feed crops or food crops. Acreage planted with feed crops are not producing FOOD of humans. To say Ethanol crops do not effect human food production is ludicrous. I grew-up on a large farm and presently own a farm...
Thailand, the EU, and many Asia countries have been converting their buses and heavy trucking for DECADES to NG. They are even converting their diesel/electric trains and Tuk-Tuks to use NG... I have lived in many of these countries and personally observed them in operation... In fact, the wife & I just finished a 600+kilometre trip in a NG bus, it stopped one time to refuel, which was completed in about 15+min...
NG coming directly out of the ground requires very little processing to enable it to fuel a ICE vehicle. Converting to another fuel (Methanol) would be a waste of energy...
World leaders will be urged today to cut EU and US biofuel targets immediately and divert more grain to tackle the global food crisis.. see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4053744.ece
The world is like one big dis-functional family in denial. Just ask the people who have lost lives and said where the hell did that weather come from. The climate will react to our mess. We pump billions into destroying each other and going as far as we can in space. Take a look at that thin blue line around the earth. We are the only planet that has that. We will destroy the planet one day if we don't build a solution as big as the military and space agency to invent a new way of making and using energy. You can't tell me we are not on the brink of discovering that method using science available and soon to be discovered science. Combine intelligent resources and fight or else. Just my opinion. New energy can be invented and produced. Nothing has happened since the cotton gin and combustible engine except for using bomb material and fossil fuel. Too many with intelligence want to make more money and glory than they need instead of concentrating on the task at hand. I feel better, get to work!
I think we need more intelligent politicians who are capable of understanding....things. We don't need Democrats. We don't need Republicans. We don't need Liberals. We don't need Conservatives. We don't need a left or a right. We need AMERICANS who will stop talking about the politics so we can move forward. Concern about political alignment is the biggest waste of time and it has really hurt our country. Most of us aren't concerned whose side you're on - just make something WORK! Of course, that requires having the intelligence enough to know WHAT works which requires some studying. So - politicians, please put your clothes back on, pick up a book and pay attention!
Im sick of all these politicains just talking there damn heads off about what we should and should not do about our energy problems. Yes its a very very BIG Problem. Politicians need to stop for a second, get there hands out of the oil companies cookie jar, and really start supporting good ideas that will help, yes HELP this country and the World. Gas is going up, and I really dont see it ever going back down, Its past time to do something. If we wait any longer our entire civilazation as we know it is doomed. There are some really great and promising breakthroughs in alternative Energy, might not be what we are used too, but its better than what we would have to get used too, if we did nothing. total collapse of the World Economies, Wars for precious and rare earth minerals, and on and on. Start Today, not tommorow. should be what the people in power should be saying. otherwise we are screwed and are all doomed to step back into the past.
Our planet is blasted everyday with energy externally from the sun, that far exceeds the amount of energy we need in a day. On a grand scale, the Earth human race is barely at the toddler level. To advance our species further, we at least need to be smart enough to fulfill our energy needs from the sun, rather that polluting our atmosphere with carbon from the easy energy sources oil and coal. Oil and coal are the "crack cocaine" sources of energy that we humans need to "give up". I use this analogy because using these Earth (internal) sources of energy are damaging to our planet (mostly the atmosphere).
For the us to advance to a new plateau as humans, we must harvest 100% of our energy externally. When we manage that, we are at living at an energy equilibrium within our planet without degrading the atmosphere. At that point, we can take a bow for truly advancing a notch up the human evolutionary scale.
It would behoove our world economy to move as quickly to this as possible. The trick is, how do we know how much to invest, and will there be the returns for it? Too many independent projects spread too thin and under funded, will yield much less advancement, than a smaller number of focused endeavors. That will require the teaming up of multiple independent investors and with some government incentives (at least in the start up phases. No government involvement long term would be best).
Our world economy could use a "shot in the arm" like this. Obama wasted trillions of US tax-dollars on 1930-40-esque 'works' projects. Those types of projects may have made sense back then, however, we are at a time when a better energy source is more important that a new road.
If we can get serious motion in the clean energy direction, the economic tectonic plates will shift, and the American economy will improve.
We need to be working on not only energy for powering homes, offices, and industry, but also on energy alternatives for transportation, and transportation energy needs will be different. This will need to happen in at least two major phases. The first phase is natural gas, the second phase will be using electric power.
Importing foreign oil is hurting not only our environment, but also the US economy. The US must quickly convert our heavy trucking industry to natural gas (we have more than 100 years of it to supply all of our energy needs, not just for transportation, but for powering homes, office, and industry.) Trucking in the United States is responsible for 40% of our foreign oil consumption. Efforts are underway to convert trucks engines to use natural gas, and the number of filling stations that would need to be updated to add natural gas delivery, is very small as compared to the number of fuel stations servicing cars.
Completing the conversion of heavy trucking is the first major step. During this time, battery technology will continue to advance making it the viable option for cars. We are not that far off.
What can you do to help? Are you driving a vehicle that gets less than 25 MPG? The get a new car that at least gets 30 MPG or higher. This will help our environment and by using less gasoline, will reduce our foreign oil imports, retaining more wealth within America.
What the Hell does gold have to do with an Energy Discussion. Also What does political Finger pointing have to do with an Energy Discussion. Stay on Topic people!
For one I'm all for Nuclear power, What happened in japan was a Fluke/freak of nature. I understand that Tsunami's and Earth Quakes are linked with each other but usually a Tsunami is "Caused" by an Earth Quake Hundreds of miles away. They Don't normally hit the same location close to same time. Even After shocks take days to reach a location that has recently been hit by a Tsunami.
I'm also for newer battery technologies, in fact last I heard they're were batteries that could be grown as well as a new type of battery "Crude" or liquid style battery that could be pumped into a storage unit then pumped out after the charge was dissipated.
As for Solar and wind not to sure those are the greatest ventures we should be going after they may be renewable but the ammount of hazardous materials and energy involved in constructing and maintaining Solar and Wind power isn't exactly break even on the benefits. However I have heard of Photovoltaic cells that have been printed rather then the standard silicon photovoltaic which would give you more benefits and quicker production with less energy. Also the new "Concentrated" Photovoltaic systems have a promising look. Wind energy is still inching a long with new style ducted turbines which look rather promising.
Geothermal, oh yeah thats the stuff. That will get'r'done for a long long long long time.....as for it being to deep just drill into Yellow Stone. That is a Super volcano that you could tap for "YEARS" and it might actually put off its eruption if you pull out enough heat. Only thing is you'll have to fight off the Environmentalists with a very large stick possibility even use lethal force lol.
I think as part of the goal for "decarbonizing" the world's sources of electric power over the next 20 years, should be to reduce the rate of increasing energy needs. And the only way to accomplish that is to better manage the global population.
Over population is the number one problem in the world and it effects everything from energy, geopolitics, economics, food chain, and environmental stewardship. Without reducing the worlds population it will be hopeless to resolve all the other problems.
Fertility rates are falling across the world.
Having said that, there's plenty of room and resources for more people. The population bomb doomers have been wrong for the past 50 years and are still wrong.
And the reason for [(30.0 - 16.5)/16.5] x 100% = 82 % increase in energy is...?
I'm just pleased that thorium power was mentioned. At least some people are considering it.
We cannot afford to ignore our nuclear options if we are to make the necessary changes fast enough to keep pace with future demand, as well as reduce our present day greenhouse gas liabilities. But the U.S. also has tremendous opportunity to develop solar and geothermal energy as well. There are three large dormant super volcano calderas right here in the U.S. which could be developed for geothermal energy. If this were properly done it would also help to ensure that these enormous super volcano calderas never erupt again, which would not only be a gigantic national disaster but also a very serious global disaster as well. - RC
Please understand that ordinary black body solar panels which convert solar energy directly into heat can also be used to generate electrical power at an efficiency rate approaching 70%, believe it or not! This approach uses a technology which was first developed back in the 1960s, which was developed to emulate the way that Mother Nature generates lightning in thunderclouds. It is called low pressure condensation generation technology, and it relies upon a cooled chamber for the condensation of electrically charged low grade steam to generate a pressure differential which pumps electrons uphill similar to a Van de Graff generator. This technology could either use standard cooling towers, or else high altitude cold air, or even cold ocean water as the means of creating this cold sink to condense this low grade steam, while also collecting electrons at the same time on the surface of these electrically isolated condensers for the generation of electrical power. This technology was already close to 70% efficient back in the 1960s, because it uses no moving parts to generate this electricity. BELIEVE IT OR NOT !!! - Rick Carter
PS - Please understand that this is pure low grade steam which has all other gases removed. This steam is first electrically charged so that these particles of steam are carrying an electrical charge similar to the way that the belt of a Van de Graff generator is charged to in order to move electrons uphill. When you add an electrically isolated cold condensation chamber to condense this low grade steam, this creates a low pressure condensation chamber which serves to pump these electrons uphill just like the moving belt of a Van de Graff generator. In the process of condensing this low grade steam on the inner surface of these electrically isolated (low pressure) condensation chambers, the electrical charge carried by these electrically charged water particles is collected at the same time. As I said before, this method of generating electrical power was already close to 70% efficient at the same time because it uses no moving parts to generate this electrical power. - Rick Carter
This electrical generation method can also be used to recover the remaining energy left over in the low grade steam from standard turbine powered generators, which up until now has normally been just thrown away into the environment at power plants. The electrical energy recovered in this way from the low grade steam can then be used to continuously power thermonuclear triggers for the efficient operation of hybrid nuclear / thermonuclear breeder reactor systems which rely upon thorium and U-238 for the generation of nuclear power. These hybrid nuclear / thermonuclear breeder reactor systems should be capable of breeding more nuclear fuel than they use, while also burning more nuclear waste than they produce. - RC
(Believe it or not, I first read about this method of generating electrical power in Popular Electronics back in the 1960s!) - RC
(On second thought, it might have been Electronics Illustrated, but I think it was Poplar Electronics. My memory is getting kind of old.) - RC
BTW. a very valuable byproduct of this kind of solar energy production could be the production of distilled fresh water from sea water, especially if you are going to use cold sea water to power your cold sink for the production of electrical energy from sunlight. This means you could potentially get double use out of your sea water in the process. - RC
aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/awst/2011/06/13/AW_06_13_2011_p22-332894.xml&headline=Aerojet%20Unveils%20Novel%20Hypersonics%20Plan
and mine the moon.
solar nanotech? super dense carbon fiber for hydrogen storage.
I don't think anyone knows what the energy landscape is going to look in 20 years, not to mention 1 year from now with the accelerating returns of innovation.
If a top down plan could ever ruin things for the human race in history from a current moment point of view, it would be right now. It makes absolutely no sense to invest in a 20 year plan when the technology you are likely to invest in will be obsolete in three years. However, given the accelerating awareness and innovation in general, I don't even think a big bad top down plan could hamper our progress in the long term, just delay it. It now seems impossible.
What it could mean is a lot of pain in the short run in or the united states, especially given the likelihood of a collapse.
Innovation will progress in any case but a top down 20 year plan will simply counter-act this natural drive occuring worldwide. The pickens plan and simple efficiency gains, naturally spured by higher oil prices, will likely be the path of least resistance.
Hoffert needs to study his history of technology a bit more carefully. Government money, massive amounts of taxpayer money, did get us to the Moon. But once we did that, there was no profit in it, so we quit going to the Moon and threw away the technology (Apollo and Saturn) which had been developed to do it. Other than near Earth communications, navigation, and weather satellites, we still haven't figured out how to make a profit from space. It is still mostly a government funded boondoggle. (Most things funded by government are boondoggles. If they were viable, private industry would be in there exploiting them for profit.)
Commercial aviation was developed in the 1920s and 1930s. The Ford Tri-Motor and the DC-3 were flying commercially viable routes for the airlines before WWII (both are still flying some backwoods routes), Pan Am was flying its clippers on profitable commercial routes around the world in the mid-30s. Government did offer mail contracts to help the airlines, but there was no massive government funded aerospace industry developing airliners and airlines.
The aircraft used to fight WWII were developed and built by the commercial aviation industry (Bell, Boeing, Consolidated, Curtiss-Wright, Douglas, Ford, General Motors, Goodyear, Grumman, Lockheed, Martin, Northrop, North American, Republic, Vought, Vultee, etc), not government. Government just bought their planes. Commercial for profit companies developed and built them.
After WWII, government usurped most R&D funding. The great commercial labs couldn't compete with virtually unlimited government spending. Commercial enterprises have to ultimately be commercially viable. They can't just throw away money. Government's ability to seize virtually unlimited amounts of money from the public and spend it on political boondoggles means that there is no real accountability. Investments don't have to make sense. Fiscal responsibility isn't required. Government can always just rob some more money from the public. Or at least they think they can. A day of reckoning does come, though. Eventually, the taxpayer's pocket becomes empty, government finds it can't service its debts, and the national economy collapses. We're approaching that point today.
Now what this means with respect to energy is that we can't depend on government funding. That way leads to disaster. Projects must be economically competitive on their own merits. Most so-called alternative energy projects coming out of government and academic ivory towers aren't economically viable, and likely never will be.
Private industry may not have the capital to invent the BEST way to store (intermittent RE) electricity for VERY cheap. Instead of funding all of the various different resource wars, and with the adoption of a minor trade tariff on all imported goods, this is what the pool of government money should be used for.
Not just the battery, but a solar panel that is much less dark in color but just as or more efficient (because we don't want 2% of the landspace of the planet covered by such infrared emitters as they are now).
Ocean wind needs to be cheaper, but perhaps industry can be relied upon for that.
All the other RE is just chump change compared to solar and wind.
And finally, the nuclear closed cycle needs to be pursued by all governments in collaboration to a global mandate: End the use of fossil fueled depletion and global warming.
These, along with the efficiencies of electric cars and leds, etc, will definitely solve all the problems of food and water and other social issues too...
Unlimited clean energy is the only way to freedom!