ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



The future of energy

Posted: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 7:00 AM by Alan Boyle


Getty Images file
Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles took the spotlight at July's Plug-In Conference and
Exposition in San Jose, Calif. How much will plug-ins change the energy game?

If the plans being laid for the economy and the environment work out the way President-elect Barack Obama's advisers hope they do, the future of energy can be summed up in one word: electricity.

That one word covers a lot of policy twists, however: What will the economic downturn mean for initiatives to cut down on greenhouse-gas emissions? What will the recent drop in gasoline prices mean for efforts to boost alternatives to fossil fuels? Can the electrical grid handle increased demand? How do you smooth out the highs and lows of power generation? Where will all that power come from?

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has repeatedly cited a catalog of challenges for future energy policy, ranging from the global supply-and-demand imbalance to climate change and the threat from "petro-dictatorships." Some people might look at that list and conclude that "we're cooked ... we're completely fried," Friedman said during a conference sponsored last week by the Center for American Progress, Washington's most Obama-centric think tank.

"That's one way to look at that list," Friedman continued. "I look at it the way John Gardner looked at a similar list - and he said, 'That list? That's a list of incredible opportunities masquerading as insoluble problems.'"

That reflects the thinking of Obama's top advisers on energy and environmental policy, who would make "green infrastructure" a top target for next year's economic stimulus. Based on statements made during the campaign as well as afterward, they see energy innovation as a key economic driver as well as a way out of the climate-change mess.

Some experts on energy policy, such as U.S. Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., are bullish about pushing through fundamental changes in energy policy, driven by new technologies ranging from plug-in hybrids to smarter electrical grids.

Israel compared the current situation to the promise of information technology in 1980. "I think we're on the cusp of a massive transformation in clean technologies," he told me this week.

Others, however, are more circumspect about the prospects for developing an energy policy that boosts the economy as well as the environment - particularly in the wake of the credit meltdown that started in mid-September.

"It was harder on Sept. 16 than it was on Sept. 14," said James Woolsey, a Democrat who directed the CIA during the Clinton administration but served as an adviser on energy and climate change issues for GOP presidential candidate John McCain. "I hope we haven't gotten to a tipping point in which it becomes impossible."

Here's a six-point action plan for energy policy, based on past statements from Obama's energy and environment transition team as well as observations from Israel, Woolsey and other experts:

1. Generate 'negawatts'
The first step, and arguably the easiest step, would be to patch up the gaps in today's energy infrastructure. Federal incentives could be provided for home weatherization and better insulation, for rooftop solar cells or even low-tech energy-saving measures such as adding a coat of reflective paint to the roofs of commercial buildings. "That would employ people who normally would be building houses, but [are idle because] those types of projects are being closed down," Woolsey said.

Some economic stimulus funding would go toward mass transit projects, with the aim of reducing gasoline consumption - as well as smart-metering systems that could make the electric grid more efficient (see No. 4 below).

In the long run, the resulting energy savings (and reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions) could be just as important as the economic shot in the arm. Two decades ago, energy-efficiency guru Amory Lovins coined the term "negawatt generation" to describe the beneficial effect of such energy conservation.

2. Move from fossil fuels to renewables
Israel said the "game-changer" in energy policy will take the form of incentives to move from an economy based on fossil fuels to one that puts more emphasis on renewable energy sources. The top three items on his agenda are:

"If we do those three things, we will have absolutely changed the game on energy after 30 years of missteps, back steps and half-steps," Israel said.

Some have criticized cap-and-trade schemes on the grounds that they smack of socialism, or that Europe's experiment with the system just plain didn't work. Woolsey agreed that the first European effort was a "ridiculous" failure. "It's an example that things can go wrong if you go right to an international system," he said.

But he said a cap-and-trade system can succeed if it's phased in correctly, and would be more palatable than the carbon tax that some environmentalists are now suggesting. "We've run a good cap-and-trade system with sulfur dioxide, and another good one, sort of, with chlorofluorocarbons," Woolsey observed.

Israel said he thinks "the will is there" to approve a cap-and-trade system during the next Congress, although fixing the economy will have to come first. "Once we stabilize our economy, we can then get to work on making the marketplace [for energy] more consistent, sustainable and predictable," he said.

3. Promote plug-ins
When it comes to fueling the autos of the future, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (or PHEVs)still look like the best bet. Dan Reicher, a member of Obama's transition team and one of the top prospects to head the new president's Energy Department, has proselytized for PHEVs and pioneered a plug-in project called RechargeIT at Google's philanthropic arm.

"The moment is now for plug-ins," he said during a Brookings Institution conference this summer. The auto industry's current woes have led some to worry that the moment has passed, while others hope that lawmakers will put more pressure on carmakers to produce greener machines.

What about biofuels? In the past year or so, the bloom has come off the rose (or should that be the cornflower?) for corn-derived ethanol, due to concerns about pollution as well as a food-vs.-fuel faceoff. And if fuel prices stay below $2 a gallon, the switch to biofuels may not make economic sense, Woolsey said. There's a danger that the biofuel boom could give way to the same kind of bust that hit the synthetic-fuel market when oil prices fell in the 1980s.

PHEVs could make the difference this time around.

"The thing that is different from what happened in the mid-1980s is electricity," Woolsey said. "Because electricity is 2 cents a mile, there's no way gasoline gets down there to compete with electricity."

But increased electricity use could drive up utility costs and ultimately force the construction of new plants. If electric utilities generate that power by burning natural gas, coal or oil, shifting to plug-ins would do little to address climate change or energy efficiency. In fact, researchers at Duke University suggest that regular hybrids may be more cost-effective than plug-ins for reducing CO2 emissions (unless gasoline rises to $6 a gallon).

That's why the Obama administration wants to make the electric grid greener - and smarter.

4. Build a smarter, more open grid
A smarter electric grid would use software to manage the flow of power more efficiently, evening out the load throughout the day (when there's high demand) and the night (when the demand is lower).

"There's no reason why we can't have a lot more use of time-of-day pricing," Woolsey said. "That'll encourage people to set timers and run their dryers during off-peak times."

Future electrical grids could also be more open to distributed generation. For example, utilities could make it easier for homeowners with solar panels to feed their surplus power into the grid and get paid for doing it.

"In every forecast of the deployment of plug-in hybrids, the electricity consumption goes up," Israel said. "Therefore, we need to make sure that we are focusing on innovative technologies to manage that increase in electrical use by smart metering, and by integrating renewable technologies as sources of electricity."

Israel gushed over the research being conducted at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado. "One of the most fascinating demonstrations they have is a plug-in hybrid that's attached to solar panels. It's completely off-grid," he said. "That's the future. The problem is that NREL's [annual] budget is $328 million, which is equivalent to 18 hours in Iraq and Afghanistan."

5. Solve the storage problem
One big problem with the electrical grid as it exists today is that it's a "just-in-time" system, Woolsey said. Plenty of renewable energy may be available when the wind blows or the sun shines - but what do you do at night, or when the air is calm?

This is why so much energy (of the mental variety) is being devoted to designing better batteries, as well as developing systems that can efficiently transform electrical power into more easily stored form of energy. Compressed-air energy storage is one of Woolsey's favored options.

During the presidential campaign, McCain floated the idea of a $300 million prize program to encourage the development of advanced batteries. At the time, Obama criticized the idea as a "gimmick," but there's no question that better batteries are the key to plug-in progress.

6. Boost electric production
Nearly everyone acknowledges that more electrical capacity will have to be brought online, particularly if the plans to shift consumption away from the oil tank and onto the electric grid actually take hold. And nearly everyone acknowledges that more nuclear plants and coal-fired plants will have to be built. The question is how much progress the energy industry can make on renewables, and how much it will have to rely on dirtier alternatives.

Some researchers, such as NASA's James Hansen, are so worried about the coming climate crisis that they are advocating accelerated construction of next-generation nuclear plants. One company has even proposed building mini-nuclear reactors that would bring electrical power to remote areas.

Israel, however, thinks nuclear power is the "weakest link" in the energy chain. "The nuclear piece is, in my view, the most difficult - only because of the storage issue," he said.

There are plenty of energy technologies waiting just over the horizon. OK, maybe way over the horizon: nuclear fusion, for example, or space-based solar power. Those technologies could play a significant role in the post-oil era - but probably not during the Obama administration.

Israel said the best role for the federal government in the years ahead will be to widen the options for the energy marketplace to choose from.

"The problem with energy policy over the past 30 years is that they let congressmen like me, who can barely operate a TiVo, pick the technical winners and losers on alternative energy," he said. "In my view, we ought to incentivize everybody and diversify our portfolio."

Is the current angst over energy, the economy and the environment an incredible opportunity masquerading as an insoluble problem? If you buy into Israel's view, you might think so.

"Over the past few years, our economy was riding on a real-estate bubble," he told me. "Once that bubble burst, we can now use green energy as the next bubble, and sustain it for the next several decades."


What do you think? Is there a relatively pain-free path to the future of energy, or are we in for a rough ride? I haven't even touched upon some of the big energy debates - such as carbon sequestration and the prospects for cleaner coal-fired plants. (Here's an NBC News video about a cleaner-coal technology being developed in Germany.)

Feel free to weigh in with your comments on these and other subjects related to the future of energy. For more on energy policy, check out msnbc.com's Oil and Energy section as well as the Green Machines archive, and take a look at former Vice President Al Gore's interview with Newsweek. President-elect Barack Obama is due to meet with Gore today.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

In Alaska we plug in our cars in the winter to keep their oil from getting too thick and lessen emissions from a cold start vehicle.  What I can tell you is that not one shopping mall, grocery store, or employer has a plug in for our vehicles.  So, how exactly are the plug in cars supposed to recharge away from home?
In California, there was an electric car that the Auto Industry literally chopped up and threw away...I have not heard about this at all. "Who Killed the Electric Car"?  The cars were stylish and it traveled about 100 miles or so between charges!
One major problem with pure electric cars is that I really can't imagine that they could charge nearly as fast as you can currently fill your gas tank.  Let's say you've developed an electric car that performs as well as a gas powered car, and has a similar drive range (250-400miles or so).  This would be wonderful!  The problem only arises when you ask the question: "What do you do if you want to drive more than that in one day?"  There will have to be a recharge station infrastructure in the world of electric cars, of course, but unless you have batteries that can charge in say, less than 5 minutes (a generous time considering that it only takes a couple of minutes), then you need stations that are more like large parking lots that people can spend some time in.  This can also be very inconvenient if you are trying to make time to your destination.

This is probably the best reasoning for plug-in hybrids versus pure electric cars.  At least your gas engine gives you a backup for when your batteries die!

Regarding Hydrogen power, there are still quite a few challenges involved in making it a viable source of energy (not the least of which is the platinum catalyst problem mentioned above).  However, in terms of providing the power for the electrolysis process, the problem is much small than people realize.  Given that Hydrogen plants are likely to be built near large bodies of their raw materials (read: the ocean), would it not also make sense to build tidal or wave power plants nearby?  Or even as a part of the hydrogen plant?  Tides are constant, and waveless days are extremely rare (they happen less often than a windless day in Wyoming).  Of course, extra power not used for hydrogen production would be sold into the grid.

If you don't "believe" in climate change, and really most of the people that don't are basing their opinions off of personal biases, incomplete information, or at worst influenced by vested interests, there are still many compelling reasons to get off of oil, first foreign, then domestic.

One, it will keep a lot of our wealth from bleeding off into countries and economies that are either hostile toward us, or don't intend to buy enough US exports to even begin to match us for trade.

Two, even without CO2, there are many other pollutants associated with fossil fuels, and I doubt there is anyone, anywhere, that would argue that cleaner air is a bad thing! Imagine a Los Angeles where you can see the mountains EVERY DAY!

Three, oil is a NON-renewable resource.  We will have to wait hundreds of millions of years for enough oil to form to replace what we've burned in 200 years.  To put this in perspective, some of the oil that we're burning now has been under the ground since before the dinosaurs even existed!  Even though there is still a lot of oil in the world, it remains a solid fact that once it's gone, it's totally gone.  For a loooong time.  My argument is that even in a world of renewable energy, there will still be a place for petroleum based fuels and products (plastics, lubricants, etc), even if it plays a much smaller role.  For this reason, the less oil we use now, the longer into the future the oil will last before we have to give up on it completely.

The key thing to remember about renewable energy is that it is all about the long term.  They will look painfully expensive as long as you keep a small minded, short-term view of things, but in the long run, our future prosperity for generations depend on them!
The real issue here is that we believe there is a single solution.  The real answer is all of the above.  We need to empower people to come up with the solution.  Let's fund the military, universal healthcare, and social security with a tax on energy... all forms.  This would generate enough revenue to pay for these programs.  Additionally, the increase in cost would drive consumers to find practical solutions not just the inpractical dreams of some scientist.
You all must read 'Physics for Future Presidents' by Richard A. Muller, PhD.

You will quickly realize how real some proposals are, and how ridiculous others may be.
Why is population control never added into the equation? Obviously, planet earth would be much better off without the anticipated demands of the projected population growth. Not to get too Ayn Rand, but the advanced (producers) societies would probably be able to control their growth while the third world countries (takers) will continue to produce increasing numbers of ignorant, dependent, and in many cases, terrorists who believe in their god given right to world domination.
By this Friday I'll be driving a plug-in hybrid.  The upgrades do exist, and those of us willing to pony up for them now are helping to bring the price down for everyone else once production ramps up. I bought my upgrade from www.hymotion.com.   There's enough spare capacity in the grid to charge millions of cars as long as we do it off peak hours.   And kudos to anyone handy enough to convert an old car to an electric vehicle.  Why can't Detroit build an EV at least as good as the ones being churned out by so many hobbyists who are using off the shelf parts?
While I am absolutely in favor of working toward alternative and renewable energy sources, lets not get crazy.  Where do you think the electricity will come from--what generating source?  How do you overcome the NIMBY effect with wind generators and solar panels?  40 miles on a single battery charge is just great if you live in a city, but what about the bunch of us where 40 miles is only half way to anywhere?  I agree we need to consistently work toward other alternatives, but until certain technologies have been proven, lets not jump off the earth quite yet.  While global warming is a fact, the theories about the man-made causes are NOT.  Please let's leave pseudo-science out of our energy calculations and energy policies.  
Read this articel in wired magazine about Better Place and its founder Shai Agassi.

http://www.wired.com/cars/futuretransport/magazine/16-09/ff_agassi

I hope this is the futire of our country. If congress and Obama are serious I hope they would pay attention to Israel, Autralia and maybe Hawaii.
The fact is, as a nation,,as a world, we have reached for the low hanging fruit that is fossil fuels and now the lower branches are getting a little light!!  We have significant energy resources, wind, solar, wave, Ocean Thermal, geothermal, oils shale, oil sands and 1.3 billion tons of annual bio-mass production!!

We can convert trash to KWH, bio-mass to Butanol and CO2 to c1,c2 and c3 hydrocarbons, etc....

We now have National Policy and Public Will to do it!!
So Let's!!  We can do this!!! Why wounldn't we do this?
To all you guys screaming "wind, solar, bio-fuel, geothermal, fuel cells - Why isn't the government doing anything about it!!!"  So ignorant, All these options costs a whole lot of money!  That's why nobody does it, and that's why the government has to give tax credits to help people who want to do it!!!  To all you guys screaming hatred towards the "Big Oil" companies, I ask you, what are YOU doing to clean up the air?  Are you buying these expensive things?  it's total ignorance to think that the government has clean energy technology but doesn't use it.  If you're so ANTI-DIRTY Energy, PLEASE STOP USING WHAT WE HAVE AND GO LIVE IN THE WOODS!
This is a response to the post from Zach. One of the nuclear alternatives that are talked about in this article is "Fusion" where atoms are combined. Whereas the current nuclear plants use "Fission" which splits atoms apart. Fusion reaction doesn't have radioactive waste as you only need plain hydrogen atoms for the process to work. The sun is a good example of the fusion process. you take hydrogen atoms and "fuse" them together and make both helium and thermal energy. Fusion reactors exist today but only as test reactors because the technology doesnt exist yet to make them as feasible as fission reactors. Well, I hope this explained things.

Hydrogen is not an energy source.  It is an energy carrier since it doesn't exist in raw form on earth.  An energy source needs to extract it from water in order to move away from fossil fuels.  Every article I've ever read says that batteries are significantly more efficient (and cost-effective) at storing energy than hydrogen.  Hydrogen is out, fellas.  

We also have to get away from this idea that energy must be "centralized" for distribution to our homes.  I feel each new home built should be made to generate it's own power (or at least some of its own power) through a combination of geothermal and solar technology.  If each home is built this way, we wouldn't have to worry about building more energy plants.  These homes could still be connected to the grid but they would supply the grid with surplus power.
To me it's a "no brainer!" We should develope methods to recycle all wastes, from human waste to consumables, such as food, plants, packaging, tires,and anything that can be reduced to a substance that can be used a fuel in some way. In the end, garbage would have value and reduce our landfills, not to mention that a whole new industry would be created and a new scientific discipline possibly taught in higher education. I see a new horizon of buy it, use it, discard it and recycle it. Energy in the form of solar radiation, as well as wind, has both natural and financial limitations, but they are a viable adjunct to blazing a path to totally renewable energy production.

It's time for action, leadership and incentives to get the energy ball rolling.

Endless, pointless and usually unproductive political discussion hasn't worked, and won't as long a special interest influences are in the mix.          
what power source compresses the air?The last time i checked you had to run a compressor to do it with either a electric motor or a fossil fueled motor.  maybe everyone could be issued a bicycle pump.
One thing I don't see mentioned by the "clean coal" proponents is the environmental devastation that would result from the increased mining of coal.  Mountain top mining destroys the land and releases harmful elements into the air and water, which cause many health problems for people living in the mining areas.  If we increase the number of coal-burning plants, no matter how "clean," we exacerbate all these problems.  Maybe we should reconsider whether our addiction to electricity gives us the right to harm the land and other people to get it.
I'm happy to see that Lori Garver is leading the Obama NASA Transition Team. The Triana Deep Space Climate Observatory should fly, NASA should catalog earth-approaching asteroids, and Obama's National Space & Aeronautics Council should review Space-Based Solar Power (SBSP) as soon as is reasonable. NASA, DOE, and DOD have already reviewed favorably, and SBSP can coordinate missions in these agencies while aligning Presidential policies in energy, space, security, commerce, environment, and education. In concert with regional ground feeder strategies, SBSP can scale to run the cities and industries of 2100 in clean fashion while moving industry into space and diversifying the ecological niche.
The recurrent cycle of energy policy in this Country never ceases to amaze me. Its predictability is only exceeded by its manipulation.
Gasoline prices increase out of proportion to any market forces. Oil companies reap massive and historic profits. Then people get serious about green energy. The Oil producing nations and companies sense this and the prices fall disproportionate to market forces. And here we are again wondering if it is economically feasible to develop green energy. Only if we could actually learn from history.
However, I believe in incoming Administration possesses a sense of history as well as good sense. Its only a matter of time before gas prices rise again, and the issues of the environment, jobs and national security are more pressing. Moving forward forcefully with green development is critically important no matter the cynical attempts to halt it.
There is a lot to know about energy policy and humankind's impact on the planet. One good source of information offered FREE by Lester R. Brown is his book called Earth Policy - "Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization" The Washington Post describes Lester Brown as, “one of the world’s most influential thinkers”

http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB3/index.htm


 
There are reasonable solutions but it takes a mix of several options for real change to be successful.  A comprehensive solution must take into account the

1. POWER. We must build a lot of power plants. All of the desired solutions for alternative power (fuel cells, hybrids, wind generators, photovoltaic, geothermal, tidal, on and on ALL need power and resources (mining) to be built and installed.

2. Build Nuclear Plants.  These are now viable.  We need the power they can produce. (see 1 above)

3. Loans & Conversions.  No interest loans from the government for car owners to CONVERT their existing vehicles to burn hydrogen gas.  Current estimate is $4000/vehicle and is likely to drop to less than $2500 as quantity increases.  (For how to fuel the hydrogen vehicles see 4 below) This is the only way to rapidly make a difference in the amount of gasoline we consume.  With less than 10% of the cost of a new vehicle, 10 times as many vehicles can be converted per year compared to selling new vehicles.  Existing car parts suppliers and/or the major car companies could build the conversion kits and existing car dealers could do the conversions aiding the Big 3 and their dealers.

4. HYDROGEN FUELING STATIONS. Add hydrogen fuel to EXISTING fueling stations.  The government could loan money (at prime or less rates) so that existing stations can add hydrolysis systems to produce hydrogen at each station.  Source of power to produce the hydrogen can be any one or a combination of wind (vertical type), solar, or off peak grid.

5. IMPROVE. Upgrade existing home and business insulation, sealing, windows, etc. Again, government loans can be used to stimulate the economy. This can employ personnel from the devastated home building industry.

6. ALTERNATE ENERGY SOURCES.
Long chain hydrocarbons are too valuable to only be burned. Alternatives of wind, solar (both thermal and photovoltaic), tidal, geothermal, etc., need to be supported and produced.  The government can provide loans and other incentives to encourage companies (such as auto parts suppliers) to develop manufacturing capabilities for alternative energy equipment.

It would be a pleasure to work with others in fleshing out these options in terms of their economics, energy balances and overall impact on the economy.
Geoff, the time for Luddite rhetoric like yours is past.  Your "Captain Swing" friends have ruined the atmosphere and will continue to insist that there is enough oil to power everyone's car into infinity without damage to the earth.  America rejected that false notion in the recent election. Citizens of Earth will have to step up and undo the damage your incorrect theories have done. There are always those that must be forced into doing what is right, or face extinction themselves.    
It's been obvious to me, even as a child in the 50's that someday oil would become scarce.  That day has arrived.  It is refreshing to finally have an administration interested in an improved future.  I don't know if it will be easier of difficult to shift away from fossil-fuels, but we shall find out.  We have no choice.
Costs?  Do women charge to birth?  All this talk has a price-tag in the name of humanity.  Some people got to have it.  Our friends . . .!
Stop travelling. Grow your food locally. Who wants to hear this though? Use petroleum for the important stuff: fertilizers and pharmaceuticals. Vastly expand the rail system if you want affordable transportation. Otherwise, get ready for the end of civilization as we know it.

Fuel cells and liquid hydrogen? Ha, ha, now we are dreaming.
The anwer is right in front of your eyes.The reason they don't put wheels on adults shoes is we might figure it out.Hybred Elecric skate shoes that run on an overnight solar panel compressed air tank on a backpack and methane produced by the skater on site to directly power the skate shoes.Every light would be like the old rollerderby fighting for position and getting a whip everynow and then.Hybred compressed and non compressed air driven skate shoes could save the world.Taco Bells on every corner.Lets just see what OPEC thinks of that.
Locopelli
For those of you that think 200 years of industrialization has damaged our ecosystem, look at the mountain buidling processes that occurred around 70 m.y.b.p. One Mt. St. Helens eruption put more carbon and sulfur dioxide in the air than 10 years of vehicle and coal fired plant emissions. Krakatoa, Pompeii, Mt. Rainier, Mt. Pinatubo, too many to name, all have seen massive eruptions in the last 600 or so years. But a few tens of millions of cars and coal fired plants have caused global warming and the hole in the ozone layer. We take a small snapshot of time (the last 50 years) and try to figure out a picture that was created 4 or 5 billion years ago. Continental glaciation comes and goes. Earth cools and earth warms. Is a dymanic system. My belief is that this is the precursor to another shift in the magnetic poles (7 have been documented throughout the geologic record). Fossil fuels are not the problem, special interest groups with the agenda of being funded in the name of Bad Science is the problem.
Cutting out the use of coal sounds good and all, but how is it going to help the economy? Take into consideration the number of people who work in the coal mines or in a mining related industry. If we quit using coal, it will put a lot of people in the unemployment line. Look at the damage it would do to states like KY, AL, and my home state of WV. My state's number one source for good paying jobs is the coal mining industry. Shutting down coal mines would be detrimental to the economies of states such as these. All I can say is, before they start shutting down coal mines, they better make sure people in the coal industry have another job to go to first.
I think it's hilarious that people who live in a warm weather climate year 'round want those of us who deal with snow along with sub-freezing and sub-zero temperatures 4-5 months of the year to ride a bike and walk more.

And for those who don't get why people won't give up their cars for mass tansit there are 2 main reasons:

First - Mass transit crime. Pepole don't feel as safe riding a bus or subway as they do in their own car.

Second - (and this, I think is the main reason) Cars represent freedom. Maybe not on a conscious level but at least the subconscious. In my car I can come and go as I please without worrying about having to be at a stop somewhere on government time and missing the last bus or train home. If I change my mind on my destination, I don't have to try to figure out what bus or train I have to catch and all of the connections. AND once the government gets everyone out of their cars and onto their transportation it's much easier to track and control the population.

Global Warming is a crock. It's another way to backdoor the population into paying more and more of their money to the government. Some of the top scientists who at first went along with this have since rescinded their support of this farce - I believe James Hansen at NASA was one of them.  
These are all great ideas but of course more will come as research and development for alternative energy resources to better save are quiet enjoyment and that of future generations come into play.  Its not like you can take it up with your landlord so this is it.
If you want to see how to build solar and wind system for home cheaply go to or ganic2008.   com
Your comments are without any merit or credible evidence, but to support the kings of Islam & others with riches beyond belief. Why do you scholars think Gas is down ?? They know we found & had the source & now must use. Dumb is Dumb. Obama has not a thing as to this, but the Americans are Fed up with their B.S. Yes, you can run a car on that too.
Apparently, our education system as convinced everyone that they are experts on everything. But just to be sure, they take their lead from other experts like Thomas Friedman and Al Gore. Well, good luck, folks.
bio-fuel is bigger than corn.  algae is now capable of creating oils that can create perfect diesel.  further, feed growing algae co2 from polluters, and it grows that much quicker.  bill gates, among others, is investing because of the tremendous promise.  this form of energy has one additional benefit: feed it to china and it will give them incentive to brings those coal stacks down into the water to make algae - and thus oil - grow.  

electric, especially solar panels with their most recent advancements, is key, but algae-based oil may be the master key.
Hello, LED research needs to be finished and the lights deployed.Tidal power generating electricity seems more viable than any of the others. We'd have to be careful of marine life, but it could be done.One of the central themes of all the options seems to be the grid. We don't have a modern one and that would be where I would start. With the grid in place other solutions would become more viable. I also think that we might want to study Brazil and see how they converted to alcohol and maybe get some lessons on the problems and solutions. You know, not invent the wheel again. In any case whether you believe in global warming or not, a cleaner earth will allow our children to prosper. To me this is the challenge of the people alive now. The Revolutionary generation brought fourth this nation, the civil war generation ended slavery, the second world war generation defended our freedom, and now we are called to solve this giant problem. In '73 we had the gas shortage, we started to make progress, the price of gas went down and we lost the mission. We will either be fools this time or we'll rise to the challenge and change the world for the better.
I hope some setting policy actually reads this so here goes:
1) the article was flawed in the sense that a single power plant is more efficient than $100,000 individual gas engines. So migrating cars to plug ins and hybrids would still be more efficient.
2) diesels get better mileage than hybrids because their high compression engines.  THE PRIORITY SHOULD BE FOLLOWING CAR COMPANIES LIKE FORD INTO HIGH COMPRESSION GAS ENGINES WITH AN ETHANOL OCTANE BOOST, ESPECIALLY IF USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH HYBRIDS AND PLUG-INS.
3) the banning of MTBE for poisoning our groundwater means ethanol biofuel will be with us for a very long time and no one ever expected ethanol to be anything more than a fuel additive.
4) expand the research into algaes for ethanol and biodiesel.
5) as far as transportation is concerned, the US needs to flatten out the transportation subsidies so that air and highways no longer receive the bulk of federal transportation subsidies.  21st century buses, trolleys, light rail and high speed passenger rail deserve equal funding to cars and airplanes.
6) you want to fix the auto companies? Institute reciprocal VAT taxes and tarrifs on all imports. If germany, france and italy want a 20% VAT tax on American cars imported and a 20% credit to german cars exported then we should immediately reciprocate.
7) ban the import and the export of vehicles under "x" mpg and increase it by "Y" percentage every 2.5 years.
8) dont forget about heat pumps for residential and commercial buildings which could cut HVAC bills 50% in some areas.
9) nearly the entire freight rail system and passenger rail system in the US needs to be rebuilt! Freight and Passenger trains cannot share the same track (not when passenger trains can go 250mph).
10) there is absolutely no reason why biofuels like biodiesel cannot be used to run a power plant.
11) I agree with equalizing subsidies per megawatt generated or per megawatt saved instead of picking winners and losers in energy.
12) research into super conductors, especially wires, motors, generators, etc.
13) The great lakes and the gulf of mexico are nearly dead from oxygen deprivation, particularly due to fertizers and pollution.  DONT FOCUS ONLY ON AIR POLLUTION WHILE OUR FISHERIES ARE COLLAPSING.  EVERY CITY IN THE GREAT LAKES ONCE HAD A FISHING FLEET. NOW THERE IS NO COMMERCIAL FISHING IN THE GREAT LAKES.
14) Passive geothermal can exist in state in the US, Province in Canada, Mexico and Central America.
15) We have a major national security risk protecting our territorial waters from drugs and wmds on submarines and boats within 200 nautical miles.  Why not put a network of off shore windmills and oil rigs each with passive and active sonar. It would create energy and secure our coastlines.
It is funny, how people who have no idea about the power industry, simple mechanics, or even physics always have half brained schemes to solve anything at all which would never work, here are some facts for everyone who is trying to push a green agenda, to mull over.

1. Wind power: At current whole sale power prices, it takes 20 years for companies to recover there investment, the current boom in wind is because a lot of state are requiring minimum of renewalbe energy to be supplied to there area.

For every megawatt of wind power that you have you need something to back it up, which is almost always a low efficiency gas turbine (essentially a jet engine hooked to generator that can get to full load in 10 minutes)

With these 2 things if you should expect actually no decrease in carbon emmissions, and 2X to 4X a power bill and heating bill. This is for the fact that gas turbines and wind tubines only actually run 1/3 to half the time.

Another problem with wind is getting the power out of the central plains, where the most wind potential is. We have adequate technology right now to do this with ultra hivoltage lines 500,000 to 1,000,000 volts, but till someone can figure out how to get it over states like Minnesota. It aint going to anybody good having thousands of wind turbines in the Dakotas if you cant get a new power line through Minnesota. ( hey its the green nuts doing this, were trying up here but they stop it everytime something over 125,000 vlts need to go through state) In the plains you cant send power west becuase the US is divided into 2 completely seperate electrical grids. one east, one west so there is no complete US blackout.

2. Conservation is great, but comes at cost, If I have spend 10,000 dollars to save 1,000 dollars in a lifetime. Im not going to do that,neither is a big company. We are going to do stuff that will help us not break us.

3. New coal fired power plants, we need them but there are to replace the ones from the 30's and 40's.
New coal plants have tighter emmission rules than even the ones from the 80's. The more new plants we have we can start backing off old ones, that gave coal plants a bad name. I'D rather live with 10 new coal plants surrounding the town i live in than 1 nuke plant. Also coal plants usually pay better wages than the green industry does. except for wind which i dont want to climb 200 ft towers for a living.

3. solar same problems as wind does, just less efficient.

The funniest thing from all the comments is some one suggested we convert coal plants to run on commpressed air. This guy has no clue on a steam turbine works.Compressed air is ussually the most expensive least efficient way to transmit anykind of mechanically power. And how does he recommend we produce compressed air, pull it out of butts or what.

In the end we will be stuck with fossil fuels of somesort. Unless we want to go back to the early 1800's. Modern civilization is built on fossils fuels for all aspects of life, food, transportation, medicine.

I do have a challenge to anyone who wants to push the liberal green agenda. I would like to see them give up all the comforts of fossil fuel society we live in and move to somewhere fossil fuels do not impact your life. probably rural china being a got herder, or substistence farmer.
The path to a renewable energy economy is going to be tough, no doubt, and I am glad that the Obama administration is going to help us progress forward.
What I do not understand is the naysayers who rant on and on about how renewable energy will not work or is too costly or difficult. What is the alternative? I am  20, my life will consist of a end to oil and a future powered by wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, and in my opinion promising nuclear energy. If you don't like th renewable energy and would rather drive you earth destroying suburban, have at it, but shut up and let the rest of this nation move forward so that we have a future.
I live in sunny Florida.  I cannot find a company that will sell me a solar hot water system without (almost) forcing me to buy a whole house solar system to which I will not get payback in my lifetime.  What gives with that?  I want solar hot water and cannot get it without paying an arm and a leg and driving 200 miles to a company that sells a system.  You would think these business types would be on every street corner in my region.
Since you asked....NO.  I guess those two robots we sent to mars is creating that planets global warming too?  Somebody better get real! Starting with the soon to be prez!!!!  Look, CNO..that is really what were are talking about. Look, Carbon nitrogen and oxygen...the hydrogen is everywhere, h20,hcox,h2no4 etc.,etc.,etc.  Look, Gasoline has more hydrogen packed into a smaller area than just about anything else..BOTTOM LINE KIDS.  Look, Batteries are NOT the solution yet.  Look, Talk about nuclear waste, yea IT IS A PROBLEM!...so is lead,lithium,and CADMIUM...which by the way, you find in SOLAR PANELS(and batteries)!!..and I am a big believer in solar, but sure as hell not governments involvement in ANYTHING capitalistic.  Look, Carbon Tax? what a joke, why not capture it, mix it with cement and send it AND the nuke waste to the sun?...jeesh then they can tax the C and the N and THE U!!!..Look, There is oil all around us, we have been burning it for at least 5,000 years, best thing to do with it, unless you figure it is some sort of thermal blanket helping to keep our core molten and spinning so the solar wind will not rip our atmosphere away like mars'.  GO GET THE OIL AND THE COAL!! (and the ethane on encaladeous)...use a little wind, a little solar and a little wave action, in the meantime, look into power cells that take liquid coal in and dash electrons and water and solid carbanaceous compouds out.  Regulate the energy industry so they don't rip us off, like we just saw with 100 dollar oil (which never physically reached our shores), and don't rip us off with taxes..nay, give us that cheap energy that kennedy promised us, use it all even nuke (but work on fusion, I sure am, it is closer than you think) that way our economy will grow, the world will grow (and not because natural radioactive potassium in the crust causes expansion..do your research you global hot air heads)...if our economy grows good on cheap energy then we can find a way to get to planet fomhault, or wherever else we plan to spread this trash so often referred to as humanity.  In the meantime, go ahead, start the political corruption of the energy state...err, I mean, go ahead, continue on enron's world domination plan....haha...you monkeys are all the same, just keep banging the rocks together, something will eventually spark (it always does)...in the meantime, us mongaloids will just keep wondering why you even bother. So is it back to rubbing two sticks together or what? Another World War maybe?...how about controlled capitalism?...surely, guys and gals that must be the answer..at least it worked before..HEY BIG GOVERNMENT, GET THE HELL OUT OF OUR WAY WE ARE COMING THROUGH AND YOUR DAMN HOT AIR IS CLOUDING THE VIEW, CLOGGING THE FREEWAYS, CRASHING THE BRIDGES, SLOWING THE TOILETS AND KILLING THE COWS!!!! we are the little guys, same as it ever was. SO MOVE THAT AA TONKA TOY TO THE SLOW LANE NOW CAUSE THIS SEMI FULL OF CHARMIN GOTTA"S BE AT WALLY WORLD BY NOON CAUSE THE POLITICIANS GOTTA WIPE THEIR...
I have a question for all how care to see if this has happened any where else.  I've done the best I could so far as greening up my house, light bulbs, making sure the computer is off when not in use etc.  Now here is the issue, the power company here in good ole Nevada is raising the prices.  So we the consumer once again are at the mercy of another type of dictator the big bad Power company. Has this happened in any other state.
If the government paid about 1/3 of the cost of an electric auto to auto dealers for any gas driven auto trade-in, and the dealers were required to junk the trade-in; it would reduce our need to import oil, help the auto manufacturers prosper and able to pay back any government loans, and help clean up the environment.
Please note the difference in the definitions of "insoluble" that you used twice and "insolvable".  It is good that you recognize that plug-in vehicles will not reduce the greenhouse problem unless we choose the proper source(s) of additional electrical generation.
For those who advocate fuel cell & hydrogen?  Do you know what's needed to produce hydrogen?  Electricity.  So why dont we use electricity directly (plug-in) and eliminate the middle-man (hydrogen) ?
It's Deja Vu all over again!!

I've experienced the fickelness cycle several times--gas crunch causes demand for small cars, then eventual cheap gas causes memory lapse and return to SUV's.

But that's human nature responding to free market forces.

Every time people cut back on driving, gas prices will drop
thus killing pricey alternative energy options.

The solution will be a slow evolution utilizing our present petroleum distribution infrastructure, IE: an auto that uses both electricity and gasoline.  A good example is the new Chev Volt with a 100% electrical drive train, but with a gas powered generator to recharge the batteries.  As technology evolves the Chev Volt generator can easily be replaced with a hydrogen fuel cell.  

Even if all vehicles were converted to alternate energy there would still be a strong demand (although less) for petroleum--chemicals, building products, etc.

And it worries me a little to see the government getting involved in the free market process--dictating the design and management structure to the Detroit Big 3.  It can be (is) argued that the US
manuf's are short sighted, but the fussy share holders are the ones who pressure management for short-term profits.

Let the U.S. Auto Co's restructure under Chapt 11, and come out
leaner, and more competitive, like the airlines.

Suggestions are to tax gasoline to keep it in the $4-$5/gal range, but Mr. Obama opposed saying it would hurt poor people more.

I support being green, and have taken such steps even when it costs me more money. But I want to have the freedom of choice.

Optimistically, I have faith in increasing human environmental regard. As the world globalizes we are inevitably growing smarter, and more proactive.      






No nuclear without way to safely recycle waste. YES to Solar panels on all public buildings.  I am guilty of loving my SUV but I did buy a hybrid at least and  and used new building technology to construct an energy efficient new home.  It cost me a fortune. There is no economy of scale in energy efficiency and new building technologies.  It's going to take time and not sure we have the  willingness  or can afford to buy economy of scale with all that needs doing very fast.  We need R & D  development in production that is affordable with old technology since we are losing jobs that allows us to pay for the new stuff.  Look who makes the big bucks?  It's not our manufacturing corporations lately, it was Wall Street.  It's costly tooling, manufacturing, marketing and selling enough to have demand that will reach economy of scale .........  Business needs help with prototype testing and production.  Grants to universities, inventors and corporations like was planned with 25 billion scheduled for auto industry before the bankruptcy fears came out, but not just auto industry. The capitalist model gives the profits to venture funding and business managers not inventors.... so we need a different business model maybe......because most capitalist are greedy not motivated by global warming.  OUr whole world is out of balance.........and that means sacrifice......  
Have you ever heard of folks like Tesla, John Bedini and Tom Bearden? Have you ever heard of extracting free "negative" energy from the environment? Have you ever thought that the way the electricity is "produced" in the power grid is completely inefficient and just keeps destroing itself, constantly requiring new energy input to keep it working? Well if not just do some google research, you will be surprised. We already have had this technology for a while, now it's time to finally put it at work!
I wonder why can't we use trackless electric bus technology to power small cars.  All we need is to invent a device whick can hook to the road side (on highway, at least) low voltage rail or track on the road surface quickly .
For the short term (30 years) I would favor increased use of nuclear power plants. However, the nuclear waste needs to be destroyed outright at the plant site, not shipped to a storage location from various plants all over the United States. See "Adventures in Energy Destruction" at: http://www.geocities.com/scripturalphysics/qm/adven.html

You cannot put a conventional nuclear reactor into an automobile. But research into LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions) currently looks very promising. Some links:

http://newenergytimes.com/news/2006/2006ExtraordinaryEvidence.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/scripturalphysics/qm/issues.html#ColdFusion
http://www.geocities.com/scripturalphysics/qm/issues.html#EnergyMasslessParticles

The U.S. government could facilitate such research with various appropriate incentives.

The simple fact is that America has given up on it's homework since 1982 until recently. Hopefully alternative energy will become cost effective before Obama is voted out of office because people have unreasonable expectations. (I voted for him and have no regrets, but all I'm looking for is not to be homeless or eat dog food unlike many Americans who expect to live in a McMansion and pay no taxes).
I'M GLAD TO SEE MORE FOCUS ON DEVELOPING RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES!  It's the ONLY WAY we're going to be able to maintain society and preserve the environment we all depend on.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1702783

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google