The future of energy

Anonymous — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 14:05:58 GMT

While I am all for the push away from fossil fuels as our source of fuel for cars, this plan hardly touches on the real source of the problem we have with pollution. If we eliminate fossil fuels and instead use electricity, how does that actually do anything? All we're doing is transferring the source of pollution from cars to electricity generators. And higher demand on power grids means there will have to be more generators.

The 2nd point of this plan *kind of* touches on renewable energy, but that's clearly the most crucial part.

Until plans like this really focus on renewable energy, the problem is going to continue to exist, and our attempts will do very little until we realize that.

The future of energy

Steve Moniz — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 14:24:34 GMT

I can think of a win-win, scenario: electrify the railroads! It would employ people, reduces diesel fuel consumption, reverse the subsidy to trucks over the more efficient mode, and (with a few restored sections of double-tracking) promote passenger traffic.

The future of energy

Andy Little, New Berlin, WI — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 14:45:53 GMT

What about Fuel Cells?

Use wind and solar to create hydrogen and then convert that into electricity on demand anywhere with fuel cells. 100% green and transportable.

Fuel cells also act just like bateries without all of the bad side affects. And they don't wear out after a certain number of charges. They could easily last the lifetime of the vehicle without being overhauled or replaced.

The future of energy

Steve, Portland, OR — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 14:52:48 GMT

The government has free energy, but is unwilling to release this technology because it will ruin their game. Free energy is very simple. Read about Tesla or simply search Magnet Motor on Youtube. It is a joke.

The future of energy

Eric, Salinas, CA — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 15:17:17 GMT

Great article Alan! We really need to get serious about getting our energy system up to snuff with the 21st Century. There is no such thing as clean coal and burying it in the ground only invites disaster as an earthquake will bring it right back up again. We need more clean green power from wind and the sun. We also need to find a better way to store electricity made from these clean sources for use when the sun and wind goes down.

We also need a Manhattan Project type of approach to making houses more energy efficient by having a government project that puts solar panels on all houses. It will create jobs and get more houses solar powered. Tax credits will fail because only a few people who have excess money and can use the tax break will use that kind of losing program. A government program will put many people to work in the private sector which is what we need since the private sector is such a failure at employing people.

The future of energy

Don , In OK — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 15:47:51 GMT

What about the water powered car?? I've seen and read enough to think it is a viable option for development, but nothing is being said about this option..

The future of energy

Hank, New York, NY — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 15:56:22 GMT

One additional way that was not mentioned that would have a huge impact on energy conservation -- and also reduce the need to add more generation capacity or allow present generation capacity to be reallocated --is to encourage or mandate the use of compact fluorescent light bulb (CFLs), which use substantially less electricity and last longer. This could be done in several ways. One way is for utilities to offer consumers a financial subsidy to purchase CFLs, which benefits the utility through the reduced consumption by likewise reducing the utility's make the capital investment to build new plants to increase or maintain production. After all, it is cheaper both short term and long term to subsidize CFL use than it is to build, run and maintain a new generating plant. Another way is for government to introduce a tax on conventional lightbulbs (like the "gas guzzler" tax on vehicles), thereby incentivizing consumers to buy relatively cheaper CFLs and more fairly recognizing the greater cost to society of the use of such bulbs. The tax revenues could be used to find research and development for greener energy sources or infrastructure. And the greater demand for CFLs will surely continue to lower the per unit price of each bulb as production levels (and manufactuing efficiencies and competition among suppliers) continue to increase.

The future of energy

Zach, Cape Girardeau, MO — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 16:07:39 GMT

With all the attention nuclear power is getting these days, are people giving serious consideration to the problem of nuclear waste disposal? Are people aware of just how dangerous the biproducts of nuclear reactors are? We're talking about high level waste that contains isotopes like I-129 that have a half-life of 17 MILLION years. The waste these reactors are producing will probably be on this planet longer than the human race as we know it.

A current popular solution is to encase waste in solid glass and bury it. But do people know that outside some of these burial facilities, scientists have had to design warning signs that, because of the time scale of radioactive decay, have to transcend the bounds of normal written language (which on average will evolve to a form unrecognizable by current speakers every 600 years) and use cryptic heiroglyphs to indicate the horribly dangerous poisons contained within?

There are also processes being used to transform high level waste isotopes to lower level ones, but are these efforts enough to keep the planet from being poisoned by radiation in the long term?

The decay of radioactive isotopes generates heat. Is it possible that over thousands of years the heat buildup in burial facilities will crack open the containment glass and eventually cause a containment failure, releasing radiation into the environment?

For 30+ years it seems like the attitude has been "we will eventually find a permanent solution for radioactive waste". Well now that nuclear energy is gaining popularity as a worldwide energy solution, have we found the solution to the waste problem other than "bury and forget"?

These are questions that I sincerely hope are being considered by scientists and politicians alike. But it may be too much to hope that the public would ponder these issues.

The future of energy

steve smyth — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 16:08:07 GMT

I can't wait for the first Plug In Price War...it'll go all the way to nude Plug in Chicks before someone drastically drops the price, and everybody goes for a charge at the same time...
OOOPPS!!!

The future of energy

DC, Boise ID — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 16:13:05 GMT

The switch to plug-in hybrids and "pure" electric vehicles does not simply shift pollution from exhaust pipe to smokestack, nor does it require a massive expansion of the grid. There is a very real reduction in CO2 emissions resulting from electric versus internal combustion transport. Google "Mileage from Megawatts", a study by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and "Debunking the Myth of EVs and Smokestacks".

The future of energy

Paul Carnahan Camden, Tennessee — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 16:13:50 GMT

Hydrogen,Hydrogen,Hydrogen
Why aren't more people thinking Liquid Hydrogen?

The future of energy

Alan Boyle — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 16:14:11 GMT

Dear Anonymous: I've mentioned renewable energy repeatedly in the article but I realize that I probably should have devoted more attention to laying out the details on solar, wind, geothermal, wave power, bioconversion, etc....

Here are some links:

Solar power:
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/23/165659.aspx

Wind power:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27329653/

Geothermal power:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27068984/

Wave power:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28113042/

Algae power:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22027663/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27521731/

Mold power:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25607079/

Hydrogen power:
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/01/24/41211.aspx

A 'revolution' in batteries:
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/17/586070.aspx

The future of energy

Bill, OKC OK — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 16:22:56 GMT

There is a simple solution. Install solar panels on home roofs, install an air compressor storage system and a network computer on each home that buys an electric car. The solar cells create energy that is stored in the compressed air system and when the car returns home it is charged from the compressed air system. Any surplus can be used by the home owner or used by the utilities. That gives utilities a mass energy storage system, free power generation and network control of it all. For the home owner, free trips to work and shopping and the ability to review the system and reduce energy usage in order to make money from the utilities (or reduce their electric costs). Right now home owners can’t see what is costing them the most electricity. A network connection would allow them to see when their refrigerator needs a repair or their air conditioning needs a tune up. Home owners would be more aware of energy usage if they had the ability to see live data.

This creates tens of thousands of new jobs and thousands of new small businesses to install and provide maintenance and upgrades to the systems.

The question really becomes what happens when 1 million people get off work and plug in their electric cars. Our existing grid can’t handle it and do you really want to move paying the oil companies to paying the electric companies? Right now, if you can’t pay for gas you can’t be thrown out of your home. If we become dependent on the electric companies you could have your electricity cut off and be thrown out of your home during the winter if you can’t pay your electric bill. That could be avoided by having a storage account with the electric companies. Your surplus covers you for hard times or could be donated to the needy.

Local generation and storage at the home owner’s level is the answer.

The future of energy

Kevin B, Selah, WA — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 16:29:01 GMT

I can't wait to spend $150,000.00 for a car that will go 30 miles on a charge. Happy days are here again.

The future of energy

Robert Tamburri, Fanwood, NJ — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 16:35:30 GMT

One obvious solution that no one has talked about: We have a challenge in terms of reducing carbon output, as well as all the carbon that currently exists in the environment. Basically, if carbon were viewed as a natural resource (rather than a pollutant), we would have an overwhelming abundance. Enter: Carbon fiber and carbon nano-materials (bucky-balls and carbon nano-tubes), which have dozens of high-tech applications-from designing vehicles and aircraft with carbon-fiber skins (lighter and stronger than steel), high-speed computers, etc... If we can find an inexpense means of collecting all this excess carbon and of using it to produce these materials, we will have simultaneously solved three major problems: reduction of excess carbon, reducing energy-consumption by using more efficient materials and replacing the petro-based materials (i.e.-plastics) that will eventually disappear along with all the oil.

The future of energy

James Stepp, Orlando, FL — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 16:42:42 GMT

Switching over to a totally new system, while a worthwhile goal, is actually unnecessary. If we can get even a 20% increase in fuel efficiency on our auto fleet we will save roughly 1/5th of the money we send out of our economy every year. We import roughly $350-450 billion a year in oil and 20% would be $70-90 billion off of our $450 billion trade deficit. The auto industry bailout would actually make good sense from a national standpoint if that increase was a condition of it.

The future of energy

Charles Barton, Dallas, Texas — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 16:43:03 GMT

It comes as no shock to me that the Obama transition team is preparing to enter office without a clue about energy solutions. No doubt Mr. Obama will get similar advice from Al Gore today, and McCain energy advisor Woolsey is as much off base as the Obama team. The problem is simple, renewables would supply the energy we need 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Any scheme to replace fossil fuels with renewables is going to end up an expensive failure. The cost of base load electricity schemes with solar or wind, will be more expensive than nuclear power.

The negawatt scheme, represents the same sort of solution that Herbert Hoover offered to end the great depression. Many economists and energy experts, have pointed out that it violates a well established economic principle, Jevons Paradox. Efficiency does not offer a long range energy solution.

Energy storage schemes are going to be expensive. Storage capacity would have costs comparable to nuclear while offering far less. A smart grid would be expensive and while grid upgrades would use electricity somewhat more efficiently, they are no stand in for generating electricity when it is needed.

James Hansen is on the right track. Generation IV nuclear technology prototypes were long ago been demonstrated to be safer and far more fuel efficient, and well as disposing of the problem of nuclear waste. The need now is to complete the developmental phase of this technology, and begin the rapid deployment of mass produced factory built Generation IV reactors.

The future of energy

Keith, Boynton beach FL — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 16:47:55 GMT

A few points: 1) if we shift to PEVs then the carbon can be scrubbed at the power plant, something that can't be done at the car level. Secondly, it breaks the chicken and the egg problem. Cut the car to electricity, then focus on changing the energy source.
Timing demand (cars) to night allows the power plant to run at a more consistent level, which equals higher efficiency. If more power is needed I say look at the AP-1000 from Westinghouse, as far as nukes go it is simply brilliant...

Final thought:

Humankind has been burning sh** since the beginning of time (> 100,000 years) we simply need to stop. I have adopted the mantra "We gotta stop burning sh**" we should all do it... I put my money on nanoscale batteries, quick charge, 200+ mile range plug ins, all jacked into AP-1000's from Westinghouse (check'em out) Open Yucca flats and let's get building them nukes....

The future of energy

Greg Clement, Chandler, Arizona — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 16:50:34 GMT

If all this can be done with tax incentives primarily and government subsidy secondarily, then all we need is a credible plan to put it in motion. Distributed generation (wind and solar) utilizes the existing "grid".
Upgrading existing nuclear capacity to produce commercial volumes of hydrogen for fuel cell consumption paired with nuclear fuel reprocessing would solve the problems of reducing nuclear waste, and providing fuel for electric vehicles, and reducing the demand for batteries.
Conversion from incandescent lamps to CFL, LED, and Electroluminescent plastics should reduce consumption to levels requiring less coal burning generation.
Petroleum and coal could be utilized in synthetic construction materials, and eventually carbon nanotube materials.
I'd like to see honest and accountable, free market capitalism achieve these transitions with only minimal initial government stimulation. I envision a new "manned moom mission" effort that will deliver the things I've mentioned the way the original program brought about microelectronics.

The future of energy

Allen Fuller in Texas — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 17:07:13 GMT

We are in for a rough ride, but no one has a crystal ball on exactly what it will look like.

Exhibit 1: although many peakers predicted oil price volatility, none that I know of predicted this deep a collapse.

Peak oil is still a problem in the long view, which is why Obama taking leadership in all these areas is very important. As little as I may support him on other issues, on this one I am rooting for him to succeed beyond his wildest dreams, to go beyond even what is laid out in this article. It's a matter of our national security, future health and prosperity, and perhaps even survival (in more sense than one) that we get this energy transition right.

The future of energy

Steve D Michigan — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 17:09:39 GMT

Without leadership, the purpose of production of goods and services falls into broad categories: survival (housing, food, medical, and sanitary services), production (making stuff) and consumption (insurance, consumer goods, travel, entertainment). A fourth broad category – financial instruments – well, we’ve seen how well that pays back.

Transportation cuts across all four of those categories and has been the bulwark of production for decades – cars, trucks, energy, roads, and all the stuff that helps us move people or things. Unfortunately cheap energy and the push to pave America has subsidized inefficient modes – bulk transport by trucks rather than rail and the personal automobile often with one person to one destination per use.

So where do you get return from spending… one way is derivative speculation on financial instruments (recall: we’ve seen how well that pays back) another way is to turn raw materials into useful in-demand products. The latter has been the bread and butter of China of late… look at any consumer item label to see those infamous made-in words.

Perhaps it is time to leverage the “financial crisis” into something a bit more lasting than the “way things are right now”. That takes leadership to inspire us to move in a direction that may be less comfortable for a while – but benefits many more than the few that are profiting off the status quo. Given the modernization of economies in places like India and China is the current consumer-driven model of the personal car sustainable?

Imagine new highway construction across the US stopped. The cries of outrage would be deafening. The political connections strained beyond belief. The victims everywhere. And yet, somehow life would go on – perhaps a bit more slowly.

Next imagine the construction of high-speed rail corridors between major cities – two modes: freight and passenger rail. The shifting of highway work to rail construction would benefit the construction industry and demand re-investment in local construction material (especially steel) production. This would be mass conversion of raw materials to finished products – with plenty of jobs and money velocity.

Now make those rail systems electric and an industry to support efficient delivery of energy based on nuclear or “clean” coal would mean added construction of infrastructure and a new network of power transmission (needed to harvest energy from all those local solar and wind farms).
Of course this industry would require additional rolling stock… more steel, more copper, more of everything to build this system. More jobs and money velocity.

Ah, but who would want to ride these rails. Ever travel by air between two major cities like Chicago and Detroit? You spend more time on the ground in the terminal and on the tarmac than in the air. A 500 mile-an-hour jet-age ride that still takes 3 hours of your time. Ever ride a TGV? These 200 mile an hour bulk carriers, on the right kinds of rails, with frequent departures, could easily compete with a jet-powered aluminum tube...

But then I’d have no way of getting around at my destination. Yes, and that’s the beauty of plug-in electrics. Instead of building hefty 4-wheel-drive all-purpose cross-country personal vehicles, imagine a generous fleet of small 100 mile range vehicles waiting at your destination. Mobility-on-demand. Order it on-line, use it, and leave it when you’re done. Someone else would come along and take it somewhere else.

An industry shift to create and maintain fast long-range bulk transport bolstered by small lightweight short range vehicles that get you and your stuff where you want to go when you need it. Conversion of resources focused on the efficient timely delivery of transportation as a service. Jobs aligned with a bigger purpose.

Yeah, you could still buy and ride your tricked out SUV on a highway system that has fallen on hard times (like passenger rail in the 60s) – but would you want to?

The future of energy

Allen Fuller in Texas — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 17:18:58 GMT

"I can't wait to spend $150,000.00 for a car that will go 30 miles on a charge. Happy days are here again."

Still stuck in the 70s?

I am converting a $4000 existing car to a pure electric, for $7000, with off-the-shelf technology and proven lead-acid batteries, with a range of at least 40 miles. That would be good enough for around-town driving and shorter commutes. *For $11K.*

For longer ranges, you need more expensive batteries, but we're still talking LESS total cost than most new gas-guzzling cars. All in my garage.

If that sounds too hard, just wait for the Volt. It's pricey at $40K (out of my range) but a far sight from $150,000. And it drives 40 miles on pure electricity, but can go as far as you like with gasoline. Best of both worlds!

Electrics are at least twice as energy-efficient, even including the electricity generated. Gasoline engines are around 30-40% efficient; electric drivetrains are often close to 80% efficient even with power transmission, battery storage, etc. all factored in.

Studies have shown we could convert probably about a hundred million cars to electricity without the need to build new plants. We would be burning more fuel to generate the new electricity, but most of it would occur during off-peak hours when lots of excess capacity is already available. And if we put renewable energy into the mix (I buy my power from a 100% clean energy company) then burning fossil fuels can be reduced significantly.

The future of energy

Severin, New Haven CT — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 17:21:17 GMT

Building more coal plants should not be an option for addressing an increase in electricity demand. We are at if not past a tipping point in our climate that we might never recover from and generating more CO2 will certainly only hurt the changes of saving our world from a mass extinction. There is no such thing as clean coal, it is purely a political ploy created by the utilities to convince us that coal really isn't that bad.

While there are problems with nuclear the amount of waste that needs to be controlled is miniscule compared to the amount of coal that we are mining on a daily basis to feed our power plants. Yes, nuclear waste is long lasting but if we properly recycle our spent fuel we can effectively minimize the amount produced.

While other renewable sources as well as moving from gas to plug-in hybrids offer some relief from the energy and climate troubles plaguing us right now it is not a viable answer to solve our problem over the next few years. The only way to quickly address the energy and climate issue is to mandate a dramatic reduction in energy use. It must be more than switching to CFLs and putting reflective paint on the roof of a building but it must also involve inconveniences to the public. Shut down street lights (not traffic lights) after 10 PM when fewer people are driving and prohibiting the use of air conditioners unless the outdoor temperature is above a government regulated limit. While people might be opposed to solutions like this at first it really is the only way we will see a significant impact in the immediate future.

The future of energy

JEB, Columbus, Ohio — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 17:29:11 GMT

I think everyone's comments make very valid and extremely important points. However, it is unfortunate that a large percentage of the world population cannot afford to buy hybrid, all-electric cars or to install solar panels on their homes. Until these types of technologies become more affordable for the 'common' person or for 'Main Street' America, another form of conservation needs to be implemented. As much as paying $4 (+) for a gallon of gas sucked, people were more conscience of where and how much they drove and what kind of car they bought because they were feeling the direct effects in their pocket. I think until we really feel the monitary effects of our dependence on non-renewable forms of energy (i.e. petroleum products, coal, etc.) in our pockets, change will be very difficult. We need to be in a sense, retrained to be more efficient and conservative in our day-to-day lives. Until that time, bring on higher electric costs and $4 a gallon gas. It's a start...

The future of energy

OneVoice, Frederick MD — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 17:42:24 GMT

Isreal's ideas, and those of the others in this article are all great. The biggest problem is that industry efforts are generally driven by industry profit motives. The real solution is to have increased state and federal tax breaks and subsidies for homeowners and businesses to buy rooftop solar electric, solar hot water and small wind systems. The demand for manufacturing, sales, distribution and installation will employ many of the currently laid off Americans and it will give the double benefit of reducing electrical demand during peak hours so we won’t need to build as many new large scale power generating facilities. The only drawback to this approach is that there’s not much money in the form of up-front or monthly fees for big businesses…

The future of energy

David E. Manwell, Plattsburgh, NY — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 17:43:29 GMT

Viability of a hydrogen economy has been questioned around a "chicken-or-egg" dilemma; where to start: hydrogen powered fuel cell cars with no fuel dealers, or fuel dealers with no market?

Marketing? At first: for gas cooking/heating. Many of these now use bottled propane delivered to large white tanks near consumers. Heating-hydrogen's transportation need only be, like other heating-gas now, from local fuel dealer to consumer.

For early evolution toward cars, heating-gas trucks, and other applications, existing gasoline or diesel engines could use the fuel. Kits: with small pressure tanks, ignition timing adaptation (if needed), tubing, fittings, instructions, etc., could eventually permit it.

Pioneering "garage engineers" would find fuel at these heating hydrogen suppliers. This could eventually begin gently establishing hydrogen fueling stations for new, plug in free, fuel cell electric cars, like the General Motors, directly electricity driven, constant all wheel traction from 4 mechanically indendent wheel motors "Sequel" concept car.

Further evolution could move toward, more convenient, roadside locations, that gasoline and diesel now use.

Some say electrically separating hydrogen (H2) from water (H2O) (called electrolysis) requires fossil fueled electric grid reinforcement, and still more fossil fuel to transport it to fueling stations/dealers, adding CO2 from every stage, just to use a fuel that, itself, burns without making CO2, effectively eliminates the atmospheric CO2 reduction of hydrogen.

Does it?

We can increase gridpower with wind. Some people complain storage is needed to cope with wind's "variability". "What do you ... when the air is calm?", ask some. There are some places where the wind literally never stops; it varies there, but within a known range. When a wind turbine is selected that functions within that range, power from it is always available. Does that power vary? Without any automatic onboard controls against it, yes. Today, most megawatt-sized turbines have onboard computers informed of wind speed and direction by onboard weather stations. Despite wind variability, these provide the constant power output and cyclage that the grid always needs.

Beyond that, cannot photovoltaics (PV) power electrolysis off-grid? Unchanged, the direct current of PV powers electrolysis without expensive, power-losing electronics to adapt the alternating current from gridpower. Pressurized hydrogen storage makes overnight production unneeded.

Why transport motor fuel, when made from energy produced where sold?

Gridpower could continue supplying the lights, tools, etc. the station uses.

Using mass-produced kits of: PV panels, electrolyzers, a compressor, instructions, etc., hydrogen infrastructure could be inexpensively aquired by station owners; if desired, even by homeowners.

The "chicken-or-egg" question need not delay introducing hydrogen powered fuel cell
cars.

The future of energy

Geoff — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 17:49:16 GMT

First of all, you are all running under the assumption that global warming is man-made. That's why this huge push for 'green' technology. None of these so-called experts want you to know that there are more natural greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere than man-made ones. Of course we should be good stewards of the environment, but SUV's are not killing the planet. Man-made global warming is a myth and a lie. Let me illustrate a simple example for you. Take a pen and hold it in the middle with your thumb and fore-finger. The pinch point represents the center of the Earth and the pen is the axis of the Earth.. Now, with your free hand put your index finger on top of the pen and move it in a circle. This represents the 'worble' effect of our axis, caused by the push and pull of gravitational bodies (the sun, planets, etc.) in our solar system. The worble cycles around once every 25,000 years. (And this is a proven effect, not hypothetical junk science like man-made global warming...) Now if we consider that during the course of this 'worble' our axis tips closer and closer toward the sun, we will warm up, and as it moves away we will cool down. Amazing! Somehow I don't think that changing our lightbulbs is going to affect the gravitational forces at work. And there is something else to realize. The Earth has been around for BILLIONS of years. During the course of that time, there have been numerous global climate changes, all caused by some force other than man. Industrialization has only been around for, what, 200 years or so? How many people think it is even possible for us to have changed the global climate in such a short period of time? It's ridiculous. And as fas as saving a few birds? Again, I'm all for being a good steward of our planet, but realixe that over 90% of all plant and animal species that were once here are now EXTINCT! And I would venture to say that they were probably wiped out before Henry Ford started rolling out Model T's. There is nothing wrong with using our OWN oil, coal and natural gas resources to bridge the gap between today and tomorrow. Everybody wants to jump right in with solar and what-not. We should do an environmental impact study on the wide-scale use of solar panels. After all, what might happen to our climate if that energy is being taken by solar panels and not the groung itself? Will plant and animal life suffer? What about all of the heat energy that would be bounced back into the atmosphere from glass panels instead of being absorbed by the Earth? Ever seen a solar oven at a science fair? Think about it... And windmill farms are decimating Brown Eagle populations in California because the windmills happen to be in the eagles' migratory path. So how come we haven't heard anything about that? So I say if you want to save some birds, and majestic ones at that, start knocking down some windmill farms in California and start drilling for oil. Let's tap into the resources we have that are proven, before we start tossing billions of dollars into technology that is not quite ready for prime-time yet. Hmph!

The future of energy

Chris, Gilbert, Arizona — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 17:56:57 GMT

Honest Question:

I have heard that it takes more energy to manufacture a solar panel than can be produced by that solar panel in its usable life.

Can anyone provide any links/information confirming or refuting that?

The future of energy

Jimmy, Valhalla, NY — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:13:09 GMT

The battery powered car is absolutely necessary to slow down the emissions into our air. Sure the hybrid is a start. The next phase is a limited distance car with an easily removable standard battery. By easily, I mean in the time it take to fill a tank of gas. The infrastructure is already in place; thousands of gas stations. They will become battery stations. We will "rent" or "lease" the battery. As battery technology improves so will our distances. A little country, Israel, is in the beginnings of using this idea. (And, I thought I had it first.)

Anyway, did you ever see hydrogen explode?

The future of energy

AD,Dayton,OH — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:18:04 GMT

You can never compete with an energy source that took millions of years to accumulate and with anywhere near the enrgy density. Research it yourself.
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

The future of energy

David E. Manwell, Plattsburgh, NY — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:19:39 GMT

Steve Moniz is right, electrifying the railroads would be terrific! They already contain an excellent conductor for, at least one pole -- hundreds of miles of rails.

The future of energy

Travas, Branson MO — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:21:26 GMT

What ever happened to gardens, a chicken coop, a cow or two, fireplaces, horseback, and candlelight?......LOL Yah I know!!......

The future of energy

Mike A Miami, FL — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:56:06 GMT

The basic issue here is sacrifice. We have had small fuel efficient cars for quite some time yet what do people buy SUVs, large pickups, large sedans. The reality is we Americans love our cars. Until we change that it will be an uphill battle. If right now everyone driving a large vehicle gave it up for a small one how much fuel would we save? With current technology no less! The true purpose of a car is to get from point A to point B in a safe vehicle. The fact that we choose to make the vehicle an extension of our living room is the basic cause of our big mess. Same holds true for mass transit, most people simply prefer to drive to work because they enjoy driving their ultra luxurious living room on wheels or their ultra comfortable upholstered personnel carrier (SUV). Address that and we are 75% into less dependence on oil. Finally, if we walked and biked more often perhaps we would start getting healthier. I for one would love to bike to work but I would need to shower at the office. How many office provide showers for their employees? This type of thinking is limited to a few people and companies, make it the norm and see the massive changes in our country. Billions saved in fuel cost and health care cost. We need radical thinking all right but not just in Washington, the whole country needs to reassess the basic day to day functions as we practice them today.

The future of energy

r nebel, Santa Fe, NM — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:07:59 GMT

35 years ago when I was an undergraduate student I spent a couple of summers working for a civil engineering firm. One of the projects we were working on was a new coal-fired power plant. By new federal laws this plant was required to not only take out the particulates (using electrostatic precipitators) but also to remove the sulfur from the smokestack. They were using a new lime slurry process. It was going to take ~ 1/2 of their staff and 10s of percent of their electricity to run these systems. At the time the lime slurry process only had a proven capacity factor of 25% (i.e. it didn’t work 75% of the time). Furthermore, they had no idea what they were going to do with the lime slurry once they used it, but at the time the government wasn’t regulating that (I understand that it has since been placed on the hazardous materials list). The utility knew that they were being forced to use a poor technology, but they needed the power and felt that they didn’t have any other choice.
My point is that you can’t legislate technologies into existence. Someone has to design them and the market needs to have some say as to which ones work and which ones don’t.

The future of energy

craig kubiak, mumee ohio — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:13:58 GMT

check this out air car could do better than electric. there is also an all car electric that can run for years beore recharging and goes 256 mph
air car;
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4251491.html?series=19
also
electric car;
http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/sep2008/bw20080925_308061.htm?campaign_id=rss_innovate

The future of energy

Duncan MacKenzie, Mamaronck NY — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:35:03 GMT

re: point 1, "negawatts"

Increased efficiency will always lead to *more* electric consumption overall, not less. To claim that increased efficiency can generate negawatts is akin to saying "1 + 1 = -2".

The things that will decrease electricity consumption are higher prices (that continually increase) and depressed economic activity.

Increased efficiency is still a great thing to shoot for, but don't plan on it reducing electric demand.

The future of energy

Michael M — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:11:22 GMT

"What about Fuel Cells?

Use wind and solar to create hydrogen and then convert that into electricity on demand anywhere with fuel cells. 100% green and transportable."

The viable kinds so far also require platinum. Not only is it expensive,there isn't even enough to build as many cars as we need. On the bright side,the chemists claim they can reduce the platinum usage by putting thin films on graphite,but so far they haven't gotten the amount of platinum down to the point where its cheap enough. Until they do,if they do,they remain to expensive for automotive use. (I understand that Honda's fuel cell vehicle costs something like a half a million dollars each)
The other problem is power output. Engineers look at electric vehicles and tell us that a 15 or 20 hp power plant is good enough to make an electric car from.
This is true,but so is a small gasoline power plant. The old Geo Metro had a 45HP 3cyl engine. It got over 50MPG. It also didn't see for a variety of reasons. People just didn't like it. They ended up putting a larger engine in the next model. (of course then,no one wanted it,because it wasn't "prestigious" AND it didn't get the great mileage.)
Heat is also a problem. consider a 100KW fuel cell,which is about 130HP. That's about what people expect in a small to mid sized car. That fuel cell has an efficiency of about 70% or so. That means there are 30KW of heat generated in the fuel cell. Thats like 300 100watt light bulbs heating your fuel cell. You have to get rid of that heat. The problem is,the low temperature fuel cells have plastics in them. If they get to hot,it destroys it. (the plastic is a membrane that makes the fuel cell work,you cant get rid of it) Thats another limiting factor. Its not too bad,but it is a problem.
The fact is,fuel cell technology is not ready yet. It works great it space because cost is not an issue there,but here on earth,we have a long way to go.

The future of energy

mike ca — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:25:52 GMT

heres a simple one, stop makeing cars that go faster than the speed limit.

The future of energy

Jim Baird, Nanaimo, BC, Canada — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:27:15 GMT

The global inventory of nuclear waste has the energy potential of approximately 200 operational reactors.

The energy return on investment for the development of Canada's bitumen is 5.2/1 therefore the global nuclear fuel inventory has the energy potential to produce roughly 6 billion barrels of oil annually. Currently this energy source is simply going to waste. The heat of the spent fuel would lower the viscosity of bitumen, allowing it to flow to a producing well, in the same fashion as the SAGD method. Plus, ionizing radiation would both upgrade the bitumen in situ as well as release hydrogen ions from in situ water, which would further fracture the long chain molecules.

A recent study notes the unprecedented capacity of bitumen to sequester radionuclides. Along with this capacity much of Canada's bitumen resource resides beneath a capping shale formation that would further constrain the mobility of either hydrocarbons or radionuclides.

Spent nuclear fuel is a free, carbon-free source of energy that would make oil sands viable even at $40 oil. Utilizing decay heat over the next hundred, or so years, would not preclude the ultimate reprocessing of this material once all of the fission products have decayed.

The future of energy

Jim, Cary, NC — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:57:58 GMT

There is already a government program to phase out incandescent light bulbs in favor of CFL's. Look it up and read about it.

The problem with fuel cells is that it takes roughly the same amount of energy to create the fuel as what you get out of it. That energy still has to come from some where.

There simply are NO easy solutions, and not ONE solution, but many.

The future of energy

Richard Hernandez, Las Vegas,NV — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:08:08 GMT

R.Buckminster Fuller published a book " Operating manual for spaceship earth" in the 60's that told of the energy problem and offered solutions.
The solutions are still pertinent but ignored by the USA. He spoke of tidal power and it's perpetuity.
South Korea is building a wave and tidal power plant now that is non-pollutant and effective. A tidal plant is being built in Wales that will produce the equivalent of 12 nuclear plants with no nuclear waste.
New Zealand is building a tidal and wave plant which will produce 20% of the nation's power. I say no more nuclear or coal plants need be built. Improve the grid and build wave and tidal plants. We have the technology now. Other countries are doing it. Why aren't we???

The future of energy

Response to Anonymous — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:04:18 GMT

Consolidating emissions from millions and perhaps billions of sources to thousands as it would result by focusing on electricity would enable us to more efficiently address our air emissions problems, and achieve efficiency through economies of scale. Furthermore it will enable us to focus on renewable energy since most forms of renewable energy result in electricity. Easier to do that with power plants than it is with trying to produce liquid fuels.

The future of energy

Bill Caterino, Granby, Connecticut — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:09:17 GMT

Nobody here has mentioned the best alternative to fossil fuels: Magic Wand technology. Magic Wand technology is 23% more energy efficient than solar panels and 28% more efficient than wind turbines. Magic Wand technology produces no harmful carbon emissions and no dangerous waste. Magic Wand technology requires no enhancements to our current power grid and can completely eliminate our dependence on foreign oil in ten years.

Magic Wand technology is a proven source of clean energy. First discovered by Supremo the Great five years before the birth of Tesla, in Tibet, Magic Wand technology has sense been perfected in MIT computer simulations.

Leading scientists all agree an investment of 350 billion dollars (just HALF of the cost of latest bank bailout) could bring Magic Wand technology into the mainstream by the end of Obama’s presidency.

I know expert politicians say wind and solar (combined with and extra layer of insulation and properly inflated tires) can completely meet our current and future energy needs. DON’T LISTEN TO THEM! Magic Wand technology is a far more realistic solution for America and for our children.

The future of energy

k s — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:51:34 GMT

The technology for producing environmental friendly megawatts is not all that hard of costly. For all the talk, no one is investing a dime in this.

The future of energy

jason_R — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:01:20 GMT

Why are they even promoting hybrids? One of the huge downsides to our current rescission is from oil prices being so high, yet here car companies are promoting hybrids as if oil prices in the last 2 years were a joke to the consumer, Its high time we get off petrol based vehicles and step foot into the new era of 100% electric vehicles, "ehem, 10 years ago era".

The future of energy

Cryos, Minneapolis , Minnesota — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:17:28 GMT

It's too bad the politicians don't care as much as people on this thread about finding real solutions. The fact is they don't want easy solutions.

Climate change treaties are simply about transferring money and technology to developing countries. It is not about finding renewable sources, reducing CO2, etc.

It is simply about hamstringing europe and the US and transferring wealth in the name of "fairness" to China, India and developing countries. Who needs the Global Poverty Act when you have the IPCC.

1998 is still the hottest recent year on record but apparently lower tempatures don't indicate a problem with the models. It means the problems are more "dire." I feel sorry for the people that have been suckered into this without even needing solid science.

If you think I'm wrong look into the demands being given by developing countries and the focus of the meetings. It is about how to distribute money not how to solve the problem.

The future of energy

Mike Breland, Walla Walla — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:28:07 GMT

What about bug, enzyme, and fusion power?
There are a number of scientists developing bacteria that eat cellulose and excrete oil.
Others are working on enzymes that directly work on cellulose to convert it to usable hydrocarbons.
None of these are very efficient yet, but with a few hundred billion dollars, I'll get they could be up and running in a few years. My bet's on these approaches, since once it's set up, it's very simple and relatively low tech.
Similarly, with a few hundred billion, good clean fusion power could be here within a decade or so.
What's the common thread here? Money. If we would just put our money where it counts, we could develop new technology that would save our assets and be a financial boon. We failed to do this in the 1980's, are we going to do this again?

The future of energy

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:48:08 GMT

It's a shame the big three didn't tackle this 10 years ago. At least 1/4 of the driving population would have electric vehicles by now and with better technology.

The future of energy

a p garcia — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:55:46 GMT

A lot of people, especially politicians & lawyers forget this, the "Law of conservation of Matter/Energy". This states that matter/Energy cannot be created nor destroyed so there is no such thing as renewable energy.

The future of energy

Bill, Gibsonton, FL — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 03:36:49 GMT

There are 60 new coal powered plants scheduled to be built in this country. There is no such thing as clean burning coal. These new plants can be converted to use compressed air to turn the turbines instead of steam. Compressed air does not require the use of any burning fossil fuels. It's an energy source that's right in front of everyone's nose, but no one wants to see it. Good luck with your fuel burning future.

The future of energy

IND — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 03:57:48 GMT

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?

The future of energy

Coachslife, Danville, Il. 61832 — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 04:05:17 GMT

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!

The future of energy

Zach, Denver, Colorado — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 04:16:40 GMT

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 future of energy

Joe Keller — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 04:19:51 GMT

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.

The future of energy

John Doe, Seattle, Wash. — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 04:20:23 GMT

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.

The future of energy

Mikebarr — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 04:24:59 GMT

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.

The future of energy

Jay T., San Jose, CA. — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 04:25:37 GMT

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?

The future of energy

Greg James, Newcastle, Wyoming — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 04:38:28 GMT

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.

The future of energy

Marc Lansing, MI — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 04:38:46 GMT

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 future of energy

darryl weaver — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 04:45:50 GMT

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?

The future of energy

Josh Keeng, Chandler AZ — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 04:48:16 GMT

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!

The future of energy

Harley Gray, Bridgeton, New Jersey — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 04:52:13 GMT

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.

The future of energy

John, Cincinnati, OH — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 04:56:10 GMT

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.

The future of energy

Gary French, Reno,NV — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 04:56:48 GMT

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.

The future of energy

e. vanover — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 05:22:59 GMT

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.

The future of energy

J K B — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 05:33:39 GMT

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.

The future of energy

Robert Sugg, Tampa, FL — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 05:48:24 GMT

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 future of energy

David, Dallas,Tx — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 05:48:29 GMT

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.

The future of energy

Richard C. Anderson, Washougal, WA — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 05:50:09 GMT

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

The future of energy

Martin Col, Nine Mile Falls, WA — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 05:52:10 GMT

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.

The future of energy

Chris K, Boaz, Alabama — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 05:59:21 GMT

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.

The future of energy

Robert Todd, Faarevejle Kirkeby, Denmark — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:08:57 GMT

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.

The future of energy

Andre R. Newcomb, Sierra Vista, Arizona — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:18:06 GMT

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 . . .!

The future of energy

Satan — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:21:25 GMT

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 future of energy

Mark Saylors — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:22:31 GMT

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

The future of energy

Mark - Las Vegas — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:24:54 GMT

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.

The future of energy

Justin, WV — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:26:48 GMT

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.

The future of energy

Jay, Red Wing, MN — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:27:46 GMT

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.

The future of energy

Colleen,Van,Canada — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:38:50 GMT

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.

The future of energy

Fred Bowden, Dothan, Al. — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:39:50 GMT

If you want to see how to build solar and wind system for home cheaply go to or ganic2008. com

The future of energy

BL Burnier — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:40:08 GMT

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.

The future of energy

Stefan Schreier, Bloiose, Idaho — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:41:41 GMT

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.

The future of energy

rowland, austin, texas — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:48:27 GMT

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.

The future of energy

garmach Denver CO — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:50:11 GMT

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.

The future of energy

Lou, Buffalo, NY — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:00:03 GMT

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.

The future of energy

kurt the power guy. Hardin, MT — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:02:02 GMT

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 future of energy

Ryan, Edwardsville, IL — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:06:57 GMT

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.

The future of energy

Tom, Palm Harbor, Florida — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:06:58 GMT

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.

The future of energy

ray smith — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:11:36 GMT

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...

The future of energy

JackDee, LV, NV — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:25:21 GMT

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.

The future of energy

Norman Melos, Sequim, WA 98382 — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:29:36 GMT

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.

The future of energy

Ted in Big Spring, Texas — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:33:18 GMT

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.

The future of energy

Ken, San jose, CA — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:35:46 GMT

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) ?

The future of energy

R Graham, ABQ, NM — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:36:26 GMT

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.

The future of energy

Irma Trommlitz, Portland, OR — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:38:17 GMT

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......

The future of energy

David Tamagni, CA — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 08:08:55 GMT

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!

The future of energy

Jackie Wood, Seattle, WA — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 08:35:53 GMT

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 .

The future of energy

Brian Fraser — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 08:41:28 GMT

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 future of energy

Dan Barnes — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:06:24 GMT

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).

The future of energy

Rick — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:15:59 GMT

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.

The future of energy

w k — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:33:05 GMT

Idaho National Laboratory developed Nanoantennas capable of absorbing 80% of sun energy compared to current PVC that can only absorb 20% of sun energy, Nanoantennas cost is 10 cent per yard that can be printed or rolled on any surface. Double-sided panels could absorb a broad spectrum of energy from the sun during the day, while the other side might be designed to take in the narrow frequency of energy produced from the earth's radiated heat at night.
A charged future
Although infrared rays create an alternating current in the nanoantennas, the frequency of the current switches back and forth ten thousand billion times a second. That's much too fast for electrical appliances, which operate on currents that oscillate only 60 times a second. So the team is exploring ways to slow that cycling down, possibly by embedding energy conversion devices like tiny capacitors directly into the antenna structure as part of the nanoantennas imprinting process.
"At this point, these antennas are good at capturing energy, but they're not very good at converting it," says INL engineer Dale Kotter, "but we have very promising exploratory research under way." Kotter and Novack are also exploring ways to transform the high-frequency alternating current (AC) to direct current (DC) that can be stored in batteries. One possibility is to create antennas with a spiral shape and place high-speed rectifiers, or special diodes, at the center to convert the electricity from AC to DC. The team has a patent pending on a variety of potential energy conversion methods. They anticipate they are only a few years away from creating the next generation of solar energy collectors.

With 80% efficiency, 10 cent a yard. you can solar roof America and you will get your money back in two years, Fossil fuels,coal,oil, nuclear and others will go out of bussiness, Think Solar Electric car powered by nanoanttemas solar panels on car roof top. Elecricity will become too cheap that you don't know what to do with it. You can't sell it back to the electrical grid or utility company because they will no more utility company. Light up all the streets, solar sea water purification plants, and yet pump the water to us free using solar electricity. life will be cheap.

The future of energy

Jeni T, La Grande, Oregon — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:53:18 GMT

I live in an area where farming, agriculture, and the timber industry are king, and range and power are the keys to vehicles and machinery that keep these businesses viable. Unfortunately, that doesn't translate to green technology just yet. I am hoping that solar and battery technology can be attractive to those in these businesses in the rural Pacific Northwest. The key word here is "incentives"; that must be kickstarted before true green efficiency can become commonplace.

The future of energy

LT, CA — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:04:54 GMT

Here is the problem:
1) Hybrids sold now are being sold at a loss. They cost too much and consumers won't pay the high pricetag necessary to make them a profitable venture. (boy real smart way to make the Big 3 profitable - force them to sell cars that they will lose money on). You have to design them, pay top dollar to make them, crash test them, train dealers and make tools to fix them - the list goes on and on...
2) Electric cars have big batteries that need to be replaced every 8-10 years. Environmental impact?
3) Gas is below 2 dollars and the 4 cylinders are sitting on dealer lots not selling...so why would electric cars sell?
4) Unless you score a 700 beacon - good luck buying one. SUVs are 50% of Blue Book - good luck getting out of one to buy a hybrid.
5) No infrastructure in place to charge them.
6) Refer to number 1.

The future of energy

Wally, Philadelphia — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:17:35 GMT

Ok, great idea for the electric or other alternative fuel vehicles, but how are the road use taxes going to be collected ? Do you realize that the 25 to 50 cents per gallon of the gasoline or diesel fuel price is taxes paid to maintain the road infrastructure? Every time I see an alternative fuel vehicle, I see someone not paying their share of the cost of maintaining the road. No one has addressed a means of taxing the electricity, for example, that is used...and by the way, that is an overlooked (for now) cost of operating the vehicle ...that is never entered in the economics that I've ever seen. I suggest that perhaps they overhaul the annual registration fee to be a per mile driven tax...

The future of energy

John Doe — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:25:42 GMT

You are all a bunch of idiots !!!!...First of all you are assuming the world will be here tomorrow.....Secondly I knew a guy 20 years ago who I'm sure by total accident ,bought a gasoline carburated truck that by some oversight I'm sure, got 100 miles to a gallon of gas for his full size all sheetmetal bodied truck.The company offered to buy it back and he told them to go jump. Auto makers have been making autos from thinner sheetmetal,plastic and more glass to be lighter and more fuel efficent....What happened to better fuel economy from lighter vehicles ? and all we can acheive these days is 20 miles at best ?...Auto makers have had the ability and technology to make cars more fuel efficent than they are..but you think they are going to do that ?...You ever ask yourself why auto insurance rates are so high these days ? Because they are tired of dishing out money for deaths in cheaply made vehicles....Because we now have to put 25 airbags in these lighter vehicles to save lives because the cars are made of Sh*t....You can't win

The future of energy

Mike, San Diego — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:42:48 GMT

I still believe the ultimate cure for our energy woes and the best future for the US as well as the world is Nuclear Power and electric/hybrid cars (total electric has its problems still) .....I have no doubt that is where we will ultimately end up when the political winds die down. The amount of solar panels and wind farms required to create the same Megawatts as one conventional reactor is huge. I am an engineer for a nuclear power plant in So Cal and have much experience in fossil plants and oil refineries. There are new generations of PWR and BWR reactors that are safer and more efficient being built in China. Think of it this way, if the world would have "written off" the Ford model A.....would we have the Lexus? Look how far technology has advanced because it was allowed to grow. The fact is, the PROs far outweigh the CONs for nuclear power. It's clean and "minimizes" our dependency on oil. This nuclear waste issue is very overblown. The technology exists to recycle and reduce the used fuel to a substantial smaller physical size. France has recycled for years...We cannot thanks to Jimmy Carter. I understand the concern of biproducts and waste but I feel the recycled waste is very manageable .... and I also understand the concern for oil dependency and pollution. Believe it or not, every reactor operating in the US still has every bit of fuel it has ever burned still on its site. Whereas every fossil plant (oil & coal) has Mega Tons of fuel biproducts in our air and water. Maybe some other technologies will arise in the future, but in the meantime this is a proven technology.

The future of energy

Joe, Galloway, NJ — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 11:49:47 GMT

Why no mention of the solar thermal towers in this article? Spain has two working, and I believe Mesa power is building one. The cost to build is about the same as a coal or nuclear facility, but after that initial cost to build, it pretty much runs off the Sun. It's not like we don't have enough deserts to building these facilities.

I think the plan should be a combination of wind, solar, solar thermal, and using fossil fuels as sort of a stabilizer on the grid. Windmill technology has advanced so far that there are designs that can work in just about any area. Solar panel are a no-brainer. Just start putting them wherever you can. Start building the solar-thermal towers in the desert TODAY. Of course, this is going to cost billions, but I figure if we can spend $10 billion a month in Iraq and hand over $750 billion to idiot bankers, we can find the money to save our energy future.

The future of energy

Farvoyager-Payette Idaho — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 11:49:48 GMT

I have been working on a magnetic torque system for several years. Building a generator inside out produces high amps, and low volts without a sine wave.
Do you think such an idea would help?
You might want to look at the tempature of liquid hydrogen...it's a killer. Better batteries would be nice, but from where I sit a better generator would do far more good...and it doesn't have any side effects, or unwanted byproducts.
And I need more capitol to develop it, so it can be placed inside of a vehicle, it's nearly ready for that step, yet everyone else is running around yelling 'the sky is falling'.
It's just a thought. I'm 67 yrs. old, so this thought will soon be gone, and you can return to grasping at straws, children.
One last thing. I see it placed within a forty five mile an hour scooter. But then I no longer need your cars, trucks, and SUV's to get around, nor do I share in your insatiable greed.
Like I said, it's just a thought.

The future of energy

Fran k Weigert, Wilmington, DE — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 12:39:53 GMT

Botryococcus braunii is a pelagic algae that grows in the Indian Ocean. Its various strains make isoprene oligomers with different average molecular weights, mostly centered around n=6. What matters most is that the dry weight of the most prolific strain is OVER 70% HYDROCARBON. This is algae truly is a fuel plant.

Oil companies could feed these hydrocarbons directly into existing refineries. Electricity generators could directly replace coal with them. Because the hydrocarbons contain no sulfur, nitrogen, metals or ash, most existing pollution abatement and catalyst guard investment could be shut down as unnecessary. This is a really sweet feedstock.

For more details and some economic background see the website:

http://alum.mit.edu/news/WhatMatters/Archive/200111/

The future of energy

Chris, Asheville, NC — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 13:52:46 GMT

In a previous job in alumni relations in 1999, I met an alum of my then employer who worked at Argonne National Lab. He had on his wall outside his office research on storing electricity so that power plants could work on a constant production cycle 24/7/365. He said the research was very promising and could be implementing within 10 years. But, government funding had been cut off under pressure from the energy lobby. Constant production would mean lower costs for fuel, lower costs in wages and lower costs overall. Seems to me this could get revived.

The future of energy

Sanford Kaplan, Denver, Colorado — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:19:41 GMT

Several previous writers have addressed the issue of "sacrafice" and the need to make some changes now that will help us in the long-term. Americans have a bad habit of usually thinking in a short-term mode, however, a crisis as large as the one we face requires national thinking of a different order.

1. MOST of the suggestions in this column and the email responses to the article have a great deal of merit and require some serious attention - especially those that advocate a move towards a far-better mass transit system than we have at present.
2. For the next 10-20 years, whether we like it or not, fossil fuels are going to continue to provide the backbone of our energy program. Therefore, paying attention to Peak Oil - that is real - is of great importance. All of the changes that we contemplate in terms of new technology sound good, but it will still take time to get there. In the meantime, old-reliable oil, gas, coal, and yes, even uranium, will continue to power the world.
3. It is not a new idea, but one excellent short-term fix is to sell to the American public the need for a national tax on fuel. This tax should apply across the board, and the funds raised should be used to develop some of the new technologies mentioned in this article, as well as, in the meantime, wean us away from the waste of using precious oil reserves for something as mundane as pushing our SUVs around the corner looking for a parking place right in front of the supermarket. Walk, maybe? They do it in Europe and other places that are significantly more fuel-efficient than we are! It might help our health insurance problem, as well. I know that taxes are ALWAYS A HARD SELL but I also believe that Americans are smart enough to understand the long-term effects of what continuing down the current path of a stupid energy policy. If sold the right way, this could help tremendously. Perhaps the tax should be an adjustable tax so as to keep the price of fuel higher when it is low, such as it is (relatively speaking) now, and it can be reduced as the economic price of oil goes up.

The future of energy

kenton, Saint Paul MN — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:10:55 GMT

The current financial crisis was created by "feel good" ignorant legislation and greed on Wall Street creating a False Economy using the mortgage market.

Using the energy market to create environmental feel good legislation and a layer of taxes and regulations driving up the cost of energy will eventually have the same result.

Ethanol is a perfect example of government and Wall Street taxing Americans by burning our food in the name of the environment. It is a scam. Should I fear Big Oil more than I should fear Big Corn?

All of the current energy programs based on the LIE that carbon is a pollutant will eventually fail. You cannot build a strong country on a false economy, we just proved that. Environmentalists need the LIE to create FEAR. Without FEAR they could not sell their scam to limit growth in order to save the planet.

Solar, wind, geothermal, bio-fuels, ethanol are not NEW technologies. They feel good but are not yet financially viable. Distorting the energy economy with taxpayer dollars will not change the laws of physics. Technology changes over time and is eagerly accepted when financially viable. “Wishing” a technology was here already with taxpayer dollars is folly.

Too many people are already making money on the carbon scam and selling all things GREEN. It will not be easy to stop. Just as with the mortgage crisis, some people "know the truth" but are saying nothing. It is politically incorrect to say anything negative about the Climate Change Religion.

We will have an even bigger financial crisis when the CLIMATE CHANGE ENERGY BUBBLE pops. Perhaps China will bail us out? After all they can afford to because they have plenty of cheap electricity from coal. Or perhaps they will just take over our country, a country weakened by feel good legislation, not from importing oil.

The future of energy

David, Raleigh, NC — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:23:48 GMT

Allen Broyle why do you consider MSNBC a creditable source? MSNBC is nothing but a mouthpiece for a liberal agenda and the Democratic party. Are there other creditable sources that do not have a preconcieved solution that fits the liberal agenda?

The future of energy

Bill, Lebo,Ks — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:38:49 GMT

I am sorry. All this mess is directed at driving to and from work in the cities. I live in a rural area and it is a 30 mile trip, one way, to get to a decent store. I drive a pick-up truck because I need to for the towing and payload. The little mini-cars on electricity will not take the place of these much need types of vehicles. I am retired and like to fish and tow a boat I do not see any plug in boats running around. I have a riding lawn mower I do not see any plug in lawn mowers.

What we need is extremely efficient internal combustion engines that run on gas produced by us thru the use of oil extracted from oil shale and drilled off our coasts.

All this bunk about global warming is just that bunk. It has been colder the last decade than the decade beforel

The future of energy

Bill Higdon, Spring Park, MN — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:09:10 GMT

A lot of useful and intelligent input from a lot of smart people. The trend really appears to be increased use of electricity for transportation. At 2 cents/mile, there is a favorable comparison with gasoline. At the current price of $1.60 (who knows what it will be when you, dear reader, read this) and 25 mpg, your fuel cost is 6.4 cents/mile. There seems to be a good value proposition here. Meanwhile, back at the real world, the electric grid is getting overloaded. All that potential wind power in, say, North Dakota can't get to you in in Chicago or even Minneapolis because the wires may already be full. Sure, we can add wires, but in the real world you have permits to get, financing to set up, rights of way with NIMBYs galore, and time to actually construct everything. Now, we could deploy effective storage to save that power at the wind farms (or solar farms) until there is room on the wires. Then, you store it in batteries in you PHEVs or my personal favorite, flywheel batteries without the ridiculous parasitic losses of what's on the market today.

The future of energy

Alan, Kansas City, MO — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:25:09 GMT

Back in the mid to late 80's, I was the manager of a Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) pilot program. Our office ran a fleet of carpool vans on CNG. Worked pretty well, saved some money doing it, the payoff for the equipment at that time was about 4 years.

However, we're a very myopic group, us Americans. Every time companies that were producing this type of equipment started to pop up and become even remotely profitible, the Saudi's would flood the market with oil and the price would drop. We would get amnesia and become intoxicated on the cheap gasoline, we'd stop buying these technologies and the companies producing this equipment would then go out of business.

We must refuse to allow this cycle to continue. We must divest ourselves of this amnesia we seem to keep contracting. When the price of oil is cheap we MUST CONTINUE TO MOVE AHEAD ON ALTERNATIVE FUELED VEHICLES.

I think that's what's happening now. Oil got expensive, everyone started clamoring for alternative fuel vehicles, so the Saudi's flooded the market (as they have so many times in the past and will continue to do in the future) with cheap oil.

The future of energy

Bill Rowling Tacoma, Washington — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:49:53 GMT

I convert gas cars to electric starting at $12,500. There are 10s of thousands of electric conversions on our highways today. Many of the drivers charge their car with solar on their roof and get paid to drive. Incentives need to be placed on electric conversions too not just new expensive hybrids.

The future of energy

Jim San Marcos California — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:09:46 GMT

I think it will be a painful path to energy independence. The political will can wane during moments of cheap fossil fuels, which we are once again experiencing. It seems we only get interested in alternative energy sources when it hits us squarly in the wallet. I hope PE Obama can continue this push toward cleaner domestic energy sources even if oil hits $20 a barrel. Energy is a climate AND national security issue. To paraphrase a quote I heard the other day: "We borrow from the Chinese and give it to the Arabs. Essentially we borrow money from those that want to dominate us and give money to those who want to kill us." And along the way we are destroying our environment.

The future of energy

DemoCat, Bellingham WA — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:23:33 GMT

Nuclear power is the only answer. Everything else is a pipe dream that may take 50 years to pan out. We already have over 100 active nuclear plants pumping out 20% of our electricity with no problem at all. Build new, modern plants to replace and supplement the existing plants; get Yucca built and ready, since we've ALREADY got to find a permanent and safe solution to the EXISTING nuclear waste sitting around all over the country; and then let's get on with saving the planet and ridding ourselves of the foreign oil habit. We can become almost completely self-reliant and green with proven, existing technology practically overnight, no doubt about it. Why wait for wind power and solar to mature? We've got a far superior solution already, just waiting for the go-ahead. It would be no more expensive then any of the other alternatives, since costs would come down radically with the use of proven, standardized installations rather then individual custom designs. IMO, we should figure out the best design and build about 400 plants ASAP. Then we can leave the lights on all night, and who would care? Conservation, wind, solar, thermal may well be factors and some may have a future, but WE WON'T have much of a future unless we get this solved right now.

The future of energy

Daniel Draffen, Madison, Alabama — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:33:40 GMT

The Future of Energy:
Electric rail will replace airlines and interstate highway travel. Emphasis should be put first and formost on developing highly efficient electric rail transport. Airlines have no future and will be mostly gone in a couple of decades.

Plug-in electric cars (fully electric) will take care of individual local travel. Local is defined as 10 to 20 mile roundtrip. People will live within 5 or 10 miles of work and school or else walk or drive to a rail station and complete their commute. Long distance "interstate" car travel will be a thing of the past. Also, average speeds for cars will be around 30 mph. Ashphalt and concrete will become very expensive in the near future so roads will become smaller and built of other materials.

Manufacturing will become much more localized. Large scale global trade, except for key commodities, will mostly be curtailed. Cottage industries and small scale manufacturing firms will spring up in may communities. Made in China will become an obsolete concept. The cost of long distance transport will curtail most international shipping, except for certain key commodities.

Big box stores will give way to smaller shops. A local market system will mostly replace malls, strip malls and big box stores. These local markets will make better use of the limited energy resources of the future.

Nuclear is a non starter. It is very dangerous (think Chernobyl and Pripyat) and costly to implement. Safe nuclear waste disposal is impractical or impossible. Nuclear materials in the hands of the wrong people poses a grave threat.

The new energy era should focus on building a new infrastructure based on electrified rail transport as the main foundation for moving people and goods long distance and the use of electric vehicles and electrified public transport for short distance travel and goods transport. Investing huge sums in the Interstate Highway System, however, would be a very bad investment considering it is mostly obsolete.

D. Draffen

The future of energy

Ed Pleskovitch,Ill. — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:36:12 GMT

Some great ideas here and then of course the usual nay sayers.One problem that I have seen on TV is that our electric transportation system(high lines)is antiquated and needs to be upgraded before we can expect to have an efficient dependable way to move electricity around this country.It does no good if the power lines can't take the load.That is a job that could produce many jobs in all phases of the construction trades.
I have heard of the worble effect and believe it to be true,but so what Geoff.We do need to reduce our footprint on this planet and renewable can help.We do need to clean up the air,water,and land.Nuclear power has too many deficits to be good for us or the plant and coal is not "clean" and may never be.This is a situation that is prime for people to make a change on how we live on this planet.Now is the time to conserve,not to keep expecting more,more,more!This is an opportunity and we should see it as that and clean up our act as well as the planet.It is like a stock portfolio,diversify and succeed.

The future of energy

Phil, Royersford Pa — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:47:55 GMT

Regarding "All we're doing is transferring the source of pollution from cars to electricity generators" The energy conversion rate at an electric plant is somewhere around 65%. The energy conversion rate of your car is less than 15%. So there is considerable benefit there

The future of energy

Karl D. Borglum, Marathon, Florida — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:05:06 GMT

Electric cars are the future of transportation for America. The technology exists today to park your car at night, charge the battery from solar power gathered during the day and never buy petroleum products or electical power from any grid. That set of fact scares the energy industry to death and they have worked diligently to maintain the status quo complete with dissinformation. We are exporting the wealth of America for energy that we already own. The cost of energy is a slow bleed that Americans have endured for decades and its time to realise that we can change our energy economy for a better and more independent country.

The future of energy

Ron, Tampa Florida — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:35:16 GMT

Add a $1 per bulb fee on inefficient incandescent bulbs to fund the strt-up/incentive programs. Dual rewards are $$s we need now, and reduced use of incandescents. We add taxes to gasoline, cigarettes, liquor, other utilities, etc to "pay" for their negative impacts and resultant remediation programs, so do the same here. Do we really need super hot halogens in our homes (especially if we then have to run the A/C to cool the same air)? Add the fee to them, too. Why reward the inefficient and wasteful that then impacts us all.

Since CFLs, and now some of the newer LEDs, produce equivalent light for much less electricity, this will "produce" an electric power availability through reduced consumption, avoiding the need for new power plants (at least for a while).

And as a moderate Republican, I really don't have a problem watching the oil and power companies squirm through a little of the pain the rest of us are feeling. Become efficient or perish. Ditto the Big 3 automakers... no bailout!

Ron

The future of energy

Dan, Houston, Texas — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:47:50 GMT

Just keep in mind this is a "tax". Regardless of the approach, our energy costs/unit will increase. You may be able to offset this some via conservation, but for the most part, it's an increase. The cost to produce electricity, in order of cheapest to most expensive is: Water dams, coal, gas, nuclear, and wind. The more you shift to wind, the higher the price per unit. And, if you add cap & trade requirements to coal and gas, the price goes even higher.
It's great to be green, but we are going to pay an arm and a leg for it.

The future of energy

Ron from Elk PA — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:46:20 GMT

Change the law so we can generate electricity on out own property and sell the surplus back to the grid. PA has us blocked.

The future of energy

Mark, NYC — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 20:48:15 GMT

I think fission is going to be the most cost-effective solution. It costs 2 cents/kwh and is available when we need it.

People have raised concerns about waste, but the fact is that nuclear waste actually becomes less radioactive than the ore it was mined from after 500 years. On top of that, if we recycle spent fuel (reprocess it via a sodium-cooled breeder reactor), as is done in France, we can actually eliminate all radioactivity after 500 years.

I hope wind and solar can work- and wind is starting to get cheap, but we need to have an economically feasible backup strategy that doesn't generate any more greenhouse gases than wind and solar. That's

The future of energy

nkycarbon — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 20:51:56 GMT

“pain-free path to the future of energy”

Quite simply there isn’t one but…

Where funding comes from and where it goes needs to be sperate.

Getting funding…

Cap and Trade needs to be put in place.

The legislation needs to be passed next year and the companies have asked and will need time to comply, possibly up to 4 years. Non-C02 emitters like nuclear should not get emission credits. The goal of the program should be to reduce up to 40% of CO2 emissions or full implementation of algae sequestering at the site whichever is lower in a certain amount of time. This is not to say that companies have to do algae but they have to do at least that amount. The goal for anything after that should wait a few years.

Gasoline Tax

The current federal gasoline tax is 18.4. Legislation should be passed now that tripled this to 55.2 cent a gallon if gas is under $2 for a year and we are not in recession. The tax should be doubled to 36.8 cents if gas is under $3 for a year and we are not in recession. This is our commitment not to let industries die by cheap gasoline.

Spending funding…

Fusion.

ITER should continue to be funded. In addition Polywell Fusion should be funded along with any other investigation in alternatives. This is a long shot but it needs to be funded and we need to act on climate change as if nothing will come of it.

Fission

Outside of research of a new nuclear fission cycle no further support is necessary. Fission will grow on it’s own as a result of cap and trade and needs no assistance. Above ground cask storage is what we have to plan on for the time being. “Wet log” burning should be explored as a clean up option.

Clean-coal

It has it’s share of funding. It is time to cut it off after the existing project are done. The exception would be algae demo projects.

Plug-In hybrids

It will be a long time before we get fully plug in cars. Have the big 3 bail out be paid back in plug-in electric hybrids to the federal fleet. The federal government may want to consider giving some of these to state and local governments. That will put the Big 3 to work and produce something usable.

Solar/Wind

Make sure they have some type of planned incentive for the next decade so that business plans can be made. Funding high for 2 years then no funding is bad for planning. There should be some kind of planned removal of incentives.

Ethanol/Bio-fuel

I would have said remove the blending credit but with gas prices so low it needs to stay in effect until a gas tax is implemented. Coal-to-Liquid does not seem viable. Where is methanol and butanol development? Do they need funding?

Biochar

This is only way to remove carbon from the air and improve land. Research on every biomass input and soil type needs to be done.

The future of energy

Charlotte Wales, Monticello, AR — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 22:15:30 GMT

Your link to algae energy takes me to wave energy - can you re-set that link? We have 3 new algae plants being built starting in January '09 here in the Arkansas Delta, and I'm fascinated!

[ALAN ADDS: Sorry about that! The comment has been corrected, and just because you've been so nice about it, I added an extra link to the comment about algae power. Yay for pond scum!]

The future of energy

Dwight Johnson, Jackson, Missouri — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 22:43:30 GMT

If these policies are brought to fruition--you can kiss the US goodbye in the global economy.. Why do you think Europe and China are going nuclear? That's so they can warm their countries when the Global Warming Myth is finally exposed. Al Gore is a Traitor--plain and simple. By the way--so was his old man--he taught his son well just ask anyone from Tennessee.

The future of energy

Jay W, Salem, OR — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 23:12:30 GMT

There are 4 factors for any strategy on energy:

- expandability: who quickly can it be realistically implemented? What about public perception?
- saturation: how far can it be developed? Will it provide power for almost everything, or only a small fraction of power needs?
- investment: how much will it cost to convert to? How much money will be saved?

Of the strategies mentioned, it is clear that plug-in hybrids are the best (but not ideal) strategy. It gets good marks in capital investment and saturation--there are a LOT of cars and energy used, and it could power all of them. It only gets so-so marks on expandability, though--it will take years to replace a significant portion of the US auto fleet, not to mention the world's. To counter this, having energy production centralized in large power plants will be significantly less costly and more efficient than having it decentralized into a fossil fuel engine in every car.

The knocks against other strategies are:

fuel cells: high cost, and they actually wear out faster than rechargeable batteries. Research needs to be done to make them last longer

nuclear: actually a good option except for expandability (public perception). Waste production is much better with newer technology, but the problem is still not a thing of the past

efficiency: actually a good option right now, since our current power infrastructure is quite inefficient. However, it is not a very expandable strategy, since as you make it more efficient with things like electricity storage, smart grids, etc, you reach a point of diminishing returns in the future.

geothermal: I did not see this in the article, but this is a very good strategy. New geothermal energy requires drilling deep to tap heat from the lower crust, unlike current geothermal that can only work when heat is near the surface (like in Yellowstone). This can be done anywhere in theory. It gets good marks in all three areas, since the technology exists already (oil drilling infrastructure), it can be done anywhere, and the only additional investment beyond oil drilling and traditional power plants would be specialized generators and heat exchangers.

The future of energy

Bob Munck, Haymarket, VA — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 00:07:44 GMT

SUPERGRID is a design for an underground energy pipeline carrying liquid hydrogen and electricity in superconductors (cooled by, ta-da, the liquid hydrogen) at extremely high efficiency and in multiple-gigawatt quantities. Current estimates put its cost at about $1 million per kilometer, so a "backbone" spanning the entire country through all major population centers would cost several tens of billions of dollars. Having a very efficient long-distance energy transmission system would change a lot of the parameters of future energy systems.

Supergrid has the interesting feature that it STORES large amounts of energy in the hydrogen and the E-M field produced by the conductors.

http://www.w2agz.com/PMG%20SuperGrid%20Home.htm

The future of energy

Tom Thomsen, Stillwater, Mn — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 01:09:05 GMT

The nuclear solution everyone should learn about is the Integrated Fast Reactor. This design has been built by Argonne National Labs and tested at their western test facility. Please Google to learn all about it. The features that are orders of magnitude improvements over today's nuclear power plants are:
1. A huge reduction in radioactive waste. It can also consume existing spent fuel now stored on site at nuclear plants across the U.S. It's own spent fuel can be reenriched and then reused.
2. A huge improvement in safety. It has built in passive features that allow orderly shutdown after failures that in today's reactors would be catastrophic. These have been tested and proven.
3. Almost zero proliferation risk. This is because extraction of fissionable material from the spent fuel is orders of magnitide more difficult than from the current nuclear waste. Also the spent fuel never leaves the site, but is returned to the reactor.
Funding for continuation of this project was cancelled in the late 1990's for whatever reason, either lack of motivation to continue or it was not politically correct. The design remains in the records and construction can be restarted.
We have already thrown away 30 years since the U.S. abandoned nuclear, essentially out of irrational fear. Nuclear power is the only realistic solution to providing the additional energy to power our automobiles/trucks electrically, or to generate the hydrogen necessary to power them with hydrogen. Remember, the energy you can get out of batteries can be no more than the energy you put into charging the batteries. The energy spent obtaining hydrogen can be no more than energy required to separate the hydrogen out of a water molecule (electrolysis). There is nothing we can do about it, and wind or solar cannot provide the huge amount of energy required to accomplish this.

The future of energy

nick nick,Wpb,Florida — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 02:59:17 GMT

It's more than time to stop these coal powered plants to be built in this country....Who is behind these projects that are slowly destroying our lives.

The future of energy

Dan S, Dallas, TX — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 03:18:38 GMT

I want to say up front that the point of this comment is not to provide another solution or refute someone else's idea. The point it to bring a broader perspective on the issue, and how we, as humans, can affect the world around us. The fact is, there are multitude of wonderful ideas here, that, if thought through from the root source to the final solution, will provide phenomenal opportunities for reaching a balance between 'good stewardship' of this planet and 'economic responsibility' towards our families and others.

Physics will always limit our abilities. There are 2 basic parts to the law of conservation. 1) Energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed, simply converted from one form to another. 2) The transformation between energy and matter is not perfect. There are byproducts which limit the efficiency. It is simply a matter diminishing returns. Efficiency dictates how much energy we can convert out of matter, so, yes, it is important to understand efficiency as it relates not only to power generation, but also to transmission, storage, and ultimately to consumption. Even in a simple system, we lose potential energy converting gas to electricity via the motor. We lose more potential energy transmitting that power to the equipment that needs it in the form of resistance (which ends up being released as heat mostly). And finally, at the devices themselves, we lose even more of the potential energy coverting electricity to the form we need it to take, whether light, or heat, or mechanical motion, etc.

So, where do we increase efficiency? Local sources of energy and shorter transmission ranges would help. Alternative fuel sources with supporting technology to get more 'bang for your buck' helps. Utilizing less energy by using 'human' power (aka, walking, manual labor, etc.) helps. In just this small subset, we see that 3 small contributions make a bigger contribution.

As to whether or not global warming is a myth, there is simply not enough relevant data to determine the causes of previous climate changes. We cannot say that we are causing the warming trend conclusively, but we are certainly not helping in any way.

When will these changes come about? When people are sick enough of the status quo. That is when you will see a shift. In the meantime, free market economies will continue to run on profits which are severely limited by restructuring facitilities and processes, and socialist economies will continue to run on distributing the wealth evenly as it exists with little driving force to create or implement new technologies when the old work just fine.

So, while you ladies and gentlemen ponder the all inclusive and complicated issue, ask yourselves, "At what point is enough, enough? When will I do something personally rather than wait on government or industry to do something for me?" It is going to elbow grease and time by all of us. Are you willing?

The future of energy

sean ross barnesville, ga — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 03:21:02 GMT

I thinkwe should use a plug in hybrid carpowered by biodiesel fueled engine.

It works well for trains. trains are diesel electric.

Second we should use waste from livestock, fish and poultry plants. these could be cooked at high temperatures and pressures in a cogeneration scheme from a nuclear or conventional fuel fired power plant.

you could toss in oil from recycled plastics and rubber as well as all types of recycled cooking oils.

combined with recycled lubricating oils from cars we could en our fuel dependency once and for all.

and about trains we could fire them from garbage, nuclear power, wind, solar.

I favor taking vegetable and fruit waste, pulp from plants that make seed oils, tree and yard trimmings and recycled wood from a variety of sources and making ethanol/ methanol and then burn the left over pulp to make power.

couple this with new solar panels printed on bio engineered plastics and use the power to charge up new lithium ion batteries grown on these bio plastics using engineered viruses.

They will be cheaper than current equivilents, higher power densities and sustainable.

This is just my thoughts as the technologies now exist to do these things.

It culd all be done under a public works type program.

The future of energy

Bill, Gibsonton, FL — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 04:38:24 GMT

For e. vanover - Compressed air is stored in a tank. When the air is released and used as the fuel source, the compressor kicks on and refills the tank as it's being used. The compressor is powered by electricity. The electricity comes from the alternator powered from the engine that's running on compressed air. Where do you think the electrical power comes from in you car? The trucking industry uses this technology today and has been using it for decades now. How do you think their brakes work? Where do you think the trucks air tanks get their compressed air supply to work the brakes? They have a compressor that's powered by electricity. Do you people really have your heads burried in the sand? The only thing that has to be changed in our cars today is the fuel source. Instead of Gasoline, we just use compressed air to power the engine. It's a completely closed system. For more detailed info everyone should see this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztFDqcu8oJ4&feature=related

It's really a no brainer. Like I said yesterday, the answer is right in front of everyones face and no one wants to see it. Good luck with your fuel burning future!

The future of energy

Marc, Reading, PA — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 05:31:20 GMT

Alan,
Great article. A PHEV would be a great option for me. I live in a small city and most of my driving is "around town". The problem is that where I live, the only parking is "On Street" parking. Were would I "Plug In"? I usually have to park around the corner from my house! I don't think a 300 foot extension cord would work. Also, what would stop someone from un-plugging my car and plugging in their car? Or stealing the cord? I have yet to see these problems addressed in any article on EV's.
Another problem is, if the batteries are Lithium Ion and the car catches fire, how do you put out the fire? I've asked a firefighter friend of mine and was told "we let it burn"!
Thanks

The future of energy

Bob Redell, Chicago, Illinois — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 08:43:46 GMT

It is kind of unfortunate that vested intrests have turned the debate to a question of how we can continue our energy use without any lifestyle changes. A gradual change in demographics, people choosing homesites at least partly influenced by distance from their workplace, schools and stores would be a start.

A reduction of transportation and trade subsidies geared toward encouraging the purchace of regional foods and products culd bring major changes. Houses built smaller, ceilings lower, with a new generation of solar panel shingles on the roof. Anything else that will help us to REDUCE CONSUMPTION.

An optional but well funded global campaign for a one child policy until our total numbers are down to a managable two billion or so persons could actually save and even restore what appears to be a ruined world. Regions that will not limit their numbers should not be forced to do so, rather their populations should be allowed to feed and otherwise provide for themselves within their region, without outside help or mass emigration to less densly populated places. If that seems harsh, consider the relative unpleasantness of 20 billion people fighting over the last unspoiled can of beans.

The main argument I have heard against reintroducing truly effective reductions in overall usage patterns is that reduced demand for products and services will lead to reduced demand for workers. A measured reduction in the workweek from fourty hours to, lets say twenty eight hours maximum should address those concerns, unless your real concern is to get the maximum out of everyone and everything in your reach. In that case, you are part of the problem, and standing in the way of the solution.

The future of energy

Noral Walker Hesperia California — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 09:12:09 GMT

It's sad that it took another energy crisis(77-80) for us to say let's change the way we consume and use energy?.
We have nummerous ways and abilities that are very effcitve from solar,geothermal,windmills,fuel-cells, and my favorite micro generators and the list goes on, but none of these will make a diffrence unless there's a way to "STORE ENERGY"??!!(eco friendly,compact,low maint.,and maintains a storage capacity of 60-72hrs min.)that's to be used for later use and this I believe is the true answer to our energy problem weather its energy for our cars, home or business. Also allowing the E-Grid to shift and store energy from one area to another would also be beneficial?.

The future of energy

Charles Myhre, Brunswick,GA — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:19:28 GMT

Natural gas is clean plenty full and easy to convert to any internal combustion engine, 50 years ago I drove a livestock truck that run on natural gas, oil stayed clean twice as long, valves and the whole engine stayed gunk free. Hardly any pollution, you could run the truck in a closed room and not get carbon monoxide poisoning.

The future of energy

J Stewart , Cottonwood , AZ. — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:40:48 GMT

As noted everywhere ...We need to restore "Jobs for the Masses" -- How about doing just that with the building of a National Rainwater Distribution Canal--
from Coast to Coast -- capable of controling excesses due to flooding and redistribution of natural water sources to arid sections of the Country-- WHILE at the same time providing Hydro-Electric Generating Plants linked to strategically located dams - in compliance with supporting a newly engineered national electrical grid ,as needed to go green and support increased power supplies for Electric Transportation- IE.(cars , trains, intercoastal shipping , etc)

The future of energy

Bill — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:15:42 GMT

I just want to mention one more thing and then I will not say anything else on Compressed Air as a replacement energy source here. The whole issue about alternate fuel sources and why we are looking for them has been sparked from "Global Warming". That means our atmosphere is heating up. Now if you are going to counter Global Warming, then you have to reduce the amount of heat being pumped into the atmosphere. Anything we use as a fuel source that has to be burned, is adding heat to the atmosphere. Gasoline has to be burned. Hydrogen has to be burned. Natural Gas has to be burned. Solar power is fine, but it's not dependable. Wind turbines are fine, but they too are not always dependable. Compressed Air is an extremely cheap form of energy. But the most important part about using compressed air, is it's exhaust. The exhaust is pure breathable air. Not only that, it's "COLD AIR". Did you all get that? "COLD AIR". The exhaust from Compressed Air is "Cold Air". The only cheap, easily produced, unlimited supply of energy we have that will counter "Global Warming" is Compressed Air. On a much larger scale, it can be used to power the turbines in our Electrical Power Plants. We don't need to use Coal, or Gas or Oil to turn water to steam to power the turbines. Compressed air can do that. We don't need to build any Nuclear Power Plants that produce toxic waste that no one wants burried in their back yards. If we are going to counter Global Warming, then we can't be spending billions of dollars on Hydrogen Fuel Cell research that in the end is only going to increase the Glodal Warming problem because Hydrogen has to be burned. If our millions and millions of automobiles in this country right now were riding around pumping "COLD AIR" back into our atmosphere, and all our electrial Power Plants where producing clean power and also pumping "COLD AIR" back into our atmosphere, then we would be reversing the process without putting any more CO2 emissions, pollutants, and heat into our atmosphere. I've enjoyed the discussion here. I hope you have too. Here's another video to further explain whats being done with Compressed Air: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm8RCww3cUY&feature=related

The future of energy

average joe — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 21:53:14 GMT

I ran across this thread by accident. Im just an average guy with a thought. The reason the majority of americans don't convert to all these fancy green cars is simple. The new "energy efficent" cars are always these tiny slow things that look like they came as a prize in a happy meal. We americans, for whatever reasons like our cars either big or fast. It really doesn't matter which. If you had a car that ran on south asian monkey droll, but could be competative in a nascar race, we'd be lined up around the block to get one. Im sure its not "green" to think that way, but it's how most of us americans work. And telling us that the end of the world is coming won't make us like granola or drive a gocart. But if yah trick us by showing us that it's faster or bigger (jet engines and tail fins come to mind), we won't care what it runs on. Just impress us with the package and we'll buy anything. Just a thought, hope somebody figures it out.

The future of energy

jay failing captain cook hawaii — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:34:46 GMT

Petrochemicals will be needed for lubrication and solid goods (plastics, etc.) Conserve them for that. Several alternatives will emerge as workable.
Needs to be laws prohibiting intentional suppresion
or hiding of energy solutions by Corporations.
We are nearing crossroads of change or die.
I agree with several others above, hydrogen from water. Surely splitting it off at last minute before
carb or combustion chamber will avoid the problems of sequestering.
I am of the opinion many solutions have been suppressed and hidden intentionally and were available for even decades.
Record profits for oil companies. Let them bail out the auto industry.
Set your will and work towards the change, it will be actually fun...unless you are funding the developement. Let's do this thing. Non-violence always.

The future of energy

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 02:45:35 GMT

John Doe : "Because we now have to put 25 airbags in these lighter vehicles to save lives because the cars are made of Sh*t....You can't win"

LOL...exactly !

The future of energy

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 05:21:16 GMT

"Use wind and solar to create hydrogen and then convert that into electricity on demand anywhere with fuel cells. 100% green and transportable.

I agree with that in essence, but hydrogen is still difficult stuff to *store.*

"Hydrogen,Hydrogen,Hydrogen
Why aren't more people thinking Liquid Hydrogen?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_hydrogen

Hydrogen has to be brought down pretty close to absolute zero to be liquefied. That means, at the very least, lots of insulation. And it's a *low-density* liquid. A cubic foot of it weighs only four pounds (a cubic foot of water weighs 62.5 pounds), so you have to have *big* insulated tanks for a useful amount.

And now you know why the space shuttle external tank is as big as it is. If it behaved more like, say, liquid nitrogen,it would be easier to keep liquid and would need smaller(=lighter) tanks to contain a given mass of it. Hydrocarbon fuels (gasoline) have the advantage of high density, and room temperature handling.

There will be limits on its usefulness in ground transportation unless that can be solved. Fortunately, quite a few people are working on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_storage

The future of energy

James W Makepeace - London, England — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:39:08 GMT

It would be great if we could just run everything on totally clean renewables, but the hard reality is that the energy demand is much too high for that to be achievable. Nevertheless we must do all we can to improve the efficiency of renewable energy systems. We MUST stop burning fossil fuels as soon as possible, partly because these priceless assets are fast running out (they are much too valuable to be wasted by burning them to run stupid great SUV's etc)and partly because of the damage we are doing to the enviroment with the CO2 produced. The only other ways of making enough energy are nuclear fusion and nuclear fission. Fusion is key, but it's not here yet. We can no longer hide from the challenge of controlling it, neither can we keep pretending that it will be easy to crack, with only a small amount of funding (pocket money by oil-industry standards). There is no doubt that nuclear fission makes high-level and long-lasting nuclear waste, but it is the only alternative we have right now and, if we are responsible enough to handle the engineering and management challenges properly (unlike the mess in Chernobyl for example), fission is the only thing we can bring to bear right now to solve the short term problem. Most sensible governments woke up to that a few years ago, even though they couldn't admit to it at the time, because the "N-word" was so very dirty among the "greens" of the world. The hard reality is that we need fission for now (we have to build one more generation of the safest possible fission reactors...but eventually we can get rid of it for good. Finally there is fusion. The electro-magnetic confinement approach (ITER in France)is promising but will take a very long time to deliver. Nevertheless we must push forward with this project, because it looks likely to provide the base-load needed to run national power grids. Then there is laser driven fusion. It's very new, but also VERY promising. It's only been around a few years, but aleady it is approaching the stage where a demonstration reactor can be attempted. The knowledge behind laser fusion is the ultimate example of "swords turned into ploughshares"... the science is derived from nuclear weapons research in the past, but the result today is nothing to do with bombs and everything to do with finding a seriously viable energy source for the long term future. The bi-products are helium and a very small amount of low-level radioactivity. No problem to handle ! The fuel seems almost too good to be true... two isotopes of hydrogen... Deuterium and Tritium. Ultimately, the source of fuel for the system is sea water ... and we have more than enough of that to outlast the earth as a viable living environment ! A European project is now in development. It's called "HiPER", and will use giant lasers firing repeatedly to trigger fusion in a sequence of tiny pellets of fuel, capturing the energy from each event to produce what looks set to be a massive excess... the huge energy benefit locked up in atoms during the Big Bang which created them ! There is a film explaining the process... http://www.hiper-laser.org/hiper_dvd01.wmv
Then there is another variant of laser fusion coming along, which may well be an answer to multiple problems we have already created for ourselves... the project is a hybrid fusion/fission system, which uses the energy of a fusion reaction to "burn" spent reactor fuel and, potentially, unwanted nuclear weapons material too. Both of these substances contain vast amounts of un-tapped energy. In the case of "spent" reaactor fuel, the fission process only takes a relatively small percentage of the energy available. The hope is there that a hybrid process will gain a massive energy boost by burning this fuel, while also reducing by a huge percentage the quantity of remaining fuel to be stored... another big saving... not nearly so many "Yuka Mountains" needed ! Let's spend some of that big-oil pocket money and push forward with all of the nuclear fusion techniques. There's no time to do anything else. The only real alternative would be to stick our heads in the sand and wait for the end...