Winds of Change has a roundup on New Energy Currents. It's a great read. It has lots of links and food for thought.
Energy is one of my favorite dead horses to beat. The problem, as I see it, is a simple one:
Oil is the most cost efficient energy producer when you look a the process as a whole. All other alternative fuels have inherent problems that make them unattractive for various reasons.
I've talked about this before and have been batting this one around w/ the guys at De La Where as well. In sum; here's my view of energy production and consumption:
Oil:
1. Oil has been around for over a hundred years and isn't going anywhere any time soon
2. Oil prices have been driven skyward by rapid growth and industrialization in both China and India
3. Upward market pressure is also driven by America's reluctance to drill in Alaska and elsewhere
4. Regulation is a major cause of upward pressure. Emission control standards, NIMBY and 50 odd different mixes of fuels distort the market and give us a higher baseline cost than we would otherwise have.
5. High oil prices are a wet dream for both greenies and Texas Oil Men. Oil companies are making a fortune and greenies are finally seeing real investment in alternative energy. The market has done what they have been unable to do through regulation and taxation.
Geothermal:
Geothermal generators are the ultimate green energy source. There is no waste product, there is no enviromental impact (aside from a hole in the ground and attendant human pollution) and it's theoretically inexhaustible.
The downside is that there are a very limited number of places where geothermal energy is cost effective. Wyoming sits on a massive supervolcano that could be tapped easily. However, there are only 500,000 people in the entire state. There goes your cost effectiveness.
Biodiesel:
Biodiesel is a boon for the states in flyover country. They grow corn in excess that often rots rather than being sold. The flood of corn on the market makes it unprofitable to sell it all. The farmers would love to sell it to an biodiesel plant. Politicians want to see those plants built in their state as it gives them a great deal of cash flow and makes them re-electable.
Depending upon which study you read, biodiesel is/is not a net energy loser. The major problems with biodiesel are physical ones. Water is more abundant in biodiesel than petroleum products. At colder temperatures it becomes crystaline which plays havoc with the motors. Also, that water lowers the combustion point which robs power and wears down seals and hoses much faster than petroleum.
The biodiesel itself also gels at lower temperatures which makes it more viscous and difficult to pump through the system.
Wind:
Great source of energy and underutilized. Not feasible in all areas but in the Great Plains and off either coast would make a great deal of sense. Environmentalists have opposed development due to birds getting chopped up in the blades. In Delaware, wind generators have been blocked by the NIMBY crowd who want to move them beyond the horizong. The problem is the insurance companies won't insure them that far off land so we're deadlocked.
Nuclear:
Another great alternative that is a boogeyman for most people thanks to Silkwood and The China Syndrome. Most people fail to realize that technology has actually progressed in the 30 years since those movies. Nuclear power is safer and more efficient. Those fears play greatly into the mind of politicians who are reluctant to propose such plants. Fears of terrorist attacks on nuclear plants is not unwarranted. The core is designed to survive a direct aircraft strike and even a direct military strike though authorities are mum as to how much of a blast they can stand.
The major downsides of nuclear power are two: danger when something goes wrong at the plant it high and disposal of spend fuel rods. Yucca Mountain is still being held up and will probably be held up indefinitely.
Hydrogen:
Hydrogen is very clean, very powerful and a net energy loser. Unless or until that problem is sorted out, hydrogen is going nowhere
Solar:
Solar power is nice and clean but suffers from scaling problems as well as unreliability. Places like New Mexico, Arizona and Nevada would be wise to work on solar cells. The best hope for them is to become a supplemental energy supply for residential and commercial properties.
Energy is one of my favorite dead horses to beat. The problem, as I see it, is a simple one:
Oil is the most cost efficient energy producer when you look a the process as a whole. All other alternative fuels have inherent problems that make them unattractive for various reasons.
I've talked about this before and have been batting this one around w/ the guys at De La Where as well. In sum; here's my view of energy production and consumption:
Oil:
1. Oil has been around for over a hundred years and isn't going anywhere any time soon
2. Oil prices have been driven skyward by rapid growth and industrialization in both China and India
3. Upward market pressure is also driven by America's reluctance to drill in Alaska and elsewhere
4. Regulation is a major cause of upward pressure. Emission control standards, NIMBY and 50 odd different mixes of fuels distort the market and give us a higher baseline cost than we would otherwise have.
5. High oil prices are a wet dream for both greenies and Texas Oil Men. Oil companies are making a fortune and greenies are finally seeing real investment in alternative energy. The market has done what they have been unable to do through regulation and taxation.
Geothermal:
Geothermal generators are the ultimate green energy source. There is no waste product, there is no enviromental impact (aside from a hole in the ground and attendant human pollution) and it's theoretically inexhaustible.
The downside is that there are a very limited number of places where geothermal energy is cost effective. Wyoming sits on a massive supervolcano that could be tapped easily. However, there are only 500,000 people in the entire state. There goes your cost effectiveness.
Biodiesel:
Biodiesel is a boon for the states in flyover country. They grow corn in excess that often rots rather than being sold. The flood of corn on the market makes it unprofitable to sell it all. The farmers would love to sell it to an biodiesel plant. Politicians want to see those plants built in their state as it gives them a great deal of cash flow and makes them re-electable.
Depending upon which study you read, biodiesel is/is not a net energy loser. The major problems with biodiesel are physical ones. Water is more abundant in biodiesel than petroleum products. At colder temperatures it becomes crystaline which plays havoc with the motors. Also, that water lowers the combustion point which robs power and wears down seals and hoses much faster than petroleum.
The biodiesel itself also gels at lower temperatures which makes it more viscous and difficult to pump through the system.
Wind:
Great source of energy and underutilized. Not feasible in all areas but in the Great Plains and off either coast would make a great deal of sense. Environmentalists have opposed development due to birds getting chopped up in the blades. In Delaware, wind generators have been blocked by the NIMBY crowd who want to move them beyond the horizong. The problem is the insurance companies won't insure them that far off land so we're deadlocked.
Nuclear:
Another great alternative that is a boogeyman for most people thanks to Silkwood and The China Syndrome. Most people fail to realize that technology has actually progressed in the 30 years since those movies. Nuclear power is safer and more efficient. Those fears play greatly into the mind of politicians who are reluctant to propose such plants. Fears of terrorist attacks on nuclear plants is not unwarranted. The core is designed to survive a direct aircraft strike and even a direct military strike though authorities are mum as to how much of a blast they can stand.
The major downsides of nuclear power are two: danger when something goes wrong at the plant it high and disposal of spend fuel rods. Yucca Mountain is still being held up and will probably be held up indefinitely.
Hydrogen:
Hydrogen is very clean, very powerful and a net energy loser. Unless or until that problem is sorted out, hydrogen is going nowhere
Solar:
Solar power is nice and clean but suffers from scaling problems as well as unreliability. Places like New Mexico, Arizona and Nevada would be wise to work on solar cells. The best hope for them is to become a supplemental energy supply for residential and commercial properties.
Comments