Is Al Gore nuts?
In his speech in Constitution Hall this week, former Vice President and renewable energy investor Al Gore extolled a stretch goal challenging America to achieve 100% renewable power within 10 years.
The quote: "Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years." And my favorite part: "When President John F. Kennedy challenged our nation to land a man on the moon and bring him back safely in 10 years, many people doubted we could accomplish that goal. But 8 years and 2 months later, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the surface of the moon."
That statement is about like challenging your 2 year old to finish college by the time she is 12. Not exactly practical, more than a little crazy, and likely to be either ignored, or if you push it, to cause lots of therapy sessions by the time she is 8. I will, however, credit him with getting almost every renewable energy platitude I've ever heard into one succinct speech.
He does raise lots of good points about the need for a new energy policy not built around shipping dollars to the MidEast for oil (a definite must), for long term support for renewables (it is critical for us to get off our fits and starts mish mash idea of renewable energy policy), and for moving faster and larger to fight climate change (a topic near and dear to my heart, and one that is only partially helped by making broad statements about how fast the sky is falling, I mean, the glaciers are melting). In fact, there is no better way to give anti renewable energy and climate change naysayers fuel and ammunition than to make statements like these. Any path we go down, I'd still rather challenge that two year old to do something they can achieve, not try and make it through college by age 12 - especially if I'm asking her to pay for it. Slow and steady wins the race.
The core of Al Gore's argument in his speech on the practicality of a 10 year all renewable energy goal boils down to this quote from his speech on fuels:
"What if we could use fuels that are not expensive, don't cause pollution and are abundantly available right here at home?
We have such fuels. Scientists have confirmed that enough solar energy falls on the surface of the earth every 40 minutes to meet 100 percent of the entire world's energy needs for a full year. Tapping just a small portion of this solar energy could provide all of the electricity America uses.
And enough wind power blows through the Midwest corridor every day to also meet 100 percent of US electricity demand. Geothermal energy, similarly, is capable of providing enormous supplies of electricity for America."
And this one on costs and technology:
"To those who argue that we do not yet have the technology to accomplish these results with renewable energy: I ask them to come with me to meet the entrepreneurs who will drive this revolution. I've seen what they are doing and I have no doubt that we can meet this challenge.
To those who say the costs are still too high: I ask them to consider whether the costs of oil and coal will ever stop increasing if we keep relying on quickly depleting energy sources to feed a rapidly growing demand all around the world. When demand for oil and coal increases, their price goes up. When demand for solar cells increases, the price often comes down."
These quotations, while partially true and very seductive, are highly misleading in this context. The effective conversion rates of that energy to usable electric power or liquid fuel is still horrendously low, and requires lots and lots of capital expenditures, and thousands of miles of new transmission lines to implement. And that's not taking into account the state of technology - as an industry we really are the two year old in my analogy.
So given those conversion rates and the current high capital expenditures per unit of energy, the cost is still 5-20x (depending on what you count) the cost of conventional electric power generation (yes I know, unless you add in the carbon price and environmental externalities, but that's still extra cost any way you slice it . . . unless you'd like to subsidize mine). Frankly no serious analyst is suggesting that within 10 years, given the state of technology and the best case forecast capacity, that solar can make up more than a small single digit fraction of even electricity needs or that wind can make up more than a meaningful minority share (let alone after doubling the global power demand by replacing liquid fuels in cars with electricity, which Al Gore also suggests), especially given lead times on power plants and transmission lines.
Most likely even if the technologies were already cost comparative, which they are not - if you need evidence, just look at our wind and solar industries in their current tizzy because their biggest subsidy programs are up for renewal this year - most analysts wouldn't project a fabled grid parity on cost for renewables for at least the next decade, and certainly not at scale. So Mr. Gore's statements on cost and technology are in part true, but imply a maturity level in these industries that just doesn't exist yet. Given manufacturing scale up issues on the technology, transmission infrastructure requirements at least as large as the new generation requirements, and long lead times on building projects of this size (industry executives point to seven year time frames just to build a single transmission line), probably reaching even significant low double digit percentages of carbon free power within ten years is a stretch (excluding large hydro and nuclear which we already have but are hesitating to expand) across the whole nation. Notwithstanding that California has managed to come close to its target 20% number over the last decade, that's one state leaning on the resources of many states, using the best available sites, federal subsidies paid for from all of our pockets, and that took a decade. When it comes to carbon capture and storage for coal fired generation, a concept with lots of legs - if it works - 10 years just isn't enough time to achieve scale. The first big pilots are scheduled over the next several years, and there are too many unknowns to bet the farm on, without the lead time and capital cost issue. Though still definitely worth trying.
And as far as paying for it, there was an article in the San Francisco Chronicle today calculating our Federal government long term liabilities at $450,000 per American already mainly for Medicare and Social Security. Actually trying to replace our entire fossil fuel infrastructure within 10 years would push that to how much? Somebody please do the math before we launch a government funded mission to the moon, or legislate that our citizens pay for it instead. On costs, Mr. Gore made the statement in his speech "Our families cannot stand 10 more years of gas price increases." I agree, but Mr. Gore, your 10 year, hell for leather, man to moon race for 100% renewable energy would guarantee just that.
So while extolling stretch goals for a two year old is probably a good idea, let's keep it within the realm of possibility, and not just make grandiose statements for media effect. Now if Al Gore's silly challenge on renewable energy was simply a trojan horse to get people talking about how to move forward on fighting climate change and addressing our long standing energy policy issues, I'm all for that and am happy to help. After all, the words Al Gore and climate change make for very searchble blog articles! But personally when I make outlandish statements, I do like to bring an modicum of practicality to the discussion.
I will leave you with one final note, and please remember, I am actually a proponent of the ideals in Al Gore's speech, I just prefer to get there in one piece. One theory on the effect of the history of the man on the moon driven space race that Mr. Gore challenges us to copy basically says that we pushed for a single high profile goal so fast and furious that we effectively skipped ahead and outran our infrastructure and capabilities to get a nonscalable shot at the moon in the target time frame. The theory goes on to suggest that's why after reaching the moon so fast we haven't progressed at the same rate in space since, and had we taken it slower, we would have gotten there a few years behind, but might be on Mars by know. Akin in a military campaign to outrunning your supply chain, and then getting your army surrounded and destroyed - or perhaps invading a country half way around the world, winning the war in weeks and forgetting to prepare for the peace. And just to show that I can deliver as many platitudes in one article as Mr. Gore, that's why you never get involved in a land war in Asia.
Energy and environment are the two pillars of everything in our lives. Mr. Gore and I want the same thing, but he thinks we can't afford not to swing for the fences - I think we can't afford to mess it up.
Neal Dikeman is a founding partner at Jane Capital Partners LLC, a boutique merchant bank advising strategic investors and startups in cleantech. He is the founding CEO of Carbonflow, founding contributor of Cleantech Blog, Chairman of Cleantech.org, and a blogger for CNET's Green Tech blog.
Neal Dikeman is a founding partner at Jane Capital Partners, advising the technology and venture arms of multinational energy companies in clean technology. He also edits and writes the Cleantech Blog. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and is not an employee of CNET. 
http://davespiess.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!54D06A4DDFFEC51B!1894.entry#comment
Government Control of Our Oil
I haven't blogged in a long while but a series of articles I have read today or news pieces I have heard have prompted me to write as they are all related to the price of oil. (Be prepared for math).
As I filled up my Volkswagen TDI Jetta with B20 Bio-Diesel at $4.45 per gallon (for those of you who don't know B20 stands for 20% Bio-Diesel, 80% Dino-Diesel) I thought about the promise of the Democratic Party in 2006 to lower the price of gas. In November 2006 I was paying somewhere between $2.39 and $2.69 for either regular diesel or Bio-D. So right now I am paying $1.80 or so more give or take per gallon.
Over the last couple days I have been paying attention to the show trial grilling Congress has been giving to the Oil Execs. This is the second time this year they have dragged the oil Execs up to Congress to grandstand about the price of oil. For those of you who do not know, Oil companies like Shell, Chevron, Exxon, etc, make approximately $0.08-0.10/gallon. Your federal government makes 18 cents per gallon and your state government takes 18-61 cents per gallon depending on the state you live in.
For years I have been saying in conversations with friends that the reason Oil Prices have risen is not b/c the Oil Companies are evil, but b/c we can't drill, we can't refine, and we can't control the use of oil in other countries like India and China whose consumption is growing astronomically. In a nutshell the government, in usual fashion, is stuck in a 1930s era tax our American companies and restrict our American companies? mode with ZERO concept of how economics work in order to appease their constituents and garner uneducated votes. But with this thought in mind, Maxine Waters (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/571003/congresswoman_maxine_waters_endorses.html) completely blew my mind with her admission of the DNC's policy which until now was only a speculation of conspiracy theorists...
While lashing T. Bone Pickens (yes his real name) and Ken Hofmeister CEO of Shell, she said if ?Liberals like me had our way, we would Socializ....um....Soc....The government would take over all of your companies."(Pardon the slight variation as I was too shocked to type it all out) YES, that is right....Google the audio. http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/05/23/maxine-waters-socialize-the-oil-companies. Lets face it, the DNC has for 35 years been limiting the ability to drill oil and refine oil in this country to demonize and try to take over, Nationalize, Socialize a huge cash cow in this country. Lenin and Stalin did this, Hugo Chavez did this, ever thug running African and Middle Eastern Countries have done this...why not here???
Well lets Socialize and Nationalize our Oil industry...we see doesn't work out so well for other countries like Mexico. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90402097. NPR ran a story this morning and 2 days ago talking about Mexico's Oil Company Pemex (last I checked NPR, not a Conservative source) and how the Mexican Government has raped its profits to the point they have ZERO profit. The Government of Mexico's budget is so dependent on Pemex's taxes, that 40% of their budget comes from PEMEX. 40%!!!!. Their ability to produce oil is dropping as their equipment has been neglected, no new wells have been drilled all b/c Mexico's government has taken all profits so nothing could be re-invested. Apparently, Maxine Waters want to use this broken model for the US...incidentally she has endorsed Al Gore leaning Barak Obama. This Al Gore/DNC, OIL is EVIL; mentality is killing my pocketbook and yours.
In 1970, US production of OIL peeked at 10 Million Barrels of Oil per day. After Government regulation (thanks DNC controlled congress and Jimmy Carter) in 1977 US Oil production has fallen to today?s output of 5 Million Barrels? per day. The entire world supply is 85 million barrels per day yet the demand is 86.4 million. While most Oil Companies in the world are Government run (Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, newly Argentina, newly Venezuela, Mexico, etc) they are all in the same situation as Mexico....pillaging of oil profits for Government use while the ability to produce oil is falling. Rising demand from China and India and falling production equals, pissed off voters with no cash and a propensity to vote DEM when conditions get bad...
Democrats blamed Bush for 6 years on rising gas prices while refusing to pass an energy policy. Liberals, mostly in the Northeast demand Heating Oil subsidies for their homes in the cold winters while complaining about me driving a truck and not allowing us to drill in ANWAR, off the coasts of Florida, the Gulf Coast and California. No Oil refinery has been built since 1973 (three years before I was born). Conspiracy be damned, Maxine Waters has given up the Socialist's playbook in the DNC....THEY WANT TO DRIVE UP THE PRICE OF GAS SO YOU VOTE FOR THEM AND THEY CAN TAKE OVER OUR OIL COMPANIES.... I bet they will drill then to drive the price down to say they did a good job too!!!
Here is a plan by T. Bone Pickens while being interviewed on CNN.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0805/22/gb.01.html
While that is great and good, most of you would say it?s an OIL guy giving a plan...but that oil guy is building a $10 BILLION (yes with a B) Wind Farm....
So here is my plan when I run in 2024, or maybe 2016 as there is not time like the present:
My plan has 3 parts (temporary, short-term, and long-term)
1. Tomorrow start planting crops which can be turned into Bio-Fuel in all highway and expressway medians. This is land which is not used today and takes resources to mow. Lease out the space in each State so they can grow Soybeans, Wheat, Sugarcane, Corn...whatever to make Bio-Fuels. States could gain a revenue source from leasing, and new plants would pop up all over the country to process the fuel.
2. Stop emphasizing Ethanol. Ethanol sucks! Ethanol gets 30% less fuel power than gas and it takes as more power to produce than it creates. So it is only viable if gas is 30% more and they make it for free... Bio-Diesel is the way to go. Diesel gets 40% more fuel power than gas...and yes Bush put EPA rules in place so our diesel fuel and engines are cleaner than Europe?s and release less NO2 than gas now (that is acid rain material).
3. Build Clean Coal plants, and Fischer Trospch Diesel plants. For those of you who don't know (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0418_060418_coal_energy.html) Diesel can be made from coal and be made a lot more cleanly than from oil. Minnesota?s Democrat Governor (apparently the only smart DEM on fuel) promotes it too http://governor.mt.gov/hottopics/faqsynthetic.asp (hey not all DEMS are morons). We have the coal, its cheap and available, us it cleanly!
4. Temporarily stop allowing public works to build out any more capacity. This means, no more public water and no more public sewer to any developments. Why Dave that is not a capitalist view and quite Liberal you might say.....NOPE, government entities and their tax payers are subsidizing developers to build on "cheap land" away from the city core. This in-turn drives up the cost of land in rural areas, hence driving up the costs of taxes on land. Farmers who wouldn't sell out to these developers will and do when their land is assessed higher and they have to PAY FOR WATER AND SEWER THEY DID WITHOUT FOR GENERATIONS. By putting a moratorium on Public works you will allow farmers to have bigger profits or hopefully allow lowering the price of food stock and keeping us growing our own food and GROWING OUR FUEL. This will not only keep the farmers happy, but will drive more people into Browns fields and driving shorter distances (also will be a boon for existing house prices and remodel work).
5. Follow FRANCE and Germany! (Pick yourself off the floor, I'll explain). France produces over 80% of its power from Nuclear Power. Germany imports no Fuel as they generate power from Fischer Trospch plants and Wind Farms. We can have complete independents on Foreign Oil if we put up wind farms for Texas to Canada, on the Great Lakes and on each coast (if Ted Kennedy doesn't stop it http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/27/kennedy_faces_fight_on_cape_wind/) and if we use the coal to make our own GAS and Diesel fuel.
6. REALLY LONG TERM - HYDROGEN. We spend $750 Billion Dollars a year on FOREIGN OIL!!! That is $2,000 for every man, woman and child in the US. Spend the money here and work on long-term with the savings. We have spent almost $1 Trillion on the IRAQ WAR.
For those of you who are against the war in Iraq, which we have taken no Oil from, and those of you who believe the only reason we have a troop presence in the Middle East is to protect our Oil Companies....WAKE UP! The only people our Oil Companies need protection from are morons in Congress. The exact opposite of PROGRESS is CONGRESS! Enact a sane Energy Policy!
Just simply do the 6 steps above and we would be energy independent in 3 years and everyone would stop complaining about the then $0.88 per gallon we would spend. But what do I know? I am only a Computer Guy...
My take is:
Use all ways and means to become independent of foreign oil. Except nuclear, unless it can meet high standards for plant safety and long term storage of radioactive waste. Insured by the companies for full liability.
We should:
1. Drill wherever we can safely, but remove all subsidies from the oil companies.
2. Conserve energy as much as possible, in all ways feasible.
3. Demand 50 mpg. minimum for sedans and small trucks.
4. Open all public lands , except national parks to green energy development such as solar, wind, and algae farms. Take a percentage of profits when they are profitable, and use it for recreational development and maintenance. These lands are in great need of funding. Also open them up to harvesting of cellulosic materials that promote forest and brush fires. This can be gasified or turned into cellulosic ethanol.
5. Tax the pollution of coal plants. They are lobbying to stop clean coal, so they won't have to be bothered with it.
6. Open the coasts to wind and wave energy plants.
7. Tax all incandescent lights heavily.
8. Encourage the development of fuel stations that will sell electric recharges, hydrogen, ethanol, methanol, etc. Electric chargers could be placed along highways with power lines also.
9. Allow new vehicles to be used on all roads, without normal safety regulations. We allow motorcycles now. Why not more substantial vehicles.
10. Produce hydrogen at windmill sites. This can be used in generators to supply energy when there is no wind.
11. Encourage commercial and residential buildings to use solar roofs, and geothermal heatilng and cooling.
I am sure that I have left out some great ideas, but there is every reason for optimism. We have all these technologies NOW. We just need to use them. There is no energy shortage. There is a shortage of leadership and will. Now is the time.
50 mpg? Fuel burn=power. If you want to haul even moderate loads in your "small truck" this is not feasable. I agree with that number for cars, plug in hybrids are the way to go.
On the public lands part, no self respecting environmental proponent would allow the destruction of habitats on public lands for solar and wind farms, folks are already up in arms about all the birds windfarms kill.
Taxing coal to much extent will cause electricity to be prohibitively expensive to anyone below the middle class.
Pick your poison, incandescant lights use much more electricity, but new bulbs when disposed release mercury and other toxic chemicals into the air. The new bulbs are a viable alternative until a safer technology is revealed.
It will be a long time before electric vehicles can charge an the go. Currently it takes the quickest vehicle chargers 8 hours or so to charge a vehicle for 100 miles (guestimates).
Any comments on how to create/store hydrogen? this is one of the conundrums of the "hydrogen economy" energy intensive to create, energy/space intensive to store.
Geothermal energy can be sketchy at best until new, more reliable tech exists.
Whats wrong with Nuclear Plants? Right now, fewer people have died because of nuclear plants than any other type of power generation. Hydroelectric dams are more dangerous (collapses and floods can kill thousands and destroy thousands of acres). With current on-site fuel storage, we can still run existing plants for another 40 years without running out of room.
My last point is that many people do not realize the main drawbacks of solar and wind energy:
1. These technologies are not available everywhere, and are currently extremely inefficient. The southeast for example has too much cloud cover for efficient solar (excluding some areas in florida), and too little wind to even turn most wind turbines.
2. Offshore wind is currently to costly in upfront capital to be viable to any company wishing to avoid bankrupcy.
3. You cannot currently store large amounts of electrical energy in a cost effective/efficient way. This means that while solar looks good on paper in some places during the day, what happens when I want to turn a light on/ run my A/C at night (hint, a fossil fuel or nuclear plant will have to run)? Wind is also very unreliable and intermittent requiring extensive, and expensive backup/plant startup plans to make up the difference in the loads.
All this being said, I am a proponent of actions to create a more sustainable human existence on this planet, but I am also a realist, this dream can only be met with big sacrifices, big research, and big money. I am not optimistic that a 100% carbon neutral United states will happen in the next 100 years, but I believe we can get very close in the next 50.
FYI, I work on environmental controls engineering for one of the largest energy producers in the United States. Most people don't realize how many people at power companies want the world to be a better place as well. Remember, we live here too, and our kids and grandkids will reap the consequences of our actions. But my extensive experience in this field has given me valuable insights into the realities of current alternative energies.
There will be a brighter more efficient/sustainable future, but it will not come as soon and without great cost to us (monetarily, and socially) as Al Gore and some other headline grabbing, power mongering media/politicians may want you to believe.
Thanks for your time.
This is not really feasible for small trucks, it
has been exceeded greatly for the sedans thou
in Europe.
Your #2 is a great idea and can be implemented
quickly, slowing from 70+ mph to 55 mph saves
20 - 30 % on fuel costs.
Utah has recently moved a lot of its workers
to 4 day work weeks, this would save 20%.
Some of the desert national parks should be opened
to solar development.
All the coal plants should go on a 50 year phase
out plane, and all energy lobbyists banned.
The choices on energy should be made scientifically
in the light of day, not behind closed doors via
payola.
The Bay of Fundy with sub surface screened turbines
would not upset the environment, and would provide enough power for all of North America.
Every 12 hours more water passes in and out of
the Bay of Fundy than all the rivers of the world,
and has the highest tides on earth at near 50 ft.
An Aquanator type would work as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_fundy
Incandescent lights were basically banned
recently, so its a done deal.
I think LED is a better choice than the CFL's
that contain mercury.
Methanol would require major engine changes.
Coskata has partnered with GM and says they
can make Ethanol for about $1/gal and not use
food crops or land needed for food.
Electric cars still need a better battery or super
capacitor system, its almost there, but not quite.
It takes too long to charge batteries, and the
super caps do not have the power density yet.
EE stor may be close to a break thru, and so
are a few other nanotech super cap makers.
Converting windpower to electricity, then to
hydrogen is highly wasteful.
The best method for hydrogen production is
the method depriving algae of oxygen and
feeding it sulphur it releases hydrogen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_hydrogen_production
Solar roofs are a great idea, its a lot of unused space, and would shade the houses thus making
them need less AC in the summer.
While its feasible to make the switch, the timeline is not with the red tape mess that we have in the
US government.
The writer obviously do not know what is happening in the industry.
Cheap solar energy comparable to coal energy price is possible right now,
using simple concentrator and thermal technology.
100mpg vehicle is also possible now for slightly more than the cost of current hybrid, and will price can only fall. (Forget fuel cell, just focus on battery technology and lower vehicle weight)
Being a wing nut doesn't mean that Big Oil isn't a big part of the problem
for over 20 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal#High-temperature_collectors
350 Megawatt plant, and a 553 Megawatt is planned.
It uses natural gas at night to continue operations til dawn.
A new molten salt storage may reduce the natural gas usage even more.
Given the fact that solar thermal power is reliable, can deliver peak load and does not cause pollution, a price of US$0.10 per kWh[66] starts to become competitive. Although a price of US$0.06 has been claimed [67] With some operational cost a simple target is 1 dollar (or lower) investment for 1 kWh production in a year.
giving subsidies to big oil while continuing to deny long term subsidies for renewables? I am sick of this blathering
from some oil stock owning person trying to drag down forward thinking people. The oil era is over, get it right
more your money.
I read through the whole article, though I think it was unfair and destructive, to give my hope a chance that it provides alternative solutions. But unfortunately it met my expectation that it is just about destroying the motivation.
I think if the 2 year old could be motivated and could finish college after 12 years, it would be much better than killing the motivation, smoking the weed and try to live with the lung cancer after 8 years...
I think using the funds that has been spent to kill people, the US could have sent man to the Mars.
The stack is high.
Not only will independence from oil will save US from middle east nations grip,
green energy and transport will be big global export industry.
G.Bush only know how to blow trumpet on the oil industry
without providing any long term solution.
Unfortunately he has a lot to do with a lot of things. Scapegoat? Yeah, I bet they will try and pin the invasion of oil rich Iraq on Bush, we all know that war was Gore's fault.
We imported 4.9 billion barrels in 2007:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_a.htm
rounding off to 5 billion barrels at a round price of $100 a barrel,
and your looking at $500 billion a year, $5 trillion per decade.
So if we spent half that to get us off it, I'd say it is money well
spent and could possibly soften the massive financial and energy
crisis looming over us right now.
If you look at the link you will notice what T. Boone Pickens said
happened in 2005, we peaked and it is declining.
Bio Diesel and Ethanol is filling the gap for now.
The methods that need to be looked at are Coskata,
Valcent Technologies, and LS9:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4133668.ece
I think most engineers and scientist tend to be somewhat "green" by the nature of our training, but guys like Gore give legitimate environmentalism a bad name when you look at the difference between his rhetoric and his actiona as well as his profit motive. Not only does he own a carbon credit company (which many hard science types essentially believe to be a nothing but an expensive placebo), he is heavilly involved in multiple large investment banks which all hopie to make hundreds of billions of dollars off of the panic. If they can get guaranteed public financing for their activities, they stand to make many billions of dollars even if none of the panic projects ever work out.
There is nothing wrong with doing well by doing good (actually, it is a good thing), but Gore's personal life style and his focus on asking others to sacrifice so that he can become a multi-billionare is a real issue. If you want a "sustainable" world ruled by an elite, permanent, royalty-like oligarchy, by all means follow Al to that end and help make him one of the kings. If you would like a sustainable world with some options for socioeconomic mobility, you might want to take a more reasoned approach. Asking people to THINK about how they spend public money is never a bad idea. The engineers who made the moonshot happen did NOT do the impossible, they simply rose to the challenge (and without massive economic incentives).
Public money is often required to make good things happen when the risks outway the rewards for privte investment, but beware of those who collect there fees on the front end of a "snake oil" sales campaign. Many "exciting and new" options to change the world with respect to energy production have been "just around the corner" for 25 years. Without some sort of unplanned, serendipitous breakthrough in the basic sciences (which does not historicaly get driven by public investment), practical engineering with a mission will take us down a path that is longer than any of us would like, but is also more predictabl successful. Hope is NOT a plan and it is NOT what drove NASA during their most succesfull years. Hard, sustained pragmatic work may not be sexy, but it is what gets the job done and that seems to be what the writer of this story is recommending.
So, lets have a moonshot for sustainable and safe energy, but lets do it with pragamatism and hard work. This probably means doing things that will not make any particular group of investors thrilled, because we need to be doing some of everything rather than putting all of our eggs in a basket that may NEVER be workable or one that we know is not sustainable.
The first objective needs to be energy independance before we totally collapse our economy and become a wholly owned subsidiary of both the middle eastern states and the PRC. THIS shoud be our 10 year emperative and even it will take massive effort, but it does not require luck, just solid engineering and hard work. If we get lucky and the unplanable BIG breakthrough takes place and we can shift much more production to sustainable/renewables, that will be terrific. I just do not want our entire future to be bet on that taking place in the next 10 years.
Good Job! I too am an engineer.... working in energy efficiency now. I have a
couple patents, and am working on more new ways to make our picture brighter.
The reality is that we need some pragmatic critical thinking to "re-wire" our energy picture for the future, and it will take some hard work to get there. That is what the development of technology is all about for millenia.... making
our world a better place by using our grey matter (and opposable thumbs)
We need to have a shakeup of thinking to give a clearly different target. Naive people believing that we need to do nothing are missing the truth. We need to have a hard look at all the options on the table, then do the system engineering to implement the menu of viable options. If we use our capabilities and technologies correctly, anything is possible.
The money to fund these ventures are somewhat artificial.....looking at the trends of our government to print our money to prevent collapse of certain critical confidence games (Wall Street).
The talent and brainpower of scientists and engineers is the source of REAL value and has been throughout history. That is where the rubber meets the road to make things happen. MBA degrees don't contribute real value to the innovation and development of real valuable technology breakthroughs. Vision, analytical ability, and some common horse sense make the process move.
I am confident that once we stop shaking in our boots, we can have some real forward progress. (If everything we have accomplished thus far where REALLY impossible as some nay-sayers purport, we would still be in caves.) We need to harness all the random Brownian motion of ideas and opinions into a clear realistic plan, and bust a move!
We have to let the solar industry to develop more. Solar cells are still not as efficient as they could be. I heavily believe that solar is the way to go, though. Solar is the starting point in everything. Oil is the remains of plants and animals millions of years old, right? Where do plants get THEIR food? The SUN. And, in turn, the animals eat the plants and that's how animals obtain energy. It's basic biology. The trophic levels, energy pyramid, etc. Obviously solar is the way to go. We, as I said earlier, we need to develop the solar industry a bit more. It makes no sense to use inefficient solar cells when we could wait a few more years until they have produced more efficient solar cells to capture the sun's rays. As far as I'm concerned, 10 years is a bit of a stretch to accomplish all this. I say about 15-20 years for this to be fully ready.
Solar technology and nuclear fusion (not fission) look like possible solutions for the future, but we can't be sure about either of them with respect to timelines. I agree that solar would be the best of all solutions, IF we can get the breakthroughs that we need in basic effciency and use technologies that will become cheaper with scale. Unfortunately, we are not there yet.
In the meantime, we need to do things that we know we can do or we will not have the capability to invest in the breakthrough technology whenever it arrives. We MUST get a solid plan for energy independance before we are driven to third world country status.
American's are notorious for short-term thinking, so having an executable long-term vision that can pull all of us together is what we need. While the vast majority of Amercian's are somplace in the middle, the extrmist with multiple hidden agendas are in control of much of the rhetoric because HUGE financial opporunities are at stake.
- by vsp12351 July 18, 2008 1:45 AM PDT
- Please ask Mr. Gore if he uses Solar Power - I read a while back that one of his mansions uses more electricity in one month than most of us use in a year & I don't think it was Solar Energy he was using! I challenge all the wealthy folks in this country to be the first to turn their homes into Solar Generators ... that would bring down the price for the rest of us. How about it Oprah ... maybe you already have.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by Mochasfriend July 18, 2008 4:55 AM PDT
- Where did you get your info? Bill O'Liely?
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 4 pages (99 Comments)