1) Nuclear energy is at best a short-term solution b/c of waste considerations and the fact that uranium deposits themselves are finite (all-be-it we could run on them for a damn long time if not for the waste problem).

2) Hydrogen itself is only an energy carrier. Pure H-H gas is not abundant and has to be made. This requires energy input

3) It has been suggested by many credible academics, oil men, and investment bankers that global oil production is peaking now or will peak within the next 20 yrs (20 yrs is a generous estimate probably). Check out this site www.peakoil.net
Thus, it is unlikely that oil prices will EVER go down and stay down.

4) Solar energy holds great promise but is unlikely to do much for the grid (at this point there is not enough surface area on the earth) unless technology jumps by leaps and bounds.

You are right that energy is a scary topic and that people (especially politicians) don't talk seriously about it. However, other than the conservation measures that you cite in your list, I don't see you talking particularly seriously either. Your call to abandon bio-fuels goes against everything I've read that was written by people who are in the know.

- RBP

We're all gonna die.

Not all of us... just some of us... You've gotta love Bambineck who probably believes that you can sustain exponential growth indefinitely in a finite world.

- RBP

I love how you guys keep reading into what I think.

And yes, we're all gonna die. It's just a matter of time. Sooner or later, everyone does.

Sorry John. Sorry about the grammar thing the other day too. My point is that the global energy problem and the global population problem are hopelessly intertwined.

- RBp

RBP, your three points are valid, except that we must have energy. True, nuclear reactors produce waste, but oil doesn't? Coal doesn't? I like the idea of having pollution in a small package that can be tucked away in some mountain.

Also, I'm not against bio-fuels, only they aren't truly bio-fuels if it takes more fossil energy to produce them. Now, with nuclear power, we could produce these in mass.

Ok, perhaps I missed it, but for whatever reason when I read your thread, I didn't get what you just stated out of it. Using nuclear to put energy into carriers is sensible.

In fact, I would argue that using nuclear as a transition fuel to get off of oil and coal (which as you pointed out have "waste") is sensible. However, as I pointed out it is only a short-term answer.

What I'm scared of is converting to nuclear and then thinking we've solved the problem. It's fine as a transition but we need to work on sustainable energy. Unfortuantely, this means that we have to get demand and consumption down some how. There's more than thermodynamics at work here. There is a human problem. How do you tell people in industrialized socities to cut back? Also, if they don't do so voluntarily, do you force them to?

The problem is that the world's energy problem is complex and involves (1) thermodynamics, (2) geology, (3) human behavior and psychology, (4) economics, (5) politics, and (6) ecology.

It is damn complicated and unfortunately I know of no-one in a position of power who is taking the appropriate steps to address it.

- RBP

Sure they are intertwined, and eventually unless there is a way to replenish petro, we'll run out. But saying that biofuels doesn't give us as much is silly... if they can recoup the energy it takes to get at it, we're fine. Sure, it takes oil now, that need not be the case going forward.

Great post. There are problems with nuclear power, however clean it may be.

There is the NIMBY crowd, who doesn't want a new reactor built within 300 light-years of where they live.

There is the possibility of a melt-down or a terrorist attack.

And there is the fact that there are "spill-over costs" associated with the removal and storage of nuclear wastes.

So, while I agree that building more nuclear power plants is a good idea (along with wind farms** and hydrogen fuel cells and hybrid vehicles, to name just a few), it does not come without costs.

** Some enviromentalists are now opposed to even these, because a small number of birds are killed by them. GEE-ZUZ!

"Nuclear energy is at best a short-term solution b/c of waste considerations and the fact that uranium deposits themselves are finite (all-be-it we could run on them for a damn long time if not for the waste problem)."

Hmm. What about "breeder" reactors that produce huge amounts of plutonium, which is also able to be used as fuel?

If oil resources are depleted to the point of being prohibitively expensive, there are still vast reserves of oil shale and coal available. Of course, there are REALLY dirty fossil fuels, but at least they are an option...

"there are REALLY dirty fossil fuels"

there should be these...

Elaborate RJ... I'm listening. I know that the US, France, China, and Japan (I think these are the right countries) have pitched in to work or fusion... which may actually be sustainable (I don't know enough about it though).

- RBP

RJ:

The problem w/ shale is that you have to refine the living shit out of it which takes energy in the first place. Thus, it is not particularly effective. Nevertheless, as you point out... if the situation gets really desperate... it is better than nothing.

- RBP

Solar facilities could supply the electric power grid easily and completely. It would NOT take anything near the whole surface of the earth to do this.

Small percentages of the world's desert land areas, which aren't being used for anything else right now, would provide more than enough power to supply the entire present energy consumption of the human race.

Using breeder reactors to produce large amounts of plutonium is a bad idea. Plutonium is not only highly toxic, it is also the most potent and portable nuclear weapon material. Terrorists especially would love to get their hands on some. Vastly increasing the plutonium supply would create a giant security problem.

Victor:

Give me a hyperlink for your claim. Make sure the link addresses the net energy problem associated with building all of these solar panels, hauling them out into the desert, and hooking them up to the grid.

- RBP

Funny how you provided no proof at all for your claim that the earth doesn't have enough total surface area to supply our needs with solar power.

If you bother to provide some calculations or a link to support your claim, I might consider reciprocating.

"I know that the US, France, China, and Japan (I think these are the right countries) have pitched in to work or fusion... which may actually be sustainable (I don't know enough about it though)."

Yeah, "cold fusion." If they can do it, great. We'll never have to worry about depleting energy resources again.

The problem is, it might be impossible, just like perpetual-motion devices... :-/

Solar facilities could supply the electric power grid easily and completely. It would NOT take anything near the whole surface of the earth to do this.

Small percentages of the world's desert land areas, which aren't being used for anything else right now, would provide more than enough power to supply the entire present energy consumption of the human race.

Yabut, the problem is STORING it. It takes nearly as much energy to store power produced via solar cells as they are capable of making.

So, when the sky is clear, and it's during the day, solar power is great. But when it gets cloudy, or the sun sets...well...it kinda peters out...

"Small percentages of the world's desert land areas, which aren't being used for anything else right now"

Well, animal and plant life sure as hell uses it! And you can bet that radical environmentalists would oppose it with every fiber of their being.

It would be just like the ANWR debate. "It's a pristine area, full of exotic and endangered wildlife! We MUST defeat the EVIL energy companies who want to destroy this vibrant wilderness!"

Victor:

Fair enough... I'm big enough to admit when I've exaggerated. But RJ has a point about storage.. and the temporal problem... Also certainly you won't deny that the cost problem is very real.

RJ:

you may be going overboard on the ANWR analogy.

- RBP

RBP -

I'm not sure I'm going overboard. ANWR is mostly a useless wasteland, just like American desert areas. And drilling in ANWR will only effect a small portion of the land there, just like solar power panels in the American desert would.

But there ARE animals and plants that call ANWR home, just like there are numerous species that are well-evolved to the harsh climate of the desert.

And just as there are environmentalists who are eager to engage in hyperbole about a frigid wasteland of tundra and lichens, there are environmentalists (probably the same exact people) who would be eager to rant about the supposed importance of cacti and desert reptiles.

So, I really think that my analogy was spot-on.

RJ:

I suppose it is if you think that there is no aesthetic value to undisturbed nature or that non-human forms of life are only of "supposed importance". we have a philosophical difference here.

Also even optimistic assessments of ANWR don't project finding enough oil to meet global demand for one year. Check out this link:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm

This link suggests a mean of 10.4 billion barrels total. Annual global consumption is currently in the neighborhood of 30 billion.

- RBP

More oil is more oil. Period.

And we aren't talking about some relatively minor find of a few hundred million barrels in Norwegian waters; we are talking about BILLIONS of barrels of DOMESTIC oil, which would help us both with the trade deficit AND with job-creation (mostly of the blue-collar, union kind). Oh, and it would at least temporarily reduce our dependence upon foreign oil.

But, hey, some polar bears might get pissed off and migrate elsewhere. So we shouldn't do it, right?

I'm voting for natural gas/methane as our solution for vehicles. It's a renewable and manufacturable, burns cleaner than petroleum, and the technology is already established and proven.

Dave

studies i've seen say the people doing the drilling estimate .03% supply to be had in ANWR, as opposed to the just as easy to reach 2-3% off the Florida gulf coast. now those are Kerr-McGee figures, and should be taken with a big handful of salt, but the proportion alone has me asking,WTF?

nuclear has the problem of waste, i do like the natural gas for a short term answer. but only science leading to more effecient use of solar, gathered outside the atmosphere, shows any kind of long term renewable and clean source.

at least until the sun goes dark, oh, about 4 billion years from now. but i'll work on that problem next week.

Regarding nuclear energy and alternive forms of energy, nuclear works now. It can produce vast amounts of power which in turn can free us from oil. With it, we can produce bio-fuels, hydrogen and electricity. You can't tell me we haven't suffered enough under the old forms.

Mark, my biggest problem with nuclear is what to do with the leftovers. Half life issues and no realistic containment possibility is of great concern. In these days of terrorism, that concern grows exponentially.

Solar has high initial costs but extremely low total costs of operation, if properly designed.

Granted, the most effective solar power system requires a global approach, which is a bit challenging due to our current political immaturity as a species. In fact the technical challenges are much more easily overcome than the political hurdles.

The simplest way to mitigate the storage problem is well within our current technological abilities: construct a global power grid. We already have national and regional power grids, so the remaining challenge is to extend these until they are all linked together.

Once this is done, the night side of the planet can always be supplied with plenty of power from solar collecting facilities on the day side. Several such facilities on different continents would be enough to make sure the sun never sets on our power system.

The total land area needed for solar collector facilities to supply all our current and future energy demand has been estimated to be about 1% of the area now used for crops and pasture. True, that's a lot of land area, but nowhere near exhausting the total supply on our planet's surface.

Of course, if we want to avoid disturbing fragile desert ecosystems, we will eventually want to transfer the solar collectors to orbital facilities, where they can also receive more constant sunlight without the obstruction of an atmosphere. However, launching a satellite constellation is not a necessity for powering our civilization with solar energy.

This is thinking on a very large scale, but the technical challenges to achieve this are surmountable, and probably far easier to solve than trying to design perfectly safe nuclear fission power systems.

While Dr. Wattenburg and others yap and complain about alternative energy, the state of Minnesota is doing something about it:
#1 in nation in per capata use of cleaner-burning biofuels.
#1 in North America for E85 fuel stations (more than 150 and counting).
#3 in wind-generated electricity (new sites underway).

See www.cleanairchoice.org for more.

Bob from the ALAMN:

I think you miss the point. What does Minnesota use to produce "cleaner-burning" biofuels? Fossil fuel. So, while biofuels burn cleaner in your car, somewhere in America a "not-so-clean" refinery is churning out biofuels using the very fossil fuels Minnesota intended to replace. That's the point of the recent study. That's what concerns Wattenburg.

If it means cheaper fuel, I'll personally go up to the ANWR and club a few dozen baby seals myself.

I'd just as soon see the US put a finger in OPEC's eye anyway. How can we be secure at home if we have to buy oil to fuel our planes, helicopters, tanks, etc from the same set of theives and terrorists we need the afore mentioned to combat?

Yes, how can we be secure if we are dependent on the enemy's resources, which we must buy at a premium price?

Just to follow up the original article, there may be some doubt about the reliability of the figures in this bio-fuels report. Apparently the data is quite old and the report is just a revision of something the Ag Department has been peddling around for years at the behest of oil industry lobbyists who want to run down biofuels.

There's a great need for a really comprehensive market study on biofuels, but this report isn't it. One of the known shortcomings of this study is that it doesn't factor in any of the associated economic benefits of biofuel production. In the case of ethanol it just calculates how much it costs to produce a gallon of ethanol without taking into consideration the fact that the waste product from ethanol production can be resold as livestock feed, thereby underwriting the production of ethanol and bringing the price down to lower than a gallon of diesel - it helps that petroleum prices are so high now.

The real problem with biofuels is not the inefficiency of production, but the limited supply and production capacity, and the fact that the consolidation of control of filling stations in the hands of large oil distributors has made it difficult to market alternative fuels.

Oil companies don't want to sell biofuels at their gas stations and independent stations don't want to jeopardize their relationships with distributors by carrying alternative products. This problem is one which the government really ought to address, as it clearly falls under restraint of trade.

The production capacity issue is harder to address. Right now there isn't enough land under cultivation to produce biofuels on the level necessary to make a meaningful impact on the market. If we were to take unused farmland - of which there is a huge amount in the US - clear the scrub which has grown on it in the last 50 years or so - and replant it with corn for ethanol - we might be able to increase production enough to be meaningful. But then we run into the problems that always plague agriculture - labor shortages and the threat of overproduction reducing prices below the point of profitability. If biofuels were to take over even half of our vehicle fuel market they would require such an enormous amount of additional land and manpower to work it that we might as well just open the southern border and invite mexico over to stay. The possibilities are intriguing, though.

Dave

bio fuel aka bio diesel from canola oil only used 1 litre of fossil fuel for every 150 litres of bio fuel produced. But i only produce the product so what would i know

Tell us more, Blair. I'm genuinely interested in an inside view of the technology and the efficiency.

Dave

Blair, what do you know? You share only the barest detail of your enterprise. Can you show some independent study demonstrating your point? Does that 1 litre account for all stages of bio-fuel production? Can 1 litre of bio-fuel produce 150 litres of bio-fuel?

Dear Dave and mark:
The way that i am producing Bio_fuel is by crushing the canola for oil and then purifying it. The bio-fuel that i produce is ran in the diesel generator that i use to produce the power on which i run the processing equiptment and now i have only used .38L of fossil fuel to make over 5000 litres of bio-fuel.