Reply
Wed 2 Jun, 2004 10:20 am
Were it your responsibility to establish the energy policy of the US. What would it look like?
Hrm.
Increasing focus on Nuclear and Wind generation power through the next 20 years. Newer nuclear (pellet-style) reactors are pretty safe. Wind generation has the potential to completely solve our power problems, if we can convince some rich people that a few wind generation towers are better than tons of coal factories.
I'd like to see a larger investment into geothermal 'heat pipe' generators as well. Hard to beat free energy.
Biofuels, such as biodiesel, also seem like a great option for our transportation needs. You can make it out of used vegetable oil, one substance which we have plenty of (and it's not too environmentally harmful to make more).
Hydrogen production needs to be ramped up. Whether or not we see hydrogen powered cars in the near future, the potential energy is hard to match using alternative fuels. Hydrogen can become an excellent fuel for use with micro- and nano- applications given one or two research breakthroughs.
Solar power needs work as well. I still don't see why we don't slap solar cels on pretty much every building in town. I read a great article about a new solar cell that works as a one-way window - you can see through it, but it still outputs a lot of energy. Could be great for office buildings.
Finally, we cannot stress the importance of innovation in our refining industries. No matter what we switch to it will take time to implement, and gasoline, oil, and plastics will be a huge component of our society no matter what we choose. By spending more money on studying techniques for cleaner refining, recycling, and disposal of oil and oil wastes, we can lessen the environmental impact considerably.
Just my 2 cents.
Cycloptichorn
Quite interesting that yesterday the "renewables 2004" opened in Bonn, Germany:
Quote:One hundred and fifty-four countries represented by over 3000 participants opened the four-day Renewables 2004 conference called by German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder. The conference convened at the former German parliament on the Rhine River. The expected 250 media representatives ballooned into more than 700 as energy became a top story during the last few weeks.
Opening the four-day conference, Tuesday, June 1, Jurgen Trittin, federal German minister for the environment, declared "The age of rewnewables has now begun." He said the aim of the conference, which chancellor Schroder originally announced at the 2002 Johannesburg Summit Meeting on Sustainable development, is to produce a concrete global action program and for poor countries to be linked to the UN and other international programs aimed at poverty reduction.
Trittin and other speakers hailed renewables as the key to bringing modern energy to the 2 billion people in the world without it. The UN has a goal of halving the number of people living in poverty by 2015.
Issue papers prepared prior to the conference ticked off the case for renewables. Chief among them were: poverty alleviation; reduced oil dependence and economic benefits of saving oil import costs; jobs (120,000 people now work in renewables in Germany, said Trittin); combating climate change and pollution; clean and available water.
But the official papers were vague about potential, calling for "accelerated" transition to renewables. Trittin did say at a press conference, renewables "are not a niche market. They are our future."
However, calls for a rapid and complete transition to renewables have been common.
Outside the conference hall, eighty members of Solar Generation, an off-shoot of Green Peace, demonstrated for an end to the fossil age. Inside the hall, Abigail Gay Y. Jabines, a spokeswoman for the group, called for a "shift of fossil fuel subsidies to renewables," to end conventional wisdom that renewables are not competitive in cost. A side meeting will explore scenarios for rapid transition of the entire energy economy to renewables.
One focus of discussion has been the availability of financing for renewables.
Federal German minister for economic cooperation and development, Heidmarie Wiecyorek-Zeul, said that renewables "are at the mercy of global financial markets which are anti-environmental and short term in their thinking."
Advocates appear to be targeting the World Bank and backing a report currently before its board of directors that calls for an end to World Bank financing of extractive industries and a switch to financing of renewables.
Minister Trittin also joined the chorus of environmental groups and renewable energy associations that have sought to get mileage out of the current popularity of Hollywood's exaggerated version of climate change released in U.S. theatres this past weekend - The Day After Tomorrow.
"Average temperature continues to rise from decade to decade," Trittin said. "Droughts, storms and floods continue to destroy development progress, especially in the countries of the South. Climate change is already a reality today, and not a fiction for the day after tomorrow."
SOURCE
(Since I wanted to start a thread about this, here's the link to the official website of that congress:
renewables 2004
Knowing how strict I would be, I would probably be assassinated.
Would love to see people return to line drying their clothes. Would demand that public buildings be heated to 65 degrees F in the winter and cooled to 75 degrees F in the summer.
I'm wondering if we won't have some sort of gas rationing in the future? I try to consolidate my trips but how many people do? At the same time, I actually miss the SUnday drives we took when I was a child.
An exerpt from a Wash Post editorial
Saudi Arabia's oil infrastructure is protected by aircraft patrols, high-tech surveillance and a guard force numbering some 30,000. The kingdom's ports, pipelines and other infrastructure are designed with some redundancy, so that oil could keep flowing despite the destruction of a few facilities. There are a small number of choke points, and a successful attack on one of them might indeed be devastating. But the chances that al Qaeda's internally divided Saudi operation will hit one of these bull's-eyes are probably too small to justify the current risk premium in the oil price.
There is no denying, however, that the world is to an alarming extent reliant on Saudi oil. The kingdom accounts for fully a quarter of the world's proven reserves; even more alarmingly, it is the only producer that can ramp up production to a significant extent on short notice. Whereas in 1990 OPEC countries had unused production capacity equivalent to 8 percent of global consumption, today spare capacity has shrunk to about 3 percent, and nearly all of that is in Saudi Arabia[/U[U]]. Even if it's right that terrorist strikes on Saudi oil infrastructure are unlikely in the near term, long-term reliance on the stability of an autocratic monarchy is a frightening prospect.
The OPEC meeting today will promise extra production -- meaning, mainly, extra Saudi production -- in an attempt to calm traders' jitters. Meanwhile, the right policy for the United States is twofold. First, the administration must continue restocking the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, ignoring imprudent suggestions from Sen. John F. Kerry, the likely Democratic presidential nominee, to cease this process until oil prices go down. Second, the United States should embrace policies that discourage reliance on oil -- not just foreign oil but all oil, because Saudi Arabia's position as the buffer producer makes the price of oil pumped everywhere from Texas to Central Asia vulnerable to terrorist attacks in the kingdom. The most direct ways to promote the use of other types of energy are a cut in federal subsidies to the oil industry, and a gasoline tax increase.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
It is frightening that a disruption of the oil flow from Saudi Arabia from whatever cause can virtually shut down the worlds economy.
Detroit's Complacency
Thursday, June 3, 2004; Page A18
THIS SUMMER, with gasoline prices reaching $2 per gallon across America, Ford Motor Co. will begin selling the first gas-electric hybrid SUV. True, the concept of a fuel-efficient sport-utility vehicle is an odd one, and an oddly American one, like low-tar cigarettes or low-carb bread. But it represents a milestone of sorts for the U.S. automotive industry, which has hitherto shown little interest in improving fuel efficiency. Unfortunately, even this milestone comes with a catch: The hybrid technology inside the new Ford Escape was actually patented by Toyota Motor Corp. Although Ford says it bought the patents for the sake of convenience, there is no question that Japanese engineers were there first.
That is hardly surprising, because American manufacturers have long lagged behind their Japanese and European competitors in producing more efficient cars. Partly as a result, overall fuel efficiency has been dropping in this country since 1988. Yet numerous studies over the past several years have shown that small technological improvements, even ones that do not depend on fancy hybrid engines, could make big differences in fuel efficiency. The Union of Concerned Scientists produced a proposal for an SUV that would be safer and get up to 36 mpg (up from the current average of 21 mpg). It would cost more too, but with fuel at current prices, consumers would recoup the investment in 3 1/2 years. Environmental Defense has also designed a modified SUV that would get up to 35 mpg and would pay for itself in under three years. So why doesn't Detroit do it?
The answer appears to be a combination of the auto industry's belief in its own lobbying power -- its confidence that the federal government would never adopt higher fuel-efficiency or pollution standards, however dependent this country became on foreign oil -- and its assumption that U.S. consumers simply don't care about fuel efficiency. In making the first calculation, they were right. The Clinton administration launched a heavily publicized project to build a highly efficient "supercar," but it never imposed enough of a gas tax increase to persuade consumers to buy such cars, or regulations to force manufacturers to make them. During the debate last year over the energy bill, the Bush administration and Congress made clear their complete disdain for fuel economy regulation.
In making the second calculation, however, the carmakers may have been wrong: Gas prices are up, and so are sales of the mostly Japanese hybrids now on the market. Indeed, as we noted above, the politics of the Middle East and the rapid growth of gas consumption in China may drive prices even higher. Not for the first time, Detroit finds itself behind the curve, so blinded by its anti-environmental bias that it may have actually missed a business opportunity. Politicians and consumers bear responsibility too. But if a real fuel crunch comes, this country's automobile manufacturers will be among those suffering.
First I would emphasize conservation, there are a lot of kilowatts that could be wrung out of this country's energy consumption and increase available power without adding another generating plant,
Second I would ramp up hydrogen use immediately. Several foreign and domestic car manufactures have hydrogen vehicles ready to go. I would use tax polices to encourage them and discourage gasoline models.
Third the production of hydrogen takes energy and the is going to mean nuclear energy (nothing is free) I would look for a comprehensive nuclear policy, one that address wast disposal problems.
Lastly, more money for research on energy efficient technologies and a government policy using both taxing strategies and environmental laws to get these technologies adopted. Along those lines, we might tax industry for their energy use. The more energy they consume the more they pay.
Just for starters, I would raise the fuel tax, at least for non-commercial vehicles. Maybe not to the European level, but enough to influence trip planning and vehicle purchase.
acq,
I took a course on energy conservation and distribution circa 1983. The prof felt nuclear was the only way to go because too few people were willing to conserve.
Well, it's not that people aren't willing to conserve, as much as the fact that the amount of energy that could be saved by conservation is simply dwarfed by that available through the production of nuclear energy.
Most people don't realize just how efficient a good nuclear reactor is. It is SUPER efficient compared to other methods of energy production.
I wonder if the same people who are scared of nuclear contamination and explosions are worried about the hundreds of tons of uranium released into our atmosphere, on a yearly basis, by burning coal?
Cycloptichorn
Make it painful enough and people will conserve. On of the biggest culprits in that regard is the automobile industry. The only way they will aid in the effort is by legislation.
Imagine if this government had as they did in the development of atomic energy established a Manhattan project on energy. Would we still be dependent on the Mid east for oil? In addition would we now be fighting a war expending billions and sending our young off to die?
Government action should be the LAST thing we want. Why not boycott the auto industry? If all you liberals and all your liberal friends and their liberal friends all started driving scooters, the auto industry would certainly take notice.
Why complain that the government aren't doing enough? Do it yourself, you don't need the gov't to intervene in every friggin' aspect of peoples lives.
Double Lol.
I bought a scooter two weeks ago, I love it... 55 miles to the gallon
I agree with there not being a need for government intervention in this case. I think that rising fuel prices will make changes economically feasible, and therefore, practical.
Cycloptichorn
See? Some people are doing their parts already!
au1929 brings about a good point tho.
The problem with shifting an industry such as the Auto industry is that creating a new type of vehicle takes a massive investment of capital.
The California auto emissions laws are a good example of how a governmental law can spur new development by a company in terms of efficiency.
Cycloptichorn
Well, it's not that people aren't willing to conserve, as much as the fact that the amount of energy that could be saved by conservation is simply dwarfed by that available through the production of nuclear energy.
Yeah? Try taking a clothes dryer away from the average suburban woman and you'll by UmaThurmonded!
Cycloptichorn wrote: I wonder if the same people who are scared of nuclear contamination and explosions are worried about the hundreds of tons of uranium released into our atmosphere, on a yearly basis, by burning coal?
I do not know about coal but contamination for nuclear plants it is a real problem, in large part because of lax management. I worked on an environmental review and mitigation team for a decertification of a nuclear plant in the northeast (US). Low level, but significant, contamination was wide spread both on and off the site. I knew people who worked at the plant or had friends and relatives who did. They told stories of buckets of radio active water being dumped out in the woods, of contaminated equipment being buried. As an archaeologist we were concerned that this material be found before we went in to dig, and the material was found to be wide spread. A number of burial sites had to be located and excavated. Soil contamination was wide spread, our c14 samples were useless. Contaminated soil had been taken off site by locals for gardens and lawns, and it had to be chased down and removed. One local dairy farm was shut down because contaminated soil had been spread on the fields and the results were showing up in the milk.
Most of this was created because the managers of the plant, all can-do ex nuclear Navy guys, judged the waste insignificant and the approved dispossal methods too expensive. This country has yet to impress upon the managers and owners of nuclear plants that safety is paramount, not the profits generated by the plant.
Nuclear energy. There are two negatives related to that solution making it a last resort in my opinion. The first is waste and the second the threat, no matter how slight, of a Three Mile Island or worse yet of a Chenoble[sp]
McG
The government sets standards and rules on work, food, medicine, industry and just about everything we come into contact daily. Why not rules, realistic ones, relative to conservation?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace