« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
New Technologies for Our Energy Future
It's clear that we need to change our energy policy in this country. And unfortunately, it's clear that the Republicans, beholden as they are to big oil, will not make the changes needed. We need a "Manhattan Project" for energy, as Obama has suggested, to concentrate efforts on researching and developing sustainable and renewable energy sources. We limit ourselves when we think that every problem has to be solved with current technology.
In this post, I highlight some of the exciting advances in both research and application that have occurred recently, even in the absence of serious research funding directed toward securing a better energy future for America. American scientists and entrepreneurs are resourceful and I'm optimistic that with more direction from the top and some R&D incentives, we can innovate our way out of our current dilemma, produce sustainable long-term solutions, reduce our dependence on expensive foreign oil from unstable parts of the world, and stop giving our resources to authoritarian regimes that sponsor terrorism against us.
Our most pressing need is probably in the transportation area, and high gas prices make this a political winner too. So with what can we power our cars, trucks, trains , planes and buses? Here are two possibilities.
Hydrogen from starch. The problems with hydrogen as an auto fuel require advances in production, storage, distribution, and fuel cells. Honda just released the first production fuel cell vehicle. Advancement in the other three areas may be closer than we think.
Most industrial hydrogen currently comes from natural gas, which has become expensive. Storing and moving the gas, whatever its source, is costly and cumbersome, and even dangerous. And there is little infrastructure for refueling a vehicle.
Researchers at Virginia Tech, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), and the University of Georgia propose using polysaccharides, or sugary carbohydrates, from biomass to directly produce low-cost hydrogen for the new hydrogen economy.
Using a mixture of 13 enzymes not found together in nature, the researchers can produce hydrogen right in a vehicle, at ambient pressure and nearly ambient temperature (30 degrees C.).
The vision is for the ingredients to be mixed in the fuel tank of your car, for instance. A car with an approximately 12-gallon tank could hold 27 kilograms (kg) of starch, which is the equivalent of 4 kg of hydrogen. The range would be more than 300 miles, Zhang estimates. One kg of starch will produce the same energy output as 1.12 kg (0.38 gallons) of gasoline.
There would be no need to transport a flammable fuel and the starch and water slurry that would drive our fuel cell cars can be pumped with a conventional gas pump into a conventional gas tank. (and the starch need not come from corn or any other food crop.)
A similar technology developed at Oxford is now powering a digital watch. All details at the link.
Another new technology uses bioengineered bacteria to produce petroleum oil in tanks.
Much closer to application, microalgae are set to produce 4.4 million gallons a year of biodiesel at a facility on the gulf coast of Texas. A full analysis of its potential is available in a paper at the U of NH. You can see the facility on the website of the company Petrosun. Actually, you can see it on Google maps too.
We could replace all vehicle fuel at current levels on 9.5 million
acres of desert land ! For comparison, we use 450 million acres of
prime agricultural land to produce food (most of it food for livestock)
and another 500 million acres for grazing livestock. Since the algae
can grow anywhere, we’re not talking about diverting a single plot of
prime farmland to fuel production.
Another advantage of this technology is that such algae production facilities could be placed at the mouths of big polluted rivers like the Mississippi, and could convert nutrients from agricultural runoff into fuel. Currently these nutrients create an enormous “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico (and smaller ones at the mouths of other rivers). Furthermore, the algae can be used to consume CO2 from power plants. Cleans up the river, sequesters carbon from polluting industries and turns it all into fuel. Oh, and the exhausted algae can be used as fertilizer after extracting the oil.
We have shortchanged research budgets into alternatives and still, our tenacious scientists come up with new leads all the time. Meanwhile, the GOP and some of their supporters wail that the sky will fall if we don’t start drilling in Alaska today. That’s not the solution. Let’s turn the page on that old thinking and get serious about innovating our way out of this mess.
Comments (62)
thanks for the energy talk, greendreams. i suspect the bleed-out of american dollars, day by day, is gonna make this a much hotter issue in august than we can imagine.
that said, while biodiesel has real potential, fuel cells for cars - even after honda's annoucement - are way too expensive, and will never be as efficient as simple electricity. the advances in batteries - driven by the consumer electronics industry, not automaker dinosaurs - are astounding. the nanotech folks at MIT came up with stuff that even GM has had to pay attention to. spun out a company called A123. look 'em up if you haven't already.
we're already running a couple of these plug-in hybrids up here. getting 150 MPG. they run silent. under 50 cents/gallon. off wind and water-power. what did they cost? $10,000 TODAY. and that's as an add-on retrofit. mass production is estimated - by the carco's and utilities - to only add $4-$6,000 per car.
electricity can be made domestically. there are hundreds of millions of electrical outlets already in place. and the lifecycle efficiency of going from electricity-battery beats fuel cells, no matter how you spin 'em.
anyhoo. thanks for the post. oh yeah. obama presented one of the first pieces of legislation backing plug-in hybrids. so.... they may not only get here faster than we thought, but already have political backing. cheers.
June 17, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. GreenDreams,
I rec'ed this because I support your efforts in trying to bring energy issues onto TPM.
I don't have time to look deeply at your links yet, but I suggest you think about them in terms of energy returned to energy input:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EROEI
A brief glance also shows that none of the links are true scientific papers -- just press coverage.
You may remember the first time you saw this: cold fusion. This is another thing to have in your head when you see article like these.
I'm curious as to your background: technical? are you in academia? I ask not to disparage, but it's worthwhile to know whom you are talking with on these important issues.
Again, I applaud your efforts for an intelligent post and an honest effort to bring up the most critical issue of our times: energy.
June 17, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I once saw a catalog with a hydrogen-burning lamp. Fill the reservoir with water, plug it in and you get a small clean flame. The catch is that the lamp requires a 220V outlet, and enough amperage to run a microwave oven. For that much electricity, you could power klieg lights instead of a small flame.
The case against hydrogen as a fuel has always been: How much does it cost to produce the hydrogen? Although hydrogen is the most abundant element, on our planet it is usually bound in a water molecule, or as part of a hydrocarbon chain. Separating that hydrogen usually requires more energy than you get back from burning the hydrogen. Thus hydrogen is called an 'energy carrier' rather than an 'energy source'.
The starch process above obviates electrical separation and chemical separation, but someone still has to grow the crops and make them into a suitable starch. Can the crops be grown profitably without natural gas fertilizers, oil-based pesticides and diesel harvesters? If not, how is this approach any different than making crops into ethanol instead of food?
Making some sort of bio-fuel from trash seems like a better bet, but it is still a niche solution.
June 17, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your comments. Links to the scientific articles are available in the links I've provided, and I did link to more popularly written materials because they're more accessible for most people.
With respect to the starch hydrogen technology, the scientific article can be found at http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000456, and has been published in the public domain. Since the technology is patented, even more detail is available from the patent.
The biodiesel from microalgae technology is so far beyond theoretical papers that I deemed an aerial view of the facility itself to be inadequate demonstration that the technology has been adequately vetted.
One of the beauties of the hydrogen from starch technology is that the enzymes can accept a wide range of inputs. Lots of sources of starch can be grown without petrochemical inputs, for example, how about kudzu? In the case of microalgae, as I mentioned, agricultural runoff can be used to fertilize the algae, and the plants themselves multiply at an astonishing rate without any energy inputs. Right now in this country, we have an enormous problem of access nitrogen from our heavy reliance on meat protein. Pig farming alone produces much more waste than we know what to do with. Another beauty of biofuel microalgae is that it is not used for food, so any contaminants in the pig waste (or chicken, etc) does not constitute a threat to human health, and as long as contaminants don't kill the algae, they will merrily produce oil as long as there is sufficient CO2 and sunshine to grow.
By way of introduction, my education is in the fields of cell biology and ethnobotany, the science of how people use plants. I follow environmental, social and political issues avidly, and work with global experts in the fields of green building, wind and solar power, and geothermal.
June 17, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great potential. I wonder if they have made sure the thing has some sort of finite lifespan, though, especially if use becomes widespread.
I love the vision you paint of using these little critters to clean up our messes around the globe as we work toward a more permanent, long-term solutions such as space-based solar, geothermal, tide-generation, etc.
Have you read the Kim Stanley Robinson books on climate change and science?
The world he paints has a progressive president and an immediate need. I would love a government that finally pursued strategic rather than reactive solutions to our problems.
June 17, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just for the record: Patents prove nothing. You can patent something that doesn't even work. They are merely protection (of a sort) for someone taking your engineering ideas... but it doesn't mean your engineering ideas work, or are useful.
It's all about the stuff in peer reviewed journals... and even *that* can be wrong. But that's the best start we have in sorting things out in a professional manner.
June 18, 2008 4:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Less than that, actually. A patent is literally a license to sue (for infringement), nothing more. And if you don't defend your patent aggressively, you lose it. But I just mentioned the patent because publishing a patent requires you to disclose the details of your invention.
June 18, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exciting stuff, GreenDreams, thanks for sharing it - especially for drawing our attention to energy issues. Do you know if the Obama campaign is developing a platform that might include investments in any of these sorts of technologies?
June 17, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Algal Biodiesel:
However, over the past year, the more I learned about the prospects of biodiesel from algae, the more it started to look to me like cellulosic ethanol: Technically feasible? Yes. Commercially feasible? Nowhere close, and the prospects don't look good any time soon.
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2007/05/algal-biodiesel-fact-or-fiction.html
Has the Algae Cavalry Arrived?
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2531
Green Diesel
While this is an improvement, in my opinion, over biodiesel, they are still going to rely on oil crops such as palm oil. Destruction of rain forests in Malaysia and Indonesia to plant palm oil plantations poses a serious environmental threat. The future of green diesel needs to be based on non-food crops - especially those like jatropha that can be grown on marginal land - and waste materials such as biomass that is currently destined for landfills.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4149?nocomments
June 17, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Haven't done the necessary research to fully refute or support, but I did do some hunting and gathering.
I found the price of starch is about $400-500/metric ton.
If one kg of starch produces the same energy as 1.12 kg of gasoline, then we are looking at an economical fuel here.
Because it takes more than 5 barrels of oil, at $130/bbl, to weigh a metric ton.
June 17, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fascinating stuff. I'm not well versed in much of this technology. Which do you believe shows more promise?
June 17, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
So about that starch in the gas tank, what happens to the twenty odd kilos of carbon you have left when you extract the hydrogen?
I"m really not being a wise-ass, I'm really curious. You don't want to burn it and you can't leave it in the tank, so how do you get it out? And what are you left with, carbon black slurry of some kind? Ewwwww.
June 17, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
in the hydrogen from starch article, they quote this stoichiometric reaction:
C6H10O5 (l)+7 H2O (l)→12 H2 (g)+6 CO2 (g)
this reaction is already spontaneous (negative Gibb's free energy) and unidirectional; that's ideal.
you feed the car starch, water, and the 13 enzymes mentioned. the car spits out hydrogen and carbon dioxide; no carbon black slurry.
separating the hydrogen from the CO2, and sending the hydrogen to a fuel cell (or combustion chamber? schematics for this theoretical wunderkarr please..) might be problematic.
June 17, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
that reply was meant for tcfka ncsteve
and i should've mentioned that the common carbon byproducts of this kind of reaction will include carbon monoxide and low weight organics like methanol, formaldehyde, etc.
June 17, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice point you raise. More greenhouse gases.
This brings up the age-old problem: how to burn hydrocarbons without thickening our CO2 blanket?
The art of engineering is all about trade-offs. Politicians are notoriously bad at dealing with the concept of trade-offs. You can't have it all.
And no one in the public wants to hear that!
June 18, 2008 3:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
First, it's not combustion. Technically, oxygen must be a reactant in a combustion reaction; here water is in the spot where you'd typically see oxygen.
What's interesting about this reaction is that hydrogen is being reduced, and it seems that CO2 formation is the driving force.
Also, the CO2 produced is a greenhouse gas, but if the starch is vegetable-based, you've theoretically got carbon neutrality there. Not counting agro energy costs.
You will have a very small net positive carbon/GHG emission, because the reaction will not proceed with 100% efficiency to its products, and the potential byproducts I mentioned happen to be stronger GHG's than CO2.
Still, promising.
June 18, 2008 5:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not true. The slow decay of biomass is different than dumping it at a high rate into the atmosphere.
June 18, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
is that so? wanna link me to an explanation?
June 18, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
anyway, i used the word "theoretically" to mean "on paper." in the way you draw basic "respiration" and "photosynthesis" reactions in 1st year chemistry or biology. 6 CO2 in, 6 CO2 out.
i'm thinking agricultural, refining/processing, and distribution/transport energy costs would all make the thing carbon positive of course.
so carbon neutrality is still a pipe dream without more fuel-celled vehicles. also, do you know anything about the scalability of hydrogen as a fuel in electricity producing power plants? is that even feasible, or will we have to keep waiting for the fusion unicorn?
June 18, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've had a chance to look at the reaction with my Chemistry hat on, and I've noticed a couple of things.
Hydrogen from water (which is thermodynamically very stable) and starch is getting reduced. The formation of CO2 (which is also themodynamically very stable) provides the driving force to cause stable water to break down. Thus, enthalpy is probably not the dominant force in the Gibb's Free Energy equation (dG = dH - TdS). I'd be willing to bet that the reaction's enthalpy change has an absolute value no greater than 25 or 35 kJ/mol.
You've got 8 moles of liquids as reactants, and 18 moles of gases as products. That's a massive increase in entropy, and probably largely responsible for the negative Gibb's Free Energy of the reaction. This is why the reaction occurs spontaneously and unidirectionally - those 18 moles of gases certainly aren't going to reassembly themselves into starch. At this low temperature of 30C, you probably won't see many of the byproducts I mentioned.
Finally, that 18 moles of gases forming is attractive in the sense that, theoretically (on paper), it could be utilized to do P(dV) work before you even harvest the H2 from it. 8 moles of liquid might have a volume around 150 mL, but at the conditions quoted (30C, 1 atm) 18 moles of gas has a volume almost 3000 times as large. That's a sizable dV, even if P is low.
So that's mechanical energy from gas expansion AND H2 generated in one shot, if you can find ways to harness it all properly.
June 18, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You need to relook the problem over in terms of kinematics and rates at which things happen. You will still be dumping greenhouse gases quickly -- faster than the Earth can heal around it.
June 18, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still don't see where your extra carbon is coming from.
Slowly decaying biomass just releases the carbon more slowly; some of it gets consumed and put into living reservoirs, so it may take a few more years before it all enters the atmosphere.
It would still end up there. Compared to the mean residence time of carbon in the atmosphere of several centuries, a few years isn't that significant. Is there some significant extra source of carbon I'm missing, aside from the logistical stuff I've already mentioned?
We should also note, starch is a foodstuff. It's another food-fuel problem, and so the per ton starch price I quoted earlier would skyrocket if starch became a fuel of choice - leading us back to square 1.
June 18, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a key point that the carbon was sequestered last year and released this year. Fossil carbon is essentially permanently sequestered unless we haul it up from a mine or a well and burn it. There's nothing ominous about releasing that carbon. It was atmospheric CO2 last year, then in a plant, then CO2 again, then taken up again by a plant. And since the plants use more carbon than they yield in starch, it's still a net negative carbon footprint (unless carbon is used to grow the starch crop).
June 18, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly my point, GreenDreams!
Clearthinker usually knows what he's talking about on the subject, so I'm still waiting to hear him elaborate on his dubious contention.
I'll try to flesh out what I think he might've been driving at.
Since starch is a food stuff, we should consider where it ends up if we don't use it for fuel - it ends up in human bellies, burned eventually as calories and excreted as CO2, or sequestered in fat for decades perhaps.
That possible sequestration of carbon in the biosphere (rather than being emitted immediately in a single year) is the only argument I can think of that Clearthinker might be making - but I think it's still a pointless one, since the mean residence time of carbon in the atmosphere is centuries, while the biosphere probably turns over on a scale one or two orders of magnitude faster - and the sequestered carbon ends up in the atmosphere anyway, just a few years later. Finally, this sequestered carbon would only represent a tiny fraction of the total carbon flux for the starch crop.
June 18, 2008 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, CORN starch is food, but many starches are not. This technology doesn't require starch from a food crop. In fact, even from food crops, lots of starch is left behind after harvest. All the details need to be worked out, of course, but reducing our fossil fuel reliance needs to be a national goal. Finding a more efficient way to produce biomass will be easier than finding sufficient domestic oil, and unless oil prices drop dramatically, the cost of new energy sources doesn't have to be as low as the cost of oil used to be.
June 18, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
right again. plenty of untapped biomass and potential biomass to find. crop wastes are a great source for starch; and there's plenty of marginal land out there, not suitable for agriculture, but perfectly fine for growing whatever hardy starchy vegetation we might find suitable to plant there.
thanks for the great post.
June 19, 2008 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, the most exciting thing I've heard about is the advancement in technology for reacting hydrogen with CO2 to make octane. Use only atmospheric C02, get your hydrogen from a carbon neutral electrical source, and you're talking a nearly ideal system, assuming it's reasonably efficient.
Although, come to think of it, I guess it doesn't matter whether you get the C02 from the atmosphere or from a powerplant stack, as long as we're still burning fossil fuel to make power. Using power from our largely carbon powered grid to make the hydrogen, however, and then pulling the C02 from the stack would be insane.
June 18, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
The carbon is released as CO2. The sole compounds released would be hydrogen and CO2. If the hydrogen is burned (internal combustion or turbine) it produces carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides, just like burning any other carbon fuel. But one advantage of all biofuels is that the carbon released into the atmosphere was taken from the atmosphere last growing season, rather than releasing carbon that has been sequestered deep in the ground for millions of years.
June 18, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
So the hydrogen fuels an internal combustion engine or a turbine? Then you are exactly right that NOx's will be produced, along with some carbon monoxide, ozone, and a few other common free radicals.
The usual suspects of urban air pollution, but thankfully no GHG's.
June 18, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry if I gave the impression that the hydrogen would be burned. The authors suggest fuel cell/electric motor. I was just saying that if you do burn it, you have some of the same pollutants as burning gasoline.
June 19, 2008 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
No need to apologize, I was just very curious about this wunderkarr and its motor.
starch sounds a heckuva lot cheaper than platinum to store our hydrogen, now doesn't it? :-)
What does a hydrogen fuel cell cost without the big chunks of palladium or platinum to store the hydrogen? It must be cheaper by more than half.
June 19, 2008 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even cooler are the cars that run on compressed air! They're supposed to hit the markets in about 2 years and should cost less than a Yaris (Google 'air car' or 'minicat'). Of course, one needs electricity to 'recompress' the air tanks, but solar and wind are increasingly feasible options for that. The hybrid version in particular looks like a good option for Americans, who typically want to drive long distances--one gallon of fuel will serve for an entire cross-country trip, the designers claim.
June 17, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_car
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_vehicles
Just as customers will have to accept electric vehicle's short range, they will have to accept that compressed air cars will have low torque. I expect that wealthier customers will choose hybrid electric vehicles also powered by some sort of bio-fuel, ethanol or hydrogen - because they will offer range and performance comparable to gas & diesel.
June 17, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I found this last little disadvantage to the compressed air car interesting in your first Wikipedia citation:
June 17, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, considering that the government practically runs on compressed air now.
June 17, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
These are significant points, Donal. Most people assume that we will find energy sources that will allow us to maintain our current lifestyle.
This won't happen. And that's key to realize.
People will be lucky to have cars of any sort in the future... and the poor will not be able to afford them (or their fuel) at all.
Moreover, you can't pave your roads with electricity or compressed air. You need asphalt...and asphalt requires oil...
June 18, 2008 3:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oops--I meant ONE TANK of fuel, not one gallon.
June 17, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent excellent post, Greendreams.
I love the microgenerational approach to energy supplies instead of the continuous dismissive arguments and theoretical approaches to centralized energy supply or conversion.
Please keep us informed because not only are the advances for personal use important but a wise assessment of research from you makes it easier to know of investment strategies to explore.
June 17, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I recently wrote about 'green' investment strategies for another blog:
Claiming that America's economy is lurching ever more quickly from economic bubble to economic bubble, the founder of iTulip predicts a surge in alternative energy and infrastructure spending - sort of a green bubble. Writing for Harper's, Eric Janszen defined the main economic drivers of "the cleantech bubble:" the need to recover from recession, weakness in the dollar, loss of petrodollar liquidity, loss of energy security and peak cheap oil. As a result, consumers will be faced with a bewildering array of fuels and vehicles: biofuels, electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids, hydrogen fuel cells, photovoltaics, wind turbines, ocean wave energy, geothermal energy, clean coal and even nukes. Janszen sees these technologies becoming the hot, overvalued commodities of the new bubble. At the same time, he predicts corporations will plan and implement the new energy infrastructure to power expensive new vehicles and public transit. Responding in the Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas - USA, commentator Dave Cohen notes that venture capitalists are already looking to invest in what they call “the largest economic opportunity of the 21st century.”
June 17, 2008 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll direct you to another issue, as documented in the book Energy Victory by Robert Zubrin.
While Zubrin really goes off on Islamic fundamentalism, his main point is this: by shifting from a petroleum based vehicle fuels infrastructure to an alcohol-based vehicle fuels infrastructure we can introduce true market forces back into the transportable energy industry.
It would take legislation that requires all new gasoline-engined vehicles sold in the US to be flex-fuel compatible: capable of running on any blend of gasoline and alcohol. Please note that he's not just talking about ethanol, but also methanol, which he says is much more easily produced from non-food crops with less energy input. BTW, energy-in/energy-out studies blithely tend to ignore similar analysis of gasoline, as Zubrin points out, and fail to include the energy required to run our massive import protection force (the military) without which we couldn't get oil for refinement to this country.
By moving to alcohol as a vehicle fuel Zubrin contends we would open up new markets for countries whose export capacity is restricted to agriculture products, and that are capable of producing a surplus of non-food feed stock. By allowing methanol in the mix we diminish the displacement of food feedstock into fuel production as some argue is happening now with corn for ethanol. Most important, we reduce the capacity of the oil-producing nations to hold our economy hostage and turn our dollars against us as economic weapons.
For more details see www.energyvictory.net (I'd insert the link but I'm not sure how to do so). Just paste the URL into your browser.
June 18, 2008 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Zubrin should be taken about as seriously as Ray Kurzweil. In other words, not.
Zubrin makes nice headlines and is good for selling magazines like Wired, but is hyperbolic (to say the least) about trips to Mars and a few other far out sci-fi fantasies.
These guys prey on the idea that if they are optimistic enough and get you all to wish upon a star, then the dreams come true. And so anyone challenging them is a "negative type" person. It's a good racket to be in -- you don't need to actually produce anything, but you remain an "expert".
June 18, 2008 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, GreenDreams, for an interesting post.
I am a physicist and I heard a lecture last week by an electrochemist from the National Renewable Energy Lab that was really uplifting. In spite of the challenges facing us, hydrogen technology has great promise. Photovoltaics and wind power can be used to generate the electricity that is then used in the electrochemical separation of hydrogen from water. The storage technology already exists, and pipelines are already present in some parts of the country.
It is amazing how other countries have invested much more into renewable energy technology. Scandinavian countries in particular have extensive hydrogen and fuel cell technology.
The advantage of a lot of renewable energy technologies is that the electricity can be generated more locally and has great potential for providing energy needs in remote or underserved areas.
June 18, 2008 2:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Forget about hydrogen cars... haven't you noticed that they dropped out of site after Bush used the "hydrogen economy" buzzwords in his state of the union.
See, for example,
http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/news/2008/05/hydrogen?currentPage=1
Most people who talk in terms of energy don't look at the energy output over the energy input. Nor do they think about scaling issues.
Europe is quite different than the US having been developed in a pre-industrial age.
Photovoltaics will not, repeat, not save the day. Things haven't advanced that much since the 70s (though returns advanced, we still are way too far off -- and you have to account for the energy invested in making the photovoltaic cell). The sun, at best, will be used in solar thermal heating:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy
You will note this doesn't talk about electricity.
I find it interesting that nuclear energy hasn't been raised yet. Get used to it. The US will go back to nuclear (if it can -- assuming we don't wait too long). We will also be drilling in ANWR. And be prepared to have some serious disputes with Russia over mining rights in the Arctic.
And since we are talking about scaling, let's remind ourselves of an important fact:
Of course, the US is about to lose the "largest energy consumer" status to China this year or next. And the Chinese are planning much better than we.
June 18, 2008 3:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are correct that the US will turn to nukes to keep the lights on. As with most of the nukes so far, they'll use tax money to build them, certain people will profit, they'll fail safety inspections, so they'll use tax money to decommission them, and certain other people will profit.
June 18, 2008 7:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
They absolutely will NOT fail safety inspections. I'm related to an engineer who works in the nuclear industry and he is astounded that we don't have more nuclear power here in America.
Compared to the systems we had in place at 3 Mile Island, our current nuclear technology is light years ahead in safety and efficiency. It's like comparing an 8-track to an iPod.
Nuclear energy is one of the greenest energy sources on Earth. France gets most of their energy from nuclear. Europe, a very progressive continent, is highly dependent on nuclear.
It is to our national shame that we have continued to pollute our environment with coal and oil burning power plants when nuclear has been a cleaner and more eco-friendly option.
June 18, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're having trouble keeping our bridges and cranes from falling down.
June 18, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Storage is still the most major issue. Harry Reid was able to deal the final death blow to Yucca Mtn. Now the US has exactly ZERO long-term storage plans for the waste.
Storage still takes place local to the reactor -- in containers designed for 40-50 yrs of maximum usage.
The nuclear industry started in the late 50's.
You can do the math.
June 18, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps you're missing the point of my post. Renewable energy is within our capabilities if we put our minds to it. Those who dismiss it I think overstate the challenges. I have to take issue with your statement on photovoltaics especially. I work with homebuilders who are building today, net zero energy homes. They produce more electricity than they consume, and the cost is competitive today. Same for wind energy which last year became less costly than fossil energy for customers of Xcel (though they lobbied to charge more for it because "our customers expect to pay more for it"). There's also the false assumption that we have to use more petroleum than the oil or ethanol yield. Not true. There's plenty of progress, even with research budgets strangled by a lack of political will to get serious about this.
June 18, 2008 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
An additional point:
Notice how airlines are going bankrupt?
It's because even at $130/barrel oil, you can't run an airline. The alternate fuels don't become economical until you get to very pricey oil. And many alternate fuels won't even power an airplane.
So expect to be telling your grandkids that once upon a time, machines flew through the sky -- they will have to imagine what it is like.
Are you scared yet? You should be. I hope everyone is scared enough that this country places transportation issues high on the list. We will need a rail system to connect this vast country.
We will also see more boats moving things around along the major rivers, just like in the 19th century.
June 18, 2008 3:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
(Take 3 - TPM's software doesn't like my links for some reason.)
Goodness, someone seems to have wound you up on this topic, eh?
For someone who's a "clearthinker", you like to make categorical statements. I'll just comment on a few of your replies:
The European airlines don't seem to have trouble making money with oil at $130/b. In fact, they're making record profits. (And it's not just the collapse of the dollar, either.) Perhaps the problems with American airlines has to do with much more than the price of oil?
You seem very down on photovoltaics. While it's true that they aren't a silver bullet, they certainly will have great applicability in many places in the world. For instance, it doesn't make much sense for the developing world to run power lines to areas having low population densities. Also, concentrator solar cells address many of your concerns about net energy return and efficiency. (Search for "Cost Of Photovoltaic Concentrators Falling Fast".)
You say we need asphalt for roads. I'm sure you realize that there are a wide variety of materials that can be used for roads - concrete, stone, bricks, etc. The Romans did a pretty good job on the Appian Way after all...
Finally, while it's true that our modern transportation infrastructure is almost overwhelmingly dependent on petroleum, it doesn't have to stay that way. Did you know that more of the Earth's carbon is tied up in methane hydrates than in all the coal, oil, and non-hydrate natural gas combined. There are vast resources of this fuel available. Natural gas is already used as a transportation fuel, of course, and it's easy to get hydrogen from methane.
There are of course, large technological problems to be addressed before the methane hydrates can provide fuel on a commercial scale. And there's the issue of what to do about the CO2 (, and controlling methane emissions), but those problems are also being addressed. (Search for "Wallace Broecker Hardtalk".)
Skepticism is good, but don't blind yourself to other views.
My $0.02.
June 18, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
And a final point for the evening:
Oil is not just for energy... it's the basis of a lot of stuff we take for granted in this country.
Here's some news reporting on that angle:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080605/ts_csm/aoilgoods;_ylt=AqMz0gq5JKX.y9_3.PRuCxsPLBIF
Solar and wind won't be able to help here.
June 18, 2008 4:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the interesting and important post, GreenDreams.
I do, however, caution you about putting too much hope in basic idea behind one of your statements:
The almost religious faith we put in technology's ability to solve our problems is in itself one of the most serious problems we have. Instead of spending all our time upon finding alternative energy sources, let us first try using less energy. Instead of finding advanced ways to deal with our waste, let us first try to waste less.
Our great philosopher/farmer Wendell Berry encapsulates this idea in this wonderful quotation from A Continuous Harmony:
Perhaps not the easiest way to solve our environmental problems, but certainly the surest, is to change ourselves.
June 18, 2008 5:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
That faith is pretty funny because it's technology that has caused all these problems in the first place...
June 18, 2008 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Technology got us into this for sure. And seriously, do you believe that it can get us out of this mess before we all lose our jobs and are blown up by dirty bombs or get money viruses?
Isn't technology the end of us? The doomsday machine?
Forbidden Planet. Bring on the Krell.
June 18, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Another advantage of this technology is that such algae production facilities could be placed at the mouths of big polluted rivers like the Mississippi, and could convert nutrients from agricultural runoff into fuel."
I'd love to hear even the sketchiest conceptual outline of a design for the facility that would sieve out chemically all those pollutants from the Father of Waters. I don't think it will happen, I don't think it can happen.
June 18, 2008 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is a front page headlined article in the Huffingtonpost this morning that links to a Times onlineUK article that shows bugs that eat waste and have an output of petroleum.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4133668.ece
Using genetically modified bugs for fermentation is essentially the same as using natural bacteria to produce ethanol, although the energy-intensive final process of distillation is virtually eliminated because the bugs excrete a substance that is almost pump-ready.
The closest that LS9 has come to mass production is a 1,000-litre fermenting machine, which looks like a large stainless-steel jar, next to a wardrobe-sized computer connected by a tangle of cables and tubes. It has not yet been plugged in. The machine produces the equivalent of one barrel a week and takes up 40 sq ft of floor space.
Is this close to the same type of living species renewable energy sources you speak of Greendreams?
Talk to me.
June 18, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read the original blog! This was one of the first things GreenDreams brings up.
June 18, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I meant about the content of the article at TimesOnline.
Why are you so jealous, Clearthinker?
June 18, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone notice in Josh's new vid, he takes a *cab* to the book signing event? I mean, this is NYC, probably one of the best cities in the country for rail connections.
I'm pointing this out not to pick on Josh, but to show how even those people who want to push a progressive agenda, still stick to an older lifestyle -- even when an alternative is readily available.
This is a point that few at TPM are truly willing to absorb.
June 18, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every time someone plants a seed you say kill it before it grows.
June 18, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The biggest problem with many of these technologies is that they are geared toward replicating petroleum or toward substituting something like hydrogen for petroluem. The intent is really to replace Big Oil as our supplier but keep us mostly dependent on one primary source of energy -- them.
If we are to have a Manhattan-style public investment, let it be in an electric infrastructure that can be tapped into by a variety of energy producers. There are a lot of great ideas being explored and experiments being made to produce energy. It is too soon to pick one over another to throw money at. We can help best at the macro level by providing a producer-consumer delivery system.
June 18, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
...makes me think that 'clearthinker' is one of those petro-industry game-killers.
He dismisses Zubrin, who advocates a path (alcohol as replacement vehicle fuel) that has already been blazed by Brazil, as a optimist looking to sell magazines. No discussion of the actual merits of the argument, just an ad hominem attack. 'clearthinker' describes "hyperbolic" Zubrin's Mars Direct ideas as "far out sci-fi fantasies" and he compares the guy to Ray Kurzweil, a pioneer of OCR technology, who dares to speculate about the future apparently in contradiction to his own dreams of... what? Kool-aid?
Maybe his avatar reveals the ultimate truth about 'clearthinker'; he's had his pitcher already, and now he's trying to tell us we have no other choice but to drink deeply.
No thanks. It may be that Zubrin and Kurzweil are idealists whose ideas about technological solutions to real problems won't work. Or it could be that they are Goddard and Gutenberg for our times, whose pursuit of solutions will lead us down paths no one can foresee. Until they are otherwise proven, I'm gonna give them the benefit of the doubt, because they are working on answers.
July 8, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment