Alternative Energies: Different kinds and a few thoughts

[uofom3]

The price of gas as it stands today is a problem for many Americans, as well as many people around the world who have it worse than we here in the US do for gasoline prices. There are many factors that have gone into creating the gasoline prices that we are experiencing today, a brief and incomplete list includes:
- global demand increase
- policies against drilling for more oil (supply problems)
- OPEC
- consumer behavior (globally as well as domestically)
- antiquated technology for heating/cooling
- speculators (to a very much lesser extent - I don't personally blame the speculators for anything as they are simply acting on information that the market is giving them).

There are many more, but these are a start. So the question then starts to become - what kind of oils are available? There are several types of unconventional oils (not sweet crude):
- Deepwater oil
- Polar oil
- natural gas liquids (NGL)
- Heavy/Extra heavy oils (oil shale/tar sands)

The problems with these unconventional/heavy oils is that they are:
- currently more expensive to extract
- require massive investments
- take time to acquire

Lets look at some of the primary sources of alternative oils:

Tar Sands (oil sands):
- more than 1 trillion barrels in reserve in Canada
- requires a lot of natural gas/water
- requires a lot of energy to extract

This could be a good solution some day if the extraction process gets better and more finanically viable.

Oil Shale:
This is basically rock that has not given up the oil yet. To extract, you need to use large amounts of heat/water to break the oil out of the rock and then extract it (this is simplifying it). This is something that could bring a lot of jobs/oil/etc. to the markets where it is found, but the energy return is not great.

Natural gas:
- Burns cleanly
- production peaked in US in 2003
- LNG imports will increase, but still maintains the depenency on foreign nations

Coal:
- most abundant, and most problematic fuel
- VAST resources around the world
- The NUMBER 1 source of energy in the US.
- coal can be used to create "synthetic liquid fuel". this is what the Germans did during WWII as I have mentioned before, as well as South Africa during Apartheid.
- US gets 51% of energy from coal
Good news is - the environmental impact of coal is starting to be negated with new technologies.

Nuclear Energy:
- makes up 20% of energy in the US and 12% of global electricity
- carbon emissions are nearly zero
- no shortage of uranium
- possibly politically feasible thanks to the environmental friendliness with the exception of the disposal of used up uranium.
- Gen IV reactors are much safer, more efficient than some of the original nuke facilities that have received so much negative attention.

The affor mentioned are "primary sources of energy". There is then "secondary" energy sources. This includes:
- Hydrogen
- Biofuels (ethanol, biodesel, methanol)

Hydrogen:
- most abundant element in the universe
- it's not a source of energy, rather it's a form of energy storage
- Hydrogen has major problems including volatility, need for pressurization, highly expensive.
- If better batteries are developed, hydrogen would be really not a viable option due to the risks in volved with harnessing it for transportation use.

Biofuels:
- less pollution created than traditional gasoline.
- very expensive (biodiesel)
- unintended consequences (fuel system damage, corn shortage with ethanol, etc.)
- to run our current US population on ethanol or other biofuel, we would need more land to grow the corn on than is available in the US.


So now we break down to what I think is going to be at the heart of the matter - renewable sources of energy. This includes:
- Hydro power
- wind
- solar
- tides/waves
- geothermal power (debatble about how renewable it really is)

Hydropower:
- used on a major scale around the world
- Many environmentalists oppose new dams, but in reality the damage is generally very minimal and what damage is done is localized to one area. Primary polluting or other damage is doen during the construction process.
- Downside... we are already exploiting the vast majority of viable options for hydro power... it already composes 9% of our energy production and is concentrated primarily in the west and northeast.

Wind:
- Economically speaking, it's the fastest growing renewable resource
- produces 1% of the US electricity (currently)
- New wind turbines are much more efficient and do a far better job.
- Wind is an obviously renewable resource - if the wind stops blowing we are going to have serious problems ;).
BUT - wind has its drawbacks
- kills birds (not that it bothers me)
- aesthetically less than pleasing
- restricted to windy areas
- Wind does not blow all the time, and therefore does not create power all the time which somewhat restricts it to being a backup to other forms of more reliable energy sources.

Solar power:
- Intermittency because of the fact the sun doesn't shine constantly in many places
- thus, geography matters
- Pannels today don't generate enough energy to run "everything" in a house..
- also - if demand gets too high will be run out of material to build solar pannels and what is the environmental cost for creating them particularly on a mass scale?

Geothermal energy:
This is something that I was not very familiar with until I did some reading.
- Basically, geothermal heat pumps use insulating properties of the earth to privide residential heating in winter and cooling in teh summer.
- dependent on location as to whether or not it's a viable solutions

Wave power:
Essentially, wave farms are put off the coast and use the rolling waves to generate electricity in strings of flat buoeys (sp??). Downsides are that it "might" hurt fish and they look bad off the coast.

Tidal power:
Large turbines are turned as the tide comes in and out. This turns the turbine and generates electricity. This is once again a decision for people to make as to whether or not they can live with the loss of some marine life (potentially). it's zero emissions outside of that.

SO, you've read this far. This has been written to discuss all the alternatives that are out there (or at least some of the more mainstream possibilities).

It's my personal opinion that we need to move quickly to nuclear power first and foremost. It's clean, has a ton of energy, and can be used anywhere.

Secondly, we need to exploit wind/tidal/hydro/wave powers. I'm personally not sold on solar as it costs a lot and doesn't really produce a lot of energy. I saw something the other day where they had a roof virtually covered in solar pannels and they said all it did was generate enough energy to heat water and pay like 10% of the electric bill. That kind of savings vs. the cost of the pannels just doesn't add up to me. Maybe someday when the solar industry gets more advanced and we can harness more energy from their use, I would be more on board with that. The other options that I have posted represent a great deal of proven energy that will lower our dependence on oil and have us start limiting the use to transportation only.

Finally, we need to explore oil shale here at home and the tar sands in Canada; drill here, drill now. the techonologies that we have today can make off shore, shale, and tar sand oil exploration a viable solution. Food for thought on this is:
1 - only 1% of all oil in the oceans today is from man
2 - When the gulf coast, and new orleans in particular, experienced katrina we learned a lot about our country. we learned about government inadequacies, peoples inability to take care of themselves, Bush being slow to respond, etc. We also learned that we didn't spill a SINGLE DROP of oil from off shore rigs or storage tanks during the worst storm in the areas history.
3 - oil prices will fall IMMEDIATELY if we even just SAY we are going to drill. Look what happened to the price of oil when Bush lifted the ban on offshore drilling? The futures market responded, the traders responded, because they knew that in the future the increase in supply would decrease the cost.
4 - We DO NOT HAVE A SUPPLY PROBLEM. we have a willingness problem to go out and get it. Every other first world nation is doing what they can to get oil, and create alternative forms of energy (read nuclear energy). we must do what we can, and every other nation should as well, to become as independent from other nations for energy sources as possible.

I am all for removing fossil fuels from our energy supplies. However, it's just not pragmatic to tell people to stop driving cars that use gasoline. that would take literally decades to get people off of gasoline for driving. we can start today, but not at the cost of crippling the US economy. If the US economy is doing well, it benefits many other nations around the world. The US gov. has the responsibility to not handicap it's population with red tape and partisan bickering.

So -
- Start the nuke power plant building process
- exploit the other forms of alternative energy
- use a bit less
- and drill here, drill now.

Do those things in that order, and I think the price at the pump should come back down to a reasonable level that would translate back through the rest of the economy and make your life, my life, and the populations life better.

Thanks for reading the long post.... thoughts?

[Schniddy]

Thank you for the good read. We should of started to process of drilling in alaska 10 years ago for the sake of today.

[uofom3]

Thank you for the good read. We should of started to process of drilling in alaska 10 years ago for the sake of today.

best analogy I have hear about ANWR - "Think of drilling in ANWR like this. Imagine drilling a postage samp size hole on an NFL football field; that's what we're talking about here with ANWR"

[CorvallisBMW]

2 - When the gulf coast, and new orleans in particular, experienced katrina we learned a lot about our country. we learned about government inadequacies, peoples inability to take care of themselves, Bush being slow to respond, etc. We also learned that we didn't spill a SINGLE DROP of oil from off shore rigs or storage tanks during the worst storm in the areas history.
3 - oil prices will fall IMMEDIATELY if we even just SAY we are going to drill. Look what happened to the price of oil when Bush lifted the ban on offshore drilling? The futures market responded, the traders responded, because they knew that in the future the increase in supply would decrease the cost.
4 - We DO NOT HAVE A SUPPLY PROBLEM. we have a willingness problem to go out and get it. Every other first world nation is doing what they can to get oil, and create alternative forms of energy (read nuclear energy). we must do what we can, and every other nation should as well, to become as independent from other nations for energy sources as possible.

Agreed, mostly. Except for these 3 things:

2. The US coast Guard estimated that over 4 Million Gallons of oil was spilled from holding tanks and refineries during Katrina:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9365607/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy_...(Chalmette,_La)

3. The drop in oil prices was due to a report that US oil stockpiles had grown significantly more than expected, meaning there was more supply and prices went down. It really didn't have anything to do with Bush lifting the executive ban on drilling b/c there is still a legislative ban. I have yet to hear anyone in credit the lifting of the ban with any effect on pricing.

4. There is a supply problem in that supply cannot keep up with demand. Most of the easily accessible oil in the world is on the decline, and whats left is getting harder and more expensive to extract. With the demand from India and China growing so rapidly: Yes we do have a supply problem

[Ral]

I had a prof in school who flew A-6 Intruders during the '80's from big-deck carriers (the ones that are nuclear powered). His neighbor (he lived right by the base, less than 20 miles from where up to 4 nuclear reactors were operating) says to him "Man. I sure am glad I don't live next to a nuclear reactor. Those things are super dangerous, remember Chernobyl?" and was completely serious. To me, it proves the safety and efficiency of nuclear power, and how unobtrusive it can be when administered by competent, safety-minded people.

also, when a submarine or aircraft carrier pulls into port, it usually sells its extra electricity to the city it's docked at. A Los-Angeles class submarine is tiny as ships go, yet produces enough power at what counts for idle to make a difference in the city's power supply.

[uofom3]

Agreed, mostly. Except for these 3 things:

2. The US coast Guard estimated that over 4 Million Gallons of oil was spilled from holding tanks and refineries during Katrina:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9365607/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy_...(Chalmette,_La)

3. The drop in oil prices was due to a report that US oil stockpiles had grown significantly more than expected, meaning there was more supply and prices went down. It really didn't have anything to do with Bush lifting the executive ban on drilling b/c there is still a legislative ban. I have yet to hear anyone in credit the lifting of the ban with any effect on pricing.

4. There is a supply problem in that supply cannot keep up with demand. Most of the easily accessible oil in the world is on the decline, and whats left is getting harder and more expensive to extract. With the demand from India and China growing so rapidly: Yes we do have a supply problem

The wiki link was dead.

Interesting find on the leaking of oil, a professor I spoke with (huge lefty) never even discussed it and I would have assumed he would have noted that with his detest for fossil fuels.

What media outlets do you listen to? Honestly, I'm asking. If it's CNN/MSNBC/etc. they would never credit bush for doing anything. Oil futures dropped because it became reasonable to assume that there may be a potential for increase supply; that's what speculators do. The speculators are being vilified as evil and now the cause of all of these energy problems; though they do have something to do with it they are simply reacting to all of the information in the markets. Even though there is still a congresional ban on the drilling, it's becomming much more popular. Bush was half of the equation, and that's why prices dropped that day. These people monitor oil inventory closely - that gets factored into the price over time and quickly. They don't just sit there and say "oh shit, there is a TON of excess supply!" and then react to it. you can see it comming if demand/consumption has decreased... that's why pricing had been dropping over the previous days. If congress did the right thing and let us explore to help us get out of these problems in the short term - and took long term reform seriously - oil would drop a LOT in a short period of time.

Think about all of the stuff that is available that we are not touching. I listed two other forms of oil we're not even thinking about getting to. You also caveat your statement by saying "easily accessible". The difference between easily accessible is oil being pulled out of the ground right now, and two years from now. regardless of whether it's today, or two years from today, it will factor into the price and lower it if people know that we are being proactive in bringing in more domestic crude. Further proof of there not being a supply problem is that OPEC nations could give us more crude than we can possibly refine. So the problem is from the bottleneck of not having enough refining capacity, so in that sense it is a supply problem.

Oil was hovering around 123-125 last I checked. I bet if we announced an aggressive nuke power plant program you can shave $10.00 off of that quickly.... demand would be down in the futures market. Imagine coupling that with wind farms and domestic oil exploration!

Finally - if there is really a supply problem, why would people be buying Boeing jets for use overseas and pre-ordering the new Gulfstream that doesn't actually come out for years? The jets need gas to fly on, so people clearly don't think we are going to run out. Ironically, a lot of the people buying these jets are countries who have explored more alternative energy (nuke,wave,etc) and have done what they can to reduce their dependence on other nations energy exports.

[CorvallisBMW]

The wiki link was dead.

Finally - if there is really a supply problem, why would people be buying Boeing jets for use overseas and pre-ordering the new Gulfstream that doesn't actually come out for years? The jets need gas to fly on, so people clearly don't think we are going to run out. Ironically, a lot of the people buying these jets are countries who have explored more alternative energy (nuke,wave,etc) and have done what they can to reduce their dependence on other nations energy exports.

huh, I dont know what happened to that link. It was working a few minutes ago, and it works if you google for it. Oh well. here's anotehr from Bnet on the fallout:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2006_Sept_25/ai_n16838545

And some stiff from ND:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/09/photogalleries/hurricane_katrina_pets/photo2.html

But yeah, I do think we have a supply problem. Just because something may become more scarce, does not mean people will just stop using it cold turkey. Of course airplanes will continue to sell; people still need to fly. It doesn't matter if there is a supply problem or not because airlines will adjust their prices to match the cost of jet fuel. There is also a shortage of copper in the world (demand>supply) but you don't see people abandoning the use of copper altogether. So I'm not really following the aircraft logic....

[DEV0 E30]

Martin Eberhard calls it "Solar Synergy" -- an apt phrase for the benefits derived from having an electrical car and a home that's powered by an extensive solar PV array. Eberhard was a founder of Tesla and he just received his shiny new Founders' Series Roadster. It's an incredible car, don't you think? As you ogle its curves -- it's the embodiment of pure innovation, try to recall what I said recently in the article about the Green Building Aspects of the Plug-in Toyota Prius. In that article, I made the statement that "buildings might just replace gas stations." Actually, I should be more assertive: buildings will replace gas stations. And if you'd like to see a more defined example as to how that will happen, make sure to read about Eberhard's 5.2 kW photovoltaic system and all-electric Tesla Roadster.

On his blog, Eberhard uses back-of-the envelope figures to illustrate the synergistic benefits of home solar power and an electrical car. He estimates the payback of his solar PV system is about 25 years, not counting inflation, present value of money, or potential for home appreciation. In addition, by using energy provided by the solar PV system to power the car, which minimizes the need to pay for expensive gasoline, he puts the payback on his solar PV system at about 9.5 years.

This is all just payback and investment talk, though.

Here's the real benefit to having a solar powered home and an electrical vehicle: he's powering his home and car using energy generated from the sun. For the most part, as far as I can tell, he's not using coal, natural gas, or any of the other fossil fuels to power the home or fuel up his sporty Roadster. Notice the fueling station at home. That's what our future will look like -- it's not that far away.

http://www.jetsongreen.com/2008/07/martin-eberhard.html

In depth @ the Tesla Founder's blog:

http://teslafounders.wordpress.com/2008/07/19/tesla-founders-car/#more-107

http://teslafounders.wordpress.com/2008/02/25/solar-synergy/

[CorvallisBMW]

^ now that's what I'm talking about. Awesome.

[netcsk]

You can bet your ass that nuclear power is ramping up. Its about to be a repeat of the 70s.

It will be a lot more helpful if people would know that Three Mile Island was a large SUCCESS for the nuclear industry in showing how safe the reactors are, and that what happened in Chernobyl is IMPOSSIBLE with the combination of our reactors and the NRC's procedures.

The only problem I can is that we wont be able to build them fast enough. There is not enough of the people that are needed to churn out 25 plants in the next 15 years. Hell, we're having a hard enough time at the moment.

[CorvallisBMW]

You can bet your ass that nuclear power is ramping up. Its about to be a repeat of the 70s.

It will be a lot more helpful if people would know that Three Mile Island was a large SUCCESS for the nuclear industry in showing how safe the reactors are, and that what happened in Chernobyl is IMPOSSIBLE with the combination of our reactors and the NRC's procedures.

The only problem I can is that we wont be able to build them fast enough. There is not enough of the people that are needed to churn out 25 plants in the next 15 years. Hell, we're having a hard enough time at the moment.

True. The approval process is also very lengthy and complicated; Lots of red tape. That and all those fuckers in Nevada won't let us dump our waste in their back yard ;)

[uofom3]

True. The approval process is also very lengthy and complicated; Lots of red tape. That and all those fuckers in Nevada won't let us dump our waste in their back yard ;)

ha and ours! we have some nasty shit hanging out over in eastern oregon.

[Pinepig]

True. The approval process is also very lengthy and complicated; Lots of red tape. That and all those fuckers in Nevada won't let us dump our waste in their back yard ;)

Breeder reactors.:)

[uofom3]

But yeah, I do think we have a supply problem. Just because something may become more scarce, does not mean people will just stop using it cold turkey.

Right, so how do we fix the supply problem? We explore for more. We only have this supply problem if we continue to ban the exploration for more oil domestically and stop nuke/wind/wave/solar/etc. from being implemented.

Of course airplanes will continue to sell; people still need to fly. It doesn't matter if there is a supply problem or not because airlines will adjust their prices to match the cost of jet fuel.

That is 100% correct. So then you are OK with making flying more expensive, as well as everything else?

There is also a shortage of copper in the world (demand>supply) but you don't see people abandoning the use of copper altogether. So I'm not really following the aircraft logic....

Thank you for clarifying shortage for me, I couldn't have figured that one out ;). The aircraft logic is that why would you be adding planes to a fleet for five years in the future if you think oil is going to be so expensive by then that you can't operate aircraft (like is happening now with several major airlines)? Your logic is correct that people will just charge more for goods, but if you price yourself out of the marketplace you won't be in business any longer and no one wins because those jobs are cut, etc. Then you get more government involvement and we run into even more problems.

I'm not saying that our long-term solution is to live off of gasoline forever. I am saying that in the short term is not worth damaging our economy further than we already have.

The sad thing is, it hurts lower income people more... those are the people who should be screaming to drill now and as fast as possible; do anything and everything to lower prices.

[uofom3]

Devon, that's a sweet little car there. it's honestly very cool and in no way am I saying it's a bad idea - and I think it's the future.

BUT... $36,000.00? (Actually 46k - it's only 36k after a 10k bailout from the CA state government).

It fits two people at most, and costs 36k. This isn't a solution for most families of 3 or more at that price with the limited functionality.

Also, what happens if I live north of the 45th parallel? The sun doesn't shine much up here, so how am I supposed to make my car go?

I'm not a naysayer of alternatives. However, this kind of thing is cost-prohibitive to most people and in this case utlizes a resource that we don't all get to see all the time. Futuristic ideas are totally necessary at this point in time, but TODAY it will make only a small difference.

Solar and wind are secondary sources of energy, for reasons that should be pretty obvious. I wouldn't want to base my ability to travel on a weather report. Now a battery powered car that is getting juice from a nuclear facility that is backed up by solar, wind, and hydro - that I would bet my commute on.