Aero wrote:
The part I object to in the EcoWorld article is the assumption that moving away from fossil fuels costs anything at all in the long term. Yes, it requires an up-front investment (such as building a coal-burning power plant does), but in the end it will more than pay for itself. And, best of all, the money we do spend on "tomorrow's" energy will stay right here in the U.S. and not end up funding totalitarian regimes in the Middle East.
If we invest now, we are probably going to just be spraying the money around willy nilly on stuff that ain't going anywhere.
You are on a polywell board for example. Assume something like the polywell works in 50 years from now, won't we feel stupid having 'invested' tons of cash into windmills and water socks rather than having spent it on something else, like cool 100 inch holographic TVs.
Investments have risk. This is not like putting a couple hundred bucks in a mutual fund. This is more akin to re-mortgaging our home and sticking the money into a penny stock.
The point is that you or I don't know what 'tomorrows' energy is. Investing in it involves a large amount of speculation. Why do we need anything other than free market economics and its continued incremental technological invention to find this answer. It has always worked in the past.
[Edited to note the cross-post with Seedload (IOW, I could not possibly be responding to his post, because I had not read it before I hit the submit button)]
Is planning for retirement an act of fear responding as if the "sky is falling?" No, it's good conservative thinking, in fact. Start investing early, and the the cost later is less.
Might it end up being more over time? Sure, take the beating my 401K is taking right now in the stock market. But it's still a better plan than waiting until we have to crash implement. That's like me waiting until the stock market comes back, and then having to put twice as much into the bank each month for the last ten years before retiring.
In any case, as Tom says, it doesn't have to be crash implementation now, just some reasonable level of investment to be sure we're ahead if/when we do need to push.
And, again, if that need never comes to fruition, the small investments in technology will have at least gone to train more scientists who can then work on something else. Investments in technology, I thought we could agree, tend to work out even when they don't work out.
Let's look at this from a different side. At the moment my state of Wisconsin, and most states I believe, do have incentives for people to move to wind and/or solar and other alternative sources of power. I personally think these are pretty well thought out in that they don't seem to be creating some horrific artificial rush for everyone to hop on the bandwagon. What they're creating, it seems to me, is an incentive for the industries in question to hit the economical mark sooner more than anything else. And I think this is a reasonable way to invest. In fact a "stimulus package" that actually creates a real long-lasting positive benefit. For the industry, not just for the environment. New jobs.
I'd rather give it to the tech industries than give it to the banking industry, the only benefit of which is to generate confidence (and how long will that last?).
Solar and wind power are not exactly a new idea. They've been considered part of the eventual destination for fossil fuel depletion since at least the 1970s (that I can personally recall). So we're already taking a very long view approach to these technologies. I think the rate is just fine as it is.
You may note that I, for one, do not advocate putting any more money at the problem, given that I'm optimistic that the problem is already solving itself pretty quickly at the current rate of investment. I think electric cars are already here and a done deal within a couple of years, and this means that we need more electrical generation, and less oil (we'll still burn lots of coal, sure).
Now, if you want to argue debt reduction, then I may have to join you, admitting that the investment in economic stability may be worth far more than the tech investment at some point. But with both Dems and Repubs advocating spending our way out of the current problem, I doubt that this will be adopted any time soon. Perhaps when we've come out of this recession, and people start thinking about shrinking the debt. Hopefully at that poit the tech investments will have brought the technology to within striking distance of non-subsidized profitability so that the private sector will go after it all on their own.
Eventually these alternate technologies will produce some proportion of our energy needs more efficiently than fossil fuels can. And that's worth getting to a little ahead of market speed in the long run. If you read the news on solar, the advancements are coming out like clockwork now. At this point, actually, it may simply be some management putting together the right production scheme to make it baseline economical. For some small applications it already is economical, apparently.
No, these won't ever replace fossil fuels on their own. But they'll shrink demand to some extent. So even if fossil fuels have a long tail, it'll be a cheaper, gradually diminishing tail. Heck, we might find that we need to warm our planet at some point, and have to burn all of the fossil fuels just to create enough CO2 to avoid an ecological disaster in that direction. Who knows? Even if true, that still doesn't void the fact that they'll run out, and then we'd better have nuc tech or something running to continue the heating (as solar and wind are, I believe, heat neutral in the long run).
An investment in a wide array of technologies gives us the wherewithal and understanding to be able to react any way we need to react, and ends up being more economical in the long run, even if we never need to react.
Note that I'm so optimistic about development that I think that we could get away with having no incentives at this point, merely because I think we'll get to the solutions without any incentives before any disaster hits us. But even if that's the case, I still think that the current rate of investment is sound. Heck, if only to keep us ahead of the rest of the world in general technological capability.
Mike
[Edited in response to Seedload: Let's say that BFR becomes a reality. Does that mean that there's no possible use then for efficient solar technology? Like BFR will be small enough that we can use it to move the Mars rovers around? If we build the technology, somebody will come up with an economical use for it. Always happens (the exceptions will prove the rule, I'm sure). We didn't get nuclear power by waiting around for the free market to produce it, no, that was the Manhattan Project and other government investments.]
I'm all for planning and spending money on research.
What I object to is spending a gazillion dollars and putting on mandates raising energy costs above their current level.
The best time to spend the big bucks is at the crossover point where new energy costs = old energy costs. This is expected to happen through natural technological evolution some time between 2030 and 2040.
There is no rush.
If solar output is declining - we will know by around 2020 - and since even IPCC says the cooling trend will continue until 2015 we have plenty of time before a decision needs to be made.
In any case the point is moot. China and India.
So how do we get them on board? Simple. Give them a cheaper way to make energy than oil and coal. Which would be good for them and good for us.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Again, it seems to me that if we disagree at all here, it's merely in terms of numbers that may well fall below the horizon of significant digits.
One thing I completely agree upon with you is that subsidizing something like biofuel is ludicrous. This will raise costs both for fuel and food, and to no good end at all. There's no new technology being developed there (hillbillies have fueled their vehicles on distillate of corn mash since before prohibition), and it's grossly inefficient. So much so that we don't even get security benefits from it as more petroleum products are used in the process of creating the stuff than are saved by using it.
Who's behind this, anyway, Monsanto? Some farming lobby?
Aero wrote:
The part I object to in the EcoWorld article is the assumption that moving away from fossil fuels costs anything at all in the long term. Yes, it requires an up-front investment (such as building a coal-burning power plant does), but in the end it will more than pay for itself. And, best of all, the money we do spend on "tomorrow's" energy will stay right here in the U.S. and not end up funding totalitarian regimes in the Middle East.
If we invest now, we are probably going to just be spraying the money around willy nilly on stuff that ain't going anywhere.
seedload - I didn't write that, it should have been attributed to Maui.
But I would have written it if I had thought of it.
Mike Holmes wrote:One thing I completely agree upon with you is that subsidizing something like biofuel is ludicrous. This will raise costs both for fuel and food, and to no good end at all. There's no new technology being developed there (hillbillies have fueled their vehicles on distillate of corn mash since before prohibition), and it's grossly inefficient.
Mike
Wrong. There is new tech being developed here: cellulosic ethanol. Cellulosic ethanol will not affect food prices because it will be produced from switgrass growing on land that is currently unutilized for farming and from farm existing farm waste that currently isn't used for anything. Like solar and wind, it will not come anywhere close to being a solution in and of itself, but it will be part of the solution.
So while I agree that food crop based biofuels should not receive subsidies, I certainly think incentives should be provided for cellulosic ethanol.
Mike Holmes wrote:One thing I completely agree upon with you is that subsidizing something like biofuel is ludicrous. This will raise costs both for fuel and food, and to no good end at all. There's no new technology being developed there (hillbillies have fueled their vehicles on distillate of corn mash since before prohibition), and it's grossly inefficient.
Mike
Wrong. There is new tech being developed here: cellulosic ethanol. Cellulosic ethanol will not affect food prices because it will be produced from switgrass growing on land that is currently unutilized for farming and from farm existing farm waste that currently isn't used for anything. Like solar and wind, it will not come anywhere close to being a solution in and of itself, but it will be part of the solution.
So while I agree that food crop based biofuels should not receive subsidies, I certainly think incentives should be provided for cellulosic ethanol.
I talked to a farmer once about switchgrass. You know what kills it? The cost of harvesting it and hauling it to a conversion plant 10 miles away.
To be viable any energy production scheme has to have a minimum gain of 5 and better 10 to 20. Any less than that is not economical or practical.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
seedload wrote:If we invest now, we are probably going to just be spraying the money around willy nilly on stuff that ain't going anywhere.
You are on a polywell board for example. Assume something like the polywell works in 50 years from now, won't we feel stupid having 'invested' tons of cash into windmills and water socks rather than having spent it on something else, like cool 100 inch holographic TVs.
Investments have risk. This is not like putting a couple hundred bucks in a mutual fund. This is more akin to re-mortgaging our home and sticking the money into a penny stock.
The point is that you or I don't know what 'tomorrows' energy is. Investing in it involves a large amount of speculation. Why do we need anything other than free market economics and its continued incremental technological invention to find this answer. It has always worked in the past.
As Aero pointed out, you were actually responding to my comment when you wrote this.
I disagree with your response on both its major points:
1) Wasting money. The convenient thing about making AE investments now is that it is almost universally agreed that the U.S. gov actually needs to "waste" money in the short term in the form of an economic stimulus package to prevent the recession from spiraling out of control. Instead of just cutting everyone checks, why not use it to create jobs developing AE? If none of the AE pans out, you are still no worse off than had you just cut checks-- in both cases the temporary infusion of cash into the economy would create a temporary boost . But if at least some tech does take hold, not only will the economy have received a short term boost, but it will also enjoy a long term payoff in the form of cheaper energy and permanent jobs.
2) AE is 'unknown' and too big of a risk. Sure, there is some research out that that I think can be called a big risk-- fusion for example. (inc polywell). But there are a number of forms of AE in which the tech already allows for energy at prices comparable to fossile fuel that are only lacking in investment. For example, new fission plants and transmission lines for wind power. And there are also a number of technologies that are close enough that it seems a very safe bet that more investment will payoff and not end up wasted. For example, thin-film solar and cellulosic ethanol.
MSimon wrote:I talked to a farmer once about switchgrass. You know what kills it? The cost of harvesting it and hauling it to a conversion plant 10 miles away.
To be viable any energy production scheme has to have a minimum gain of 5 and better 10 to 20. Any less than that is not economical or practical.
There are many studies to the contrary. this one, for example.
Maui wrote:
1) ...it is almost universally agreed that the U.S. gov actually needs to "waste" money in the short term in the form of an economic stimulus package to prevent the recession from spiraling out of control....
I personally disagree with this and also disagree with the supposed universallity of it.
Maui wrote:
2) For example, new fission plants
It strikes me as funny that fission is now an alternative energy. I agree, build nukes. Build lots of 'em. Turn on industry. Stop stopping them.
Maui wrote:and transmission lines for wind power.
Agree, we need to upgrade our electrical transmission capacity. Not sure of the governments role in this.
I don't agree with you about wind and solar. Won't make a dent is my opinion on them.
Wasting money. The convenient thing about making AE investments now is that it is almost universally agreed that the U.S. gov actually needs to "waste" money in the short term in the form of an economic stimulus package to prevent the recession from spiraling out of control. Instead of just cutting everyone checks, why not use it to create jobs developing AE? If none of the AE pans out, you are still no worse off than had you just cut checks-
Stagflation will be the result. Lending rates will be in the 10% to 20% interest range in 3 to 5 years.
Which means projects done must be short term and have a 30% rate of return.
Any business that can not operate out of cash flow will not get done.
Jacobson's research is particularly timely in light of the growing push to develop biofuels, which he calculated to be the worst of the available alternatives. In their effort to obtain a federal bailout, the Big Three Detroit automakers are increasingly touting their efforts and programs in the biofuels realm, and federal research dollars have been supporting a growing number of biofuel-research efforts.
"That is exactly the wrong place to be spending our money. Biofuels are the most damaging choice we could make in our efforts to move away from using fossil fuels," Jacobson said. "We should be spending to promote energy technologies that cause significant reductions in carbon emissions and air-pollution mortality, not technologies that have either marginal benefits or no benefits at all".
I'm a little more optimistic about algae. But given that we have lots of other options, I'm not seeing why we need to go at this one, when it demonstrably has efficiency problems no matter which study you look at, as compares other technologies.
I note that the author of the study points out that, while, no, we couldn't produce enough wind energy to provide for all our energy needs, we could, in fact, produce enough to supply every car with enough electrical energy to get us around.
Sounds like a massive reduction in carbon footprint to me. Yeah, infrastructure costs, sure. But then the energy costs nothing but the infrastructure maintainence costs (which you have with any energy distribution system). I can't see any reasonable reason not to build windmills.
Just as I can't see any reasonable reason not to build more nuc plants to take care of the other part of the equation. And solar, and geothermal, and tidal, etc. If one or more of these falls by the wayside as proven inefficient or obsolete at some point, fine. They'll pay for themselves by that time, I'm pretty convinced.
I wish zoning where I was would allow me to put up a big old (well, new really) windmill...
Mike Holmes wrote:Maui, I'm still pretty skeptical. Not just supposition, people are studying these things closely. Why I read in a new study just released in the news today... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 171908.htm
Huh... The last time I really looked into cellulosic ethanol, I didn't seem to find much doubt out there that it would become viable in a short time. I just read your article and some more and you're right-- there does seem to be quite a bit of doubt about it coming to fruition.
However, the study you linked to wasn't considering economics, it was considering environmental harm including damage to wildlife. I'm not sure how you would go about weighting damage to wildlife against pollution and other factors-- it seems like whatever method they used would have had to have been almost arbitrary. And as far as GHG emissions go, there continue to be studies such as the one I linked to above that find it would significantly reduce them compared to oil. I wonder does this study not agree on GHGs or is it considering heavily other types of pollution?
As far as economics go, there was one published in March that found cellulosic ethanol using switchgrass would cost about $0.60 a gallon to produce making it very viable economically.
It seems to me that these various studies must be making very different assumptions about technology for producing cellulosic ethanol. While I'll withdraw my statement that cellulosic ethanol is a very safe bet, from what I can read, there is certainly still enough promise that we shouldn't just abandon it. In fact, I dont' think we should abandon anything. As you say:
If one or more of these falls by the wayside as proven inefficient or obsolete at some point, fine.
... but its only fine if we have another other techs to fill the void. Right now we are so far from energy independence and GHG neutrality that it makes absolutely no sense to be eliminating options at this stage of the game. I think its important to give each tech a fair shot at viability and let business, driven by cap-and-trade and other incentives, find and utilize the most cost-effective solutions. If we solve the political quagmire on nuclear waste and business still doesn't find it cost-effective to build new nuclear plants, so be it. But let's not eliminate any possible solutions out-of-hand. Let's fund research and find solutions to roadblocks such as nuclear waste then let the chips fall where they may.
Maui wrote:
1) ...it is almost universally agreed that the U.S. gov actually needs to "waste" money in the short term in the form of an economic stimulus package to prevent the recession from spiraling out of control....
I personally disagree with this and also disagree with the supposed universallity of it.
Here's a survey of economists from October in which 74% agreed on the need for a second stimulus. And one from November found 82% supported a third based on an assumption that a second would be passed before the year was out.
Okay, maybe "universal" was a little strong. But politically, there is no viable resistance in Washington to the passage of a another stimulus package. The only debate is the scope and implementation.
I guess whether or not you agree with it, if you accept that its going to happen, my point is if the U.S. gov is hunting for ways to dump cash, if it is spent on AE, it is not really spending any money that wouldn't have been spent anyway.