Our New Energy Crisis
|
|
almost four years ago, when oil was trading at around $40 a barrel, Paul Roberts wrote a story for Mother Jones on a bleak scenario gaining currency among energy insiders, but not yet in the mainstream consciousness: peak oil, basically the notion that the world's petroleum resources are nearing exhaustion. If the theory held true, Roberts warned, oil prices could soon leap to "perhaps as high as $100 per barrel—a disaster if we don't have a cost-effective alternative fuel or technology in place."
Welcome to the disaster: $100-a-barrel oil is in the rearview mirror, and no cost-effective (or even cost-prohibitive) alternative has emerged. The most dire consequences of this failing—hurricanes, drought, extinction—are occurring far more rapidly than even Slideshow Al could have predicted four years ago. And then there's the war.
It's easy enough to blame Dick Cheney, Big Oil, Detroit—all of whom have done their part in obstructing progress. But their chicanery distracts us from the far greater problem, one that, unfortunately, comes down to Organic Chemistry 101. Every technological advance of the last 150 years has been powered by a unique, extremely energy-dense, but finite—and, as it turns out, planet-killing—source of fuel. Switching away from fossil energy requires an economic and social transformation at least as great as the Industrial Revolution. And we have to build this new economy on the fumes of the old, hoping that we don't run out of gas, or ice caps, before we get there. As Roberts points out in this special issue on energy, if we sit on our hands or let the process be hijacked by vested interests, "there may not be enough crude left in the ground to fuel a second try."
This change will be painful. Building a new energy economy will require enormous government and private investment. It will involve massive workforce upheaval and possibly physical dislocation. The conservation measures demanded will make victory gardens or Jimmy Carter donning a sweater look like three-day diets.
The last time we took such issues seriously, in Carter's day, it was called an energy crisis. Thermostats were turned down across the land, and we went into R&D overdrive. And that crisis was only about the price of oil—which topped out at all of $78 in today's dollars. Few were talking about global warming or blood for oil.
Today's energy crisis is on a different scale. We're reliant on an ever-more dubious cast of characters to provide us power. And if you think the mortgage meltdown is troubling, wait till the markets discover the real price of carbon and realize that our entire economy is, essentially, built on a planetary accounting fraud.
Greenhouse gases, geology, and geopolitics give us no choice but to change our ways. The truth is, that change has already begun. Just as we've gone, in the space of a few years, from debating the validity of climate change to being confronted daily with the rapidity of glacial melting, so too will the shift to a postfossil economy, now largely imperceptible, soon be painfully evident. We can—as we did when confronted with the Great Depression or World War II—overhaul our society and economy and emerge stronger, or we can get swamped by change, watching helplessly as others ride the wave of postcarbon innovation. Will we be Chrysler or Toyota?
What we can't bank on is that some geek in Silicon Valley will, on her own, come up with the perfect solution. Nor will the treasured fixes of the left—solar panels on every roof, banning Hummers, forgoing imported tomatoes—be sufficient. The questions we face are on the order of: Are you willing to consider a nuclear plant in your back yard? If not your yard, whose? And if not a reactor, how about damming a bucolic river, or windmills that ruin a cherished view? What new regulations and taxes do we need to kick-start the transformation?
Forcing the nation to confront such questions is the most critical task our next president faces—more important than resolving the war, bolstering the economy, or fixing health care. As Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) has warned, the president will have advisers whispering that she or he "can appear forward-looking on energy with a few carefully chosen initiatives.... without asking for sacrifices or risking the possible failure of a more controversial energy policy."
We are guaranteed better leadership than Bush: John McCain introduced the first carbon cap-and-trade bill, and both Clinton and Obama have presented solid, at times groundbreaking, energy plans. But better isn't good enough. We need someone who recognizes the urgency and enormity of the task at hand, who won't fall for bromides like "energy independence" or "clean coal," and, most of all, who can shock the rest of us out of our complacency and ask for sacrifices. Let's hope that kind of change is in the offing.
I drive a Porsche Cayenne, and while not a Hummer I still get stares from the smug people. Some of these smug people will hop into their mini-Suburbans or Priuses and drive a couple hundred miles to kayak down one of our majestic Sierra rivers.
Until we are ready to give up the little joys in our lives, like my Cayenne or a weekend of rafting, we aren't ready to solve the energy crisis.
One reason that the concept of peak oil is dismissed so casually by the main-stream media is that it is so often presented that way, and no one with a glimmer of knowledge about oil markets believes that to be true. Even for people without that glimmer of knowledge, it's all too easy to dismiss. Remember the oil shocks of the 1970s? Everyone said we were running out of oil then. Well, did we?? It's the same kind of people saying the same kinds of things now. Ergo, "peak oil" is nonsense.
It's not nonsense at all. Peak oil is about flows - about extraction, transportation, refining - that is, about what usually is called oil production.
Oil production is normally given in units of millions of (42-gallon) barrels per day. For almost three years now, liquid oil plus some other liquid fuels such as ethanol and propane have together amounted to around 85 million barrels per day. (As it happens, that's right around 1000 barrels per second, and the U.S. consumes one quarter of it.)
It is possible that the daily production of 85 million barrels will go up at some point, driven by extremely high prices. Whether or not it does, at some time in the future daily production will take a turn southward and never come back up to the highest level again. That is the peak -- peak oil.
When peak oil happens, there will still be lots and lots of petroleum in the ground, we just will not be able to produce it as quickly, primarily for geological and geographical reasons.
So, that's the deal. Peak oil is real and the consequences will be quite nasty, but running out of oil in the foreseeable future is not. Spread the word.
It was very disappointing to read that line, because that is not what "peak oil" means.
It means gradually diminishing supplies, not running out.
Not that that should provide anyone with any comfort, mind you.
It's the equivalent to being on a respirator and having someone crimp the hose.
Bad times are here.
Her? What a nice snippet of affirmative action journalism. Right, like the silicon valley is just chock full of innovative women-geeks...(It's not).
The next stage for the PNAC strategists is to target specific races with bioweaponry, to "cleanse" the world of competition for oil.
Sounds too dark? Remember the "inside job" of the anthrax scare game post 9.11, and multiply that sort of thing by a million.
#######
What we are facing is a Third-Way (socialist/communist/capitalist) conspiracy to equalize the world's economies, as preface to installing one-world government; a plan hatched during the 1940s Gatt formulations.
Keep in mind that there is no PEAK OIL crisis--only a decades-long, purposeful cap on searching and drilling and refining for oil, in order to put the world in crisis-mode. Using food to produce fuel was/is part of the conspiracy to create riots, in order to destabilize governments, as is this so-called "war on terror" also part of the secret plan.
Read and learn and teach the TRUTH:
Planned Destruction of America
http://planneddestructionofamerica.blogspot.com/
#######
#######
Nuclear energy is radiation sickness, a dirty toxic energy system that is not in resonance with the future or with anyone who truly cares for the environment - the price of extraction for instance is more energy intensive - the indigenous peoples know what this writer won't ever know - go ask those on whose land the uranium is buried or the Aborigines of Australia who know the danger of unleashing such a poisonous substance - of course recyling it into DU weapons is one way of getting rid of it and another of ensuring the planet has a deadly dose of it for centuries
this unthinking article does not see that there is NO plan B and that change if it is to come at all, especially in the US will require a totally different mindset than that of big business and big government - that has manipulated and shaped this world to its current tipping point
yes there is going to be trauma, it comes from resisting what is - and peak oil, global warming is what IS thinking that man can manipulate it and rely on the government - whatever that is these days to 'fix' it for you is sheer delusion built upon unconscious acceptance of dogma - a lack of critical thinking in other words.
the world is committed to change it has no choice - soon you will see that as plain as the nose on your face there will be no denying it - it is already happening in other parts of the world, and it will happen to the most narcissistic nation on the face of the earth - in fact it already is and you cannot stop it only watch and prepare yourself and family to somehow move through it
good luck
Wrong. Very wrong. This idea leads to confusion. Go study the subject before you write about the subject. Go back and do more research.
Candidate 2: Hilary: Investigate Oil Companies and institute price controls making a bad situation far worse, gas rationing follows and national unrest ensues. Ignorant comments about people not being able to get to work says that she has no understanding of peak oil and the dire situation that the world faces.
Candidate 3: Obama: Investigate price of oil but do nothing to relieve prices, if situation is bad enough institute controls, but with very little political clout he'll have a hard time working with Congress.
In summation: all of the major candidates have no clue what kind of hell storm they are heading into, and i doubt if any of them can preserve peace if we truly have hit peak oil.
And oil isn't nearing exhaustion; global production is peaking. But in it's now inescapable effects, worldwide, that will be quiet terrifying enough.
The thumbnail outlines of the crisis are these:
1) The US is collapsing, like the SU before it, and from mainly the same causes. But it's likely to be worse for the US.
2) Just behind Peak Oil, Peak Everything is looming up.
3) There are too many humans in the world, by a factor of about ten times, and it looks increasingly as if there's not much chance now of preventing a terrible die-off of billions of us this century, everywhere, including in the rich, or formerly rich, countries.
4) The worst case for climate shift is looking -- really terrifyingly -- more and more possible, as the ACCELERATING bad news comes in: runaway positive feedbacks which fry and sterilise the planet. This may still be avoidale. But no-one knows for sure, and it would take determined global efforts which may simply be beyond our flawed species.
Sweet dreams........
But I doubt it.
Maybe we should pay attention to how the Iraqis cope with power only a few hours of each day....
But, there's hope on the horizon. Anyplace you have a sufficient accumulation of B.S.(no, not Congress, ACTUAL B.S., like out the back end of the bull, there), you have the potential to get some 'green' gas. Methane. Which can be compressed, stored, transported, and used in different applications. You got your ethanol, you got your solar, you even have wind power, the battery cars seem to be coming along nicely, and there's more ways after that which can be utilized to provide forward propulsion. But, what it really boils down to I think is an economic mercy game, it's the oil suppliers' way of making their criticism related to the United States and the war deeply felt throughout our economy. Now you have the world hunger violin concerto, the fun never stops...
on the positive side, though, more private citizens are studying things like biodiesel and ethanol production, small-scale fills the fuel tank, too, sans taxes, so there'll be some kind of future contest about that, too, but at least it's some kind of minimal progress...foreign country-types with deep pockets still have their hooks into us, though, and they have enough coin to play around in US politics and whine and snivel about 'the environment', so we're going to get played like a dimestore guitar again this year, and probably next...we have to get smarter, and break out some fresh paper and sharp pencils...buy em while the stores still take dollars...yeah, I think Europe is in on the game, too...Norway's got oil, heck, we've got oil, but the people with the Big Stacks like to watch people squirm, I think...makes em feel Most Powerful...box em in, ear-tag em, harvest that paycheck, kick em in the @#$...do it again next month. Nice people...
The only real solution is to do as Iceland is doing – establish a national strategy to convert from a carbon based economy to a hydrogen based economy.
Fortunately for Iceland, their nation is quite small and can make rapid turns with dexterity and commitment. Our country has many "diverse" interests to coalesce and align for such a change. We are more like a giant sea-going container ship - it takes a long time to turn it around.
Iceland is also blessed with abundant “clean” electricity that they use to convert water to hydrogen. They already have modular and mobile hydrogen "filling stations" that are no larger than a family sized RV. The unit is pulled to an existing petrol station, taken off its wheels, plugged into an electrical power outlet and a water hose...and presto chango... clean burning hydrogen for your truly eco-friendly hydrogen powered car.
We have the ability to generate abundant electricity in this country in manner that does not impact the environment, too. Nuclear. Even the co-founder of Greenpeace now realizes that much of the Green movement is politically motivated vs. scientifically based. As a result, Patrick Moore now supports nuclear power.
You can love your Toyota Prius, but you have to make electricity for it. How much pollution is that Prius really creating?
Go with facts…not emotions.
Oil supplies will be around for hundreds of years, just not in the quantities needed to support a western industrialized lifestyle for all, and certainly not at a price all can afford.
The “developing world” which hasn’t reaped the benefits of inexpensive petroleum energy, simply won’t, as they are priced out of the market. The industrial powers will continue to maneuver and position politically and militarily to secure petroleum supplies. This trend has been apparent for decades and will only intensify, with smaller countries aligning themselves under larger ones.
Our latest resource war in Iraq is nothing new as countries or alliances of countries have done the same for centuries whether the commodity is salt, land, cattle, coal and now oil. The calculus may get bloody from here on out as the larger powers bump into each other vying for the same finite resources.
If anyone still prays, pray that technology will make the potential upcoming conflict unnecessary, because the technology certainly isn’t available now to replace petroleum driven transport which accounts for the lion’s share of the US’ consumption.
Physics and nature still vote last, and they are not casting their vote for societies that insist on driving the family truckasaurus around at the defacto speed limit of 80mph from the suburbs to their jobs which are a county away. We cast our lot with urban petroleum dependent living a long, long time ago and its way to late to change that paradigm now, so enjoy the ride while it lasts.
of Americans but I doubt it.It's going to take a LOT worse than this to make Americans wake up and realize how much the Ultimate Players have played them. And by that time either the bullets will be flying or the Internment Camps will be doing a brisk business. Lovely future to bring a child into, what?
The reason for the high cost of gasoline is the failure of our government to act in a responsible manner. The "Energy-Independence and Security-Act of 2007” requires a 35-mpg standard by 2020. Whoop de do!!! Evidently none of the people who created and signed this act did any research on available technology. To require 35-mpg is ridiculous considering the achievements of Shell Oil with modified automobiles; 49.73-mpg around 1939; 149.95-mpg with a 1947 Studebaker in 1949; 244.35-mpg with a 1959 Fiat 600 in 1968; 376.59-mpg with a 1959 Opel in 1973. If you lived in Europe, during 1983, you could purchase a 72-mpg diesel or 65.7-mpg gas fueled Peugeot. Toyota is complaining they can’t meet the mpg standard. Evidently some people at Toyota didn’t get the memo about the 104-mpg diesel sold in Europe during 2002. Do you wonder why these automobiles were not available in the USA? In 2006 every congressional member of the energy committees was informed of this technology, they did nothing. Ask your members of congress for an explanation why these automobiles were not sold here, I did, they don’t respond.
A Philippine inventor has fueled engines with the components of water for more than 30-years, the Japanese have a water fueled mini-van on the street. This is not new technology, more than 200-years ago one of the attempts to make a self-powered vehicle was fueled with the components of water. The technology is not only applicable to automobiles, any device fueled with ”fossil” oil can be fueled with water. In January 2007, Dominion Energy sent a “doom and gloom’ letter to customers, I responded with information about commercially available water fueled electricity generators. Dominion did not respond, consider this when paying your electric bill.
You hear, and read, of the presidential candidates expounding about our reliance on foreign oil. Yet, every candidate for president was offered a free computer disk with videos of six automobiles fueled with water, none wanted the disk. You are told there is an oil shortage. A chairman of Exxon/mobile doesn’t think so nor does the governor of Alaska. The governor says there is a 200-year oil supply for the USA in that state.
Documentation, and videos, for the above will be found: www.byronwine.com.
It is apparent there is an effort by our government, and major media, to keep the citizens in the dark concerning achieved energy technology. We must make all politicians, including wannabes, address the energy issue with truth and solutions, not rhetoric. DO SOMETHING don’t whine about the cost of gasoline. Demand that our employees earn their salary by action, if not, replace them.
Another issue, investigate the privately owned Federal Reserve System.
Byron Wine
Manassas, VA
The rational thing to do is to halt new nuclear and coal fired power plant construction should be halted, the nuclear until solar and wind are producing as much power as nuclear does today, the coal permanently.
It's not a technological problem, it's an economic one. Who is building solar power manufacturing capacity today? Not many people in the U.S. - because fossil fuel interests control the current government and therefore also the energy markets.
Try www.solardaily.com for one of many examples.
At least you provide references which one can cite – I appreciate that. Attesting to their veracity is another matter.
Having grown up in the pre-fuel injector age, I recall seeing various attempts in the 1960s to improve gasoline mileage during the Muscle Car glory days when 12 mpg was the norm. One involved a water-injection system that claimed to distribute energy more evenly during combustion. I often thought that if these innovations were such great ideas, why didn’t everyone have one? The answer I usually heard was the conspiracy stories. As I aged (i.e., learned via the School of Hard Knocks), questioned this thinking.
By definition a conspiracy requires more than one person, and in this case, a supposed wide-spread oil company and governmental cover-up. Do you really believe that many people could successfully organize something on this scale and then keep their mouths shut for this long? I don’t think they are that good.
Secondly, why do these great inventors sell out? Seems some one of these inventors who has totally idealistic and incorruptible values would stand up and say “No” to Big Oil.
Thirdly, what does Detroit have to benefit by keeping their cars’ mileage low? Detroit had its lunch handed to them when the higher-mileage Japanese carts hit the market when gas was 50 cents per gallon. Don’t you think Detroit would “bring out the lumber” to better the imports on mileage?
Lastly, any reputable scientific research, in fact the very basis for being called reputable, is repeatability by anyone anywhere given the proper resources. If all these patents lying around the Canadian and U.S. patent offices worked, why aren’t we seeing people pay the inventor a royalty and put the idea into production?
Sorry, I am not buying your conspiracy theory. But then, I don’t buy the idea that 9/11 was a Bush conspiracy and that an airliner really didn’t hit the Pentagon. However, if you or some Big Oil company offered me enough money…
I love www.snopes.com for researching Internet stories purported as fact. Check it out regarding super carburator claims:
http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/carburetor.asp
You state that we could reduce oil consumption by half if those rascally managers would only institute telecommuting. This was an interesting claim so I decided check the facts. I know, I know. Never let facts get in the way of a good argument, but even though forums are fun places to spout off, let’s make sure we are spouting with somewhat accurate data. I offer the following with references. Also note, I would love to telecommute myself and I suspect you would as well, Seth. However, I assume your manager will not let you, and as a result, you were motivated to rant a bit.
Government figures show that the average commute is 12 miles one way. Assume a round trip of 25 miles or one gallon of gas.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/special/2008_sp_02.pdf
Lister and Harnish estimate 33 million people in our country could telecommute, or given the above, save 33 million gallons of gas per day.
http://www.Undress4Success.com.+Retrieved
According to the March 2008 Energy Information Agency report (EIA, which is part of Department of Energy), the total U.S. petroleum (oil) consumption per day is 20.1 million barrels. Note: one barrel equals 42 U.S. gallons. Of those 20.1 million barrels, 9 million barrels, or 378 million gallons, is gasoline, which includes private, commercial, and military consumption.
If we save 33 million gallons per day out of 378 million, that is a savings of 8.7% per work day.
Gasoline is 45% of total oil consumption per day (9 million divided by 20.1 million). The 8.7% savings of 45% is roughly 4% of all the oil used in this country. Work days represent approximately 250 days per year, or 68% of the year. 68% x the 4% savings per day equals 2.7% savings of oil over one year, cleary not half or 50% as you suggest
btw…the breakdown of U.S. oil consumption per day is:
Total: 20.1 million barrels [one barrel = 42 U.S. gallons]
Gasoline: 9 million barrels
Jet Fuel (both commercial and military): 1.6 million barrels
Distillates (diesel and fuel oil): 4.2 million barrels
Residual Fuel Oil (boilers): 0.6 million barrels
Propane/Propylene (heating and plastics): 1.5 million barrels
Other Oils (lubricants, airplane gas): 3.2 million barrels
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_wpsup_k_4.htm
Thanks for motivating me to look into this and learn a bit more myself!
There is methane and LP as alternatives to gasoline.
Hemp oil is not mentioned as an alternative to its thousands of uses replacing oil, and wood-pulp which is another rapidly diminishing resource. It's medical properties can also reduce the "chemical" footprint created by pharmaceuticals.
Wind can be installed where it doesn't obstruct views, and geo-thermal is much "cleaner" than nuclear.
Processing oil from the oceans algae is another future resource.
Cold? Jacket. Practicality and common sense and maybe a brief study of 'how the pioneers did it', that kind of thing, will take us where we need to go on the user side of this, as far as providing power, well, there's this stuff-place called 'the ocean', and if you look at it, well, it kind of doesn't really hold still, it's always moving, and stuff. If you throw your empty beer can upon the waves, you'll astutely notice a curious up-and-down motion. Hmm. Now, if we were just smart enough to capitalize on that motion, somehow...hmmm...I wonder...(chin scratch)...
We've gotten really ignorant on basic science, and using what's right in front of us in terms of 'energy'. We've been trained to the gas pump, and the monthly utility bill, and well, that sucks. But, it doesn't have to KEEP on sucking, we can like, learn some science, about things like wind, solar, wave, and steam power, and try to be 3% smarter than the problem we're facing.
Water boils at 212F, some assembly required, offer not available in all states etc. Steam locomotives moved hundreds of thousands of pounds if not tons during the late part of the 19th and early part of the 20th century, it's only since the 1950's, approximately, that we developed the REAL killer habit, cars. But, habits can be unlearned. A motorcycle that gets 50-60MPG will take you pretty much anywhere that a car would, see 'jacket'
above. Think smarter, not gooder...
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/ library/index.php?main_page=pr oduct_video_info&products_id=204774-1&showVid=true
However, I do subscribe to a theory that has some similar features. Before you turn dismiss me as a kook, please read and think.
My theory is that a loose coalition - not a tight conspiracy - of people interested in maintaining the economic and political power of the fossil fuel industry has spent a lot of time, money and political capital working to slow the development of atomic fission.
They have supported some strange bedfellows and "damned with faint praise" the only energy technology discovered in the past 100 years that has successfully taken market share from fossil fuels. Despite rumors to the contrary fission has succeeded not because of massive subsidies, but because it is more energy dense, more convenient, more reliable, and less dirty. Uranium and thorium are massively abundant, they have energy density that is more than 6 orders of magnitude greater than oil and they are found in a wide variety of countries, with the majority of the world's supply in stable places like Canada, Australia, and the US.
This power source scares the hell out of the establishment; after all, the power and money that is controlled by the oil, coal and gas interests also fills banks, stock portfolios and government coffers. Nuclear power is more about technical knowledge than about control over resources, so it rewards smart people, not those that can claw their way to the top.
I would feel very comfortable with a fission power plant in my basement; after all, I have lived for months at a time with a plant that was no more than 200 feet away and often no more than a couple of feet away. It was clean, easy to operate, reliable, and produced so little waste that the fuel residues from 14 years of operation would fit below my office desk.
We have an alternative available today. It will take a lot of effort, education, and dedicated work by educated or trained people, but it can be done. Don't expect that it will be done without a struggle; the people who have oil, coal and gas will not give up their markets without some sometimes sneaky, deceptive and nasty tactics.
Also, I find some comments - anarchy, ammo, murder - reprehensible. Is our need for transportation really worth all that? If oil gets too expensive, there are more sane ways to adapt. Carpool, ride a bike. Electric vehicles should become competitive before too long.
Du Anerchri$t$ haf diff3r3nt keebord$ then every1 3l$e?
Green plants, however, have the process figured out - through photosynthesis. We just need more plants and less burning, somehow....
This is, according to many popular authors on the topic, a common misconception. What the 'Peak Oil' debate is really about is when the peak of world oil production will occur, marking the beginning of a long, irreversible decline of this invaluable resource. The rate of discovery for new oil fields has long since peaked, having been in decline for decades. It may not be known with certainty that world production has peaked until production has already been in decline for many years. After that, oil resources won't be 'near exhaustion', but will become scarcer and more expensive due to the factors of increasing demand, political conflict, and possible natural disasters, along with the reality of diminishing supply.
1. Nuclear plants require fast amounts of fossil fuels to build.
2. Uranium requires fossil fuels to extract, refine, and transport. Below certain concentrations, the costs start becoming unworkable.
3. Thirdly, the amount of uranium available is also finite. You know about Peak Oil. Read up on Peak Uranium. There's a HUGE article on it in Wikipedia.
There appears to be no let up in industrialized society’s voracious demand for the use of carbon based fuels to energize their growing economies. In addition some nations (i.e. Brazil, Indonesia) continue massive deforestation operations that are destroying our planets vital rainforests. These are major causes for concern which have resulted in a dramatic increase in the level of greenhouse gases and depletion of our ozone layer. Environmental scientist have put us on notice that if these levels are sustained or increased global warming and climate change will only worsen and begin to reek havoc on the ecosystem of our planet; worst case scenario these changes may even become irreversible in the not so distant future; recently it has now been speculated that the effects of climate change may displace 1 Billion people by 2050. The alarm bells are ringing now is the time for us to take serious measures to dramatically curb our current and future reliance on carbon based fuels for our energy needs. Our congressional leaders should be on the house floor debating these matters as much as they debate war funding, they need to be creating legislation that supports future policies that will lessen our carbon based emissions. Society as a whole needs to focus on conservation and developing new technology in order to suspend this impending global catastrophe.
As to the dangers nuclear power plants pose, we only need to look back upon Chernobyl (Russia Ukraine 1986) and 3-Mile Island (US Pennsylvania 1979), it has been well over 30 years since we have had a major disaster at one of our 104 reactors located at 66 nuclear plants. The waste and disposal of fissile material will always be a cause for concern, for the moment we have plans for storing this material at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, next generation nuclear plants may find ways to recycle the fissile material making it safer to store. Presently I see very little harm in living next to a nuclear plant most of them have been built in fairly isolated and remote locations and have excellent safety records. It can’t be much worse than living downwind from a coal, oil, or gas-fired plant. Nuclear plants have zero carbon emissions.
Then there is the prospect of nuclear fusion this is the energy that powers the sun, which currently being researched and development, if test proven successful it could supply us with an unlimited source of energy. It is important for us to begin educating more nuclear scientist and engineers in order to better harness these new technologies soon they might find the answers that will make future of nuclear energy more safe and reliable. What we need is the another Manhattan project but under a different guise and involving all industrialized nations who oppose further escalation of carbon emissions. Instead of our government focusing all these resources on this war on terror they equally be focusing allocating fund and programs that curb our dependency on foreign oil.
A revolutionary energy alternative is en-route. It uses a never before commercialized source of abundant, renewable, inexpensive energy. It will be able to power anything that uses electricity as it can replace batteries.
All future cars may become power plants that can sell up to 150 kW of power to the local utility when parked. No connection required. The car can provide 10 kW to your home - without wires.
See magneticpowerinc.com for more information. Also renewableenergyworld.com for articles.
Those with scientific training will doubt this is possible until independent laboratory confirmation. That is expected before the end of this summer.
Demonstration devices and toys are likely to be in mass production next year. Along with 1kW solid-state generators that can be linked together to power homes.
Instead of repeating the common anti-nuclear speaking points, check out the facts as determined by real scientists who publish their findings for peer-review vs. general statements without any backing.
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Ma gazines/Bulletin/Bull422/article4.pdf
The above research compares the amount of Green House Gases (CHG) generated for various means of electricity generation for their entire life-cycle on a per unit basis, i.e., how much GHG is produced per kilowatt-hour. You will find that nuclear power, because of its ability to produce such a very large amount of power from a relatively small amount of material, both fuel and facility-wise, is actually the cleanest means to produce electricity.
Mark
How much of your personal money are you investing in the Power Genie concept? I am not saying something revolutionary cannot happen, but I think I’ll keep my hands in my pockets at this time.
Barry
You are absolutely correct. However, most of us that support nuclear power do not pass it off as a “quick and easy answer” or preclude other options. What we ARE saying is that nuclear power offers the best option for GHG-free 24/7 baseload power needs. In addition, the U.S. has an excellent safety record – no deaths or injuries to any workers or members of the public due to radiation related incidences since the first power plant started up over 50 years ago.
You also said “The real problem with nuclear energy is that nobody knows what to do with the waste which will last longer than human history and for which the technological solution is far more elusive than carbon sequestration of coal fired plants.”
That is simply not true. If you care to, here are enough references to show you that this topic has been researched extensively and technical solutions are available, including recycling the used fuel. Recycling captures 90 to 95% of the used fuel which lowers costs and minimizes waste. So, you ask, why aren’t we doing these things. The answer is politics.
Note: In the spirit of full disclosure, NEI is an industry sponsored lobbying group, but they make nice pretty presentations with short answers for those not interested in digging so deeply. IAEA is the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, Austria. IAEA is sponsored by the United Nations and member countries. Their goals include oversight of the peaceful use of nuclear energy, including reactor operations, fuel recycling, and waste disposal. They also have done extensive research on the Chernobly event – you might be surprised at the latest facts on that, so I included one link for that, too. I have found IAEA’s data to be objective and peer-reviewed (that means outsiders review and challenge their findings before publication).
http://www.nei.org/keyissues/nuclearwastedisposal/
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/LTS-RW_web.pdf
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/newsletter.asp?id=126
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/M eetings/PDFplus/2007/Seminar_F or_Diplomats/Forsstroem_Presentation.ppt#27
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1467_web.pdf
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf
be doing OK. The stuff burns well,
but people keep saying it's toxic.
Or maybe it's because the Commie-Koreans
use it that we can't.
We have it in our power to avert a catastrophe, and we must act decisively. Now. We will try line-drying our clothes and find they smell sweeter for it. We will put the SUV out to pasture and get an electric car for trips around town. We will replace our lawns, thirsty for both water and the electricity to pump it, with native plants that encourage our local fauna to find homes again. We will put white roofs on our buildings while we hold a moment of silence for all the lost species and icecaps. We will send the purveyors of hope and new ideas, whether they are named Al or Arthur or Athena, a big hug.
We will help people in third world nations get access to solar powered, UV filtered drinking water systems at a cost of 2 cents per person per day, so they can have quick, clean water and stop cutting down trees to boil it clean. We will find a thousand as-yet-unthought-of solutions and make things happen while we still have a small window of time.
We will, or we won't. The choice is in our hands. It is time now for action, not debate. We must, it seems, be the change we want to see in the world.
"FOOL ..... now u must pay for your addictions to auto freedom. U must suffer! Get ready to purge your wallet at the alter of the pump. Purge your pockets at the toll booth. There will be no more free ride...But ... be happy they promise this will be good for you !
Legislators, regulators, judges and pressure groups have made billions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of gas off limits. They’ve helped drive up energy costs more than $1000 per family since 2000, and caused every barrel saved through efficiency and conservation to be offset by oil locked up on questionable ecological grounds. These energy deniers want to shackle the fossil fuel system we have, and replace it with a utopian system that isn’t even on the drawing boards.
This isn’t energy policy or environmental justice. It’s feel-good grandstanding. It would replace our efficient free enterprise system with one based on government dictates, mandates, subsidies, and decisions about which companies, technologies and lobbyists win and how much more consumers pay.
These issues demand serious, robust debate. But the CBC isn’t even asking the right questions - much less providing leadership. The path it is taking betrays the gains that generations of civil rights champions fought so hard to achieve. Let us hope this election season generates the healthy debate we so sorely need.
why- because i say I am a messenger of god- how pathetic- My free will to believe I have messages of unity and peace for mankind and I MUST introduce myself this way as I have for over 13 months- It is your freewill to ignore-ridicule-delete-my message EVEN IF I HAVE THE TRUE SOLUTION TO THE ENERGY CRISIS- No wonder we fight wars
After 13 months of pleading with you to Simply repeat my experiment to end the energy crisis- I am absolutely convinced the only way is for the total collapse of the world economy- Then you will understand the man who brings the gift of energy is truly the Saviour- Your are beginning to see this now on the news and effects of energy- BUT not enough- as usual mankind will wait for the machine to break before you fix it- your belly is full- your room is air conditioned and you probably still have a paycheck- thus- you arragontly have always ignored me
you dont pick your messengers- they are chosen-
i had enough- i have now endured 13 months on this net being deleted by every arrogant organization run by humans and just regular folk like you who have always ignored my messages since my time upon the net-
well i am done with your stupidity-
let your oil prices go up- let your food prices go up- watch your economies crumble- see your jobs lost- get rid of all your pet animals as you cannot feed your family and pet dog as so many are giving them to the pound-
I have come openly with a solution 13 months ago only to be ignored-
now a gluttonous world playing on the internet shall all learn how primitive man is and must be civil to one another- instead of shunning someone bringing forth a solution- in the months to follow- you will learn there is no alternative fuel- panic mode will set in very soon-
when you understand clearly how important energy is- i guess your arragance will stop and just implement my scientific deeds - as for my messenger duties- it will make sense in time- all is well- but it will only get better after your destruction- i am sorry i have to say this- but it is I who has now watched you completely ignore and ridicule a man of god- as always you will learn the hard way-
time will tell
solomon azar
noblefuse.com
For the past several years, all the debates and analyses related to the use of primary energies are influenced by a set of incontrovertible facts. They all lead to the same conclusion: "it is essential to rationalize the use of energy on a world-wide scale, in order to ensure the sustainable future of the species that inhabit the planet and of the corresponding biodiversity that supports them".
A transition to a sustainable energy system is necessary, also from “the economic point of view”, that guarantees the maintenance of our generation's and future generations' welfare, from a perspective of respecting the environment.
This transition requires significant effort in research, development and technological innovation, as well as greater social awareness of the energy problem. In the short and medium term, the objectives for implementing a sustainable energy system would include the application of measures such as:
• Encouraging energy saving and efficiency.
• Promoting renewable energy sources.
• The development of the necessary energy infrastructures to face the increase in consumption during this period of transition (gas-based infrastructures).
http://energychallenge.wordpress.com/
not an energy shortage.
I leave it up to enlightened Mother
Jones readers as to how to deal with
this longage.
Just for once, I'd like Mother Jones to interview the people who actually have been studying these problems for years rather than nuke, oil, and coal toadies and shills. Call up Matthew Simmons. Give Richard Heinberg a call. I bet Rep. Roscoe Bartlett would accept a polite inquiry--he's just the head of the peak oil caucus. Perhaps you guys could contact Dr. Robert Hirsch, the namesake of the "Hirsch Report," the Department of Defense's sanctioned report on the phenomenon.
Geez. I used to like this magazine. Now, it's just like the other clueless, lazy, afraid to ask questions, toady mags and mainstream media who refuse to ask tough questions of real experts.
SIGH.
However, very soon all the people will feel energy crisis because there will be fewer gas stations with lines, shortage of tires and spare parts, un-drivable roads, etc. Gas will be rationed.
Haves will try to hide behind high fences and security guards of their walled communities but they will still need to go outside. For this group of people traveling outside will be a very dangerous journey indeed.
Have-nots will very local people because they will not have any means to travel but by walking, biking and may be by horse riding.
Gas is produced by refinery. In a while refinery will go out existence and then…
It will happen within a period of 5 to 10 years.
Food, Hygiene, Education and medicines aside - most other "things" we buy should probably be labelled "a want" not a need and as such, our consumption of these can be a huge influence on businesses and governments. Simply - demand for many environment-harming products should reduce by a conscientious decision by us all to scale back or eliminate the purchase of truly un-necessary products.
Perhaps a list of products should be developed, that grades each from worse to bad in terms of their impact on our environment (can you imagine the politics of getting this list together!). This could be made public just like Bibles (nearly every hotel has one), and other religious mediums that are used around the world to spread the story of religion – kind of like a scorecard reference to prompt peoples conscious - something like that. Is this concept too simplistic and not practical? Probably – but I must admit myself that thinking this way makes me understand how I consume too much un-necessary “stuff”, and makes me determined to reduce un-necessary consumption as much as possible. If others join this personal challenge – great, as the more that do, we will see a shift from consumption of the bad, to be replaced by good. And if Governments and business were really as smart as they should be – they’d be leading the way, making money and getting votes by focusing on good products and business. Good luck to us all – we need as much as we can get.
Since Jimmy Carter warned us about the oil crisis in 1973, we have liyerally done little or nothing to do anything about.
We have drilled for an found more oil and we are using more now then we ever have. Oil and coal have subjected us to the most serious environmental catastrophes in the history of the human race.
we, you and me, Americans in genereal and Americans in particular , have been using oil to such a degree, we are like the worst of cocaine addicts- we use all our resources to get more and more and use more and more and so addictive that the consequences of our use have been ignored-even today we are still oblivious to our addiction. Think about it, why do Americans , with 5% of the worlds population, use 40% ( this may be the wrong number, but its close)of the world's oil. How did we get so addicted to such a major health and environmental hazard? Whar would the world be like if the US only used 10% of the world's oil? Or, God forbid, 5%?
There is a place for ethanol, bit not at the point where the food supply is threatened.
I would like to offer solutions. We could go solar, wind, thermal, biomass, we could compressed air busses in our bigger cities. We could rebuild the nation's railroads so they could move most of the people around the cities and around the country much more economically then trucks, cars, busses and airplanes. There many alternatives, many. But, the main alternative is-Change our lifestyle and change it drastically. Less heat and cooling in our houses. More walking to work or school where practical. No food supplies being shipped over 50 miles of use except in items that can only be grown in certain climates- such as citrus fruit , etcet.
Why are we still addicted to oil? Look in the mirror.
Hydrogen from nanotech can power cars.
All the real climate scientists say we may be going into an ice age. 100 years from now Chicago may be under a mile of ice.
People’s worldview tends to shape what they believe and what they don’t. Your view of the world seems cynical and conspiratorial. As a result, you and many others believe that somehow “Detroit” or “Big Oil” or some other evil cabal has and is buying up every innovation that promises 200 mpg.
The only problem with these theories is that people cannot keep secrets. Even in the “Family” where breaking trust results in one becoming fish food, people cannot tell secrets. Whenever you hear of conspiracies…check out snopes.com. see the following regarding your thoughts:
http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/carburetor.asp
Our efforts on our own and our voices and thoughts to our leaders must not be allowed to stop after our much needed change for the good begins on Jan. 5th.
Just like nepotism, green begins at home.
Hi,
I realise that you are a CEO of a large group campaigning for renewable energy but you asked in your latest email if I could help. I’m in the UK so I can only guess the detail of what‘s happening out there. You can ignore me if you choose to, of course.
I’ve written once before and, as I expected, probably ignored. I don’t pretend to know better than the experts but you probably know as I do that the money is where the oil is. The fact is wind and solar will not do the business. If your sponsor has done his homework he knows that too. So do the oil people.
All is not lost, however. What needs to happen (if you are still reading, this is only my opinion) is to give the oil people something else that could very possibly be more lucrative and earn them more brownie points with the global public than the black sticky stuff can.
If I mention hydrogen at this point you are probably going to aim that finger at the delete button. Please don’t as I have something which might help.
I submitted a patent spec. to the IPO here in the UK recently which is my last attempt to do some good. Even if eventually a patent is awarded it won’t cover the US anyway. It might be useless.
I’ve attached the whole submission. It’s a way of “expanding” existing energy (*see below) by using magnetic energy and adding it to any mechanical energy that happens to exist at the time i.e. conventional, wind etc. It’s not so much that someone forgot something when the conventional generator was designed; more likely global warming wasn’t at the front of the designers’ minds.
I believe that hydrogen or something similar could be a global panacea because it is a commodity that not only can be bought and sold on the markets but it could replace oil and coal (if stockpiled) at a time when the companies who at the moment expect high returns from oil need a replacement. In terms of the environment, the sooner that time comes around the better but there is another consideration. Given the current situation with regard to methane releases / melting ice etc, if an organisation such as yours could convince the oil people that by starting to produce cost-effective hydrogen they would receive the goodwill of the entire planet’s population thereby enhancing their profits further, in my opinion an energy revolution could be started. Only my opinion of course…
If I don’t have chance to wish you a very merry Christmas and a happy new year before the events I will do so now.
Kind Regards
James I Johnston
------
(*) Decreasing the cost of energy used in electrolysis effectively increases the process efficiency.
-----
Now I know some of you that read this will think I’m a berk for even trying, but has anyone else got any better ideas? For all our sakes we need them fast. I’ll look for any responses in the next few days.
Regards