Predicting Our Energy Future
I’m one of those people who constantly tries to see into the future – not that I have any eerie talent for things like that. The future of energy and transportation, for example, is clear as a bell. Does anyone think we’re going to be driving Hummers in 40 years? Could a reasonable person believe there’ll be plenty of cheap oil in 2050 when the world population has increased 22% from today and the number of cars on the world’s roads has doubled?
Alternative energy will become a reality; that’s not in question. The question is: who’s going to get rich in the process?
Here’s a fact: the people who made the last fortune in energy (1910 – 2010) want to make damn sure they’ll be the ones to do it again.
And here’s my prediction: Unless something unforeseen and incredibly dramatic happens, that’s precisely what’s going to happen. Here are some details, lest you think I’m one of these tawdry fortune-tellers who speaks in fortune-cookie generalities:
Alternative energy will take an eternity to get here. We (in the US) will find a way to delay the establishment of an energy policy for an inconceivably long period of time, while the biosphere continues its path of slow but rapidly accelerating degradation.
Those of us who have worked to make clean energy happen in a timely fashion will eventually be crushed like grapes financially, caused by 10-or-so different types of government subsidies that make oil artificially cheap and renewable energy uncompetitive with fossil fuels. Eventually, most of us will be gone; they will have made it rain longer than we could tread water. In posterity, we’ll come to be regarded as pathetic “do-gooders” or quaint, historic relics, “regrettably ahead of their time.”
But finally (presuming we still have a planet that supports life, with a bit of clean water to drink, etc.) when the energy giants have determined how they can dominate this new landscape, we’ll have abundant clean energy, generated and delivered profitably and without undue competition — and the traditional energy people will have succeded in their quest to make their next great fortune.
Oh, but what’s this I see? Is there, in fact, something unforeseen and incredibly dramatic that might happen? A grassroots uprising? People as furious with our lame approach to energy as they were to the Vietnam War 40 years ago? Henry Kissinger said recently, “If it weren’t for the loathing that the common American had for the war, we’d still be there.” I suppose public outcry actually could make a difference ….
But …. oh, rats. The crystal has gone dark. That’s all for now.
Sorry to be a bit indecisive, but The Great Shieldsini sees a future that could go either way. Perhaps what the crystal is telling me is that our energy future is not a matter of fate. Rather, it lies in our own hands.
Do you really think that the subsidy on a KWH of electricity generated from fossil fuels and nuclear is any greater than the current subsidies on power generated from wind, photovoltaics, geothermal, tides, etc.?
I think that the playing field is pretty level right now and will tip dramatically toward renewables as the fossil fuel resource dries up.
I would be interested in an objective study that compares the current subsidies and costs of all forms of energy production. It is easy to give an opinion than it is to produce solid facts. Larry Lemmert
I’m just repeating what I read; I haven’t don’t any independent research. Here’s a recent report from Bloomberg: http://biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2010/08/02/global-fossil-fuel-subsidies-12-times-greater-than-renewable-energy-subsidies-bloomberg-report/. If you Google the subject, you’ll find dozens of points of corroboration on this.
Probably eventually it will be recognized that the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR), which uses thorium instead of uranium for fuel, is capable of providing abundant and inexpensive power. That will make it practical to recharge battery electric vehicles and manufacture artificial fuels to use where battery power is not practical. It will also eliminate the current nuclear waste problem by generating very little waste and by using the existing waste as fuel. It will also reduce the problem of nuclear weapon proliferation.
More information on LFTR technology is available at this site:
http://energyfromthorium.com/
Craig, when I retire and write my book I will ask you to write the liner notes. I don’t think we can predict our energy future despite volumes being written on this subject. In our fast paced world any predictions more than 4 years off in the future are likely be wrong. We live in a different world and unless we (the USA) can elect a different kind of government than what we have had for the last century – our future is about as murky as your crystal ball is right now.
There will have to be some paradigm shifts in politics, lifestyle, tax structure, and a re-alignment of our next clean energy priorities. We will have to stop being the world’s police force and start creating an economy that can provide meaningful jobs for our next generation of young people other than flipping burgers or chasing radical Islamic ghost armies in god-forbidden regions of the world in the name of protecting our national security.
In short the people themselves must stop relying on Government subsidies and blatant favoritism by former lobbyists who are now holding positions within Government itself. We have to comprehend the fact that all natural resources have a limit on how much exists on this planet and stop believing these resources will never be depleted.
If we, as a global family, are to survive the next 10 generations the buck stops with our own generation. Conservation and the focus of our next generation must be fixed on RE. Edison said it himself – we have the best source of energy and it’s free to everyone on the planet – its called the Sun.
I am sure if he were alive today the electric revolution would look different by now
I am not a tree-hugger or an eco-evangelist but just a pragmatist who believes we can still change the world by getting up every morning and working with the tools we have already in our toolbox. I have had many businesses in my life and find myself now in the Lithium-ion battery business. It’s going to be my last venture in this world but I hope to make it a success and will give it my all. Why, because I see there will be a huge market for batteries, and someone has to make a quality product and fill a niche for them right now. Sure, five years from now there may be fuel cells or “unobtanium” may bediscovered – but it isn’t here yet and we need to take baby steps or fall back on fossil fuels until our planet and our children are forever consigned to a life of warfare protecting our right to consume fossil fuel.
Well, this will all be part of the book I hope to write someday and with Craig’s liner notes hopefully shed a bit of light on the presently murky crystal ball?
Don Harmon
LiFeBATT, Inc.
Great inishts here, Don. And, of course, I’d be honored to write those liner notes.
Here is a New York Times article on pipeline accidents:
“It was one example of what many experts and studies say is weak oversight of gas pipelines in the United States, a problem that has contributed to hundreds of pipeline episodes that have killed 60 people and injured 230 others in the last five years. Those figures do not include the final toll of the explosion of another Pacific Gas and Electric pipeline this month in San Bruno, Calif., that left seven people dead and more than 50 injured.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/25/us/25pipeline.html?pagewanted=1&hp&adxnnlx=1285437637-XZfae0vkBjFUQgte119z2Q
Nuclear power has a better safety record than any other energy technology and, in addition, it does not cause air and water pollution. The nuclear waste problems would already have been solved if not for political problems.
Frank Eggers, I agree that LFTR Gen.IV reactors will produce electricity with all the advantages mentioned. Furthermore, as most of them are planned to operate att 700-1000 °C they will be perfect hydrogen producers as well. Carbon Capture technology is on the threshold to commercialization. The future belongs to hydrogenation of recycled CO2 into clean synthetic fuels as methanol, dimethylether and their derivates. CCS is a myth, CCR (R as Recycling) is feasible.
Cetainly the pittance of a few billion in public funding here and there – especially in the ‘broken meat’ form of uncertain fits and starts – that we currently see for renewable energy decisively pales in comparison to the steady and stable combined total feast of $550 billion that goes annually toward dirty fuels in various forms of government subsidies and tax breaks. This is not to include any consideration of the MASSIVE externalized costs that go uncounted into our bodies, our biosphere and our beloved planet and progeny.
Don’t take my word for it – do your own research, if you have the patience and the interest, and you’ll discover as I did that the ‘level playing field’ some claim we have at present far more resembles the cliff were driving toward than any open plain of equal footing. If we can’t gain control of the steering wheel soon, we’re going to find ourselves edged out of options.
The transition to sustainability is necessary now, at this moment, while we still have reasonably priced available energy from legacy sources to fuel the massive construction that’s needed within our infrastructure. Our global competition sees this imperative now, and is already moving rapidly to consolidate a sustainable and profitable position in renewables – even as our own elite act subtly and overtly to prevent and sabotage our own progress.
Wow, you’ve got a great way with words, dude.
Btw, if you don’t mind sharing the specifics of some of that research you mentioned, I’m sure we’d all be interested.
Sure, Craig – interested folks can find reference at these two links, among many others:
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-06-07-iea-stunner-global-subsidies-dirty-energy-top-550-billion-year/
http://www.renewableenergyfocususa.com/view/11492/fossil-fuel-subsidies-are-12-times-support-for-renewables-study-shows/
Here’s another brief discussion of the phenomenon:
http://sustainablog.blogspot.com/2006/11/subsidies-free-market-and-renewable.html
Incidentally, ne factor that causes a little confusion on this subject is how nuclear is discussed – as a clean or dirty energy. There are many sizable subsidies going to earth-based nuke plants. History and the present reality of nuclear technology both lay it on the dirty side pretty firmly, but people still argue otherwise.
Of course, the other side likes to play with subsidy numbers to get people leaning in their direction, and it’s interesting to see how many qualifiers are buried in their presentations.
Here’s an oft-cited example in the reactionary Cato Institute’s position:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html
What’s rarely discussed, and badly needs to be quantified and included in any debate of energy policy, is the hellish heap of hidden costs that are so commonly externalized out of the equation. The fact that these costs are continually allowed to slip beneath the radar by both legislation and monetary policy is a deadly reality with which we must come too grips by direct means or we’ll keep on suffering their concealed impact to the point of no return.
Part of my larger point here is that renewable energy is a bit like nationally funded education for all – it may be expensive to do it correctly, but the alternative, in this case ignorance, is even more expensive to society when all the costs are added up against the costs and benefits of an educated population.
We may all rest quite assured that we will indeed collectively and individually pay the price of renewable energy… We’ll either pay that price in cash on the front end in order to establish its dominance and reap its benefits, or we’ll pay in blood on the back end as we (and all our descendents, and all forms of life on this jewel of a planet that supports us all) increasingly suffer the loathsome and baneful consequences of our inaction and misbehavior.
Personally, I’d rather pay up front – that rate of interest is just too steep.
In 2008, Bloomberg identified that fossil fuels received $557 billion in subsidies worldwide compared to between $43 and $46 billion for renewables. I think the world would be a much different place, both politically and socially, if all the incentives from fossil fuels were shifted to renewable forms of energy, like wind and solar power.
Our country has an addiction to fossil fuels that threatens our national and economic security. Within our country, we have let more than $1 billion flow to foreign countries to finance our oil needs. This is money that sometimes goes to enemies who pose a threat to our country. There has been a lot of talk about making the commitment towards sustainable energy and not enough action—a commitment that will make us self-sustaining and stronger as a nation. We can each do our part by incorporating more energy efficient practices into daily life and using more renewable energy like solar and wind.
Interesting comments. But the question is predicting the future. Predicting has two parts. What and when? When is the impossible part. What is probably much easier to guess or predict. As mentioned before, the problem is our political system in Washington. Lobbyists combined with way too many lawyer trained politicians (54% of Senate and 36% of House, while only 6% of US population have legal degrees) is the disaster and we are heading for it. Legal people and consequently majority of our politicians are trained as lawyers and lawyers are trained to be reactive. Chase the ambulance, don’t think in front of the ambulance and what might be done to not need an ambulance. Lawyers do not need to be perfect and you are only guilty when proven so, so your actions are “legal” if you can get away with it. Thus lobbyists do very well in Washington. We need people with proactive thinking, integrety and morals. So with this said, this is what I predict. There will be something that happens in the World (I think within 5 years) that threatens our National Security and very way of life. Maybe another war or revolution in the Middle East that threratens our addiction to oil. If we thought the 70’s oil embargo was bad, we are now twice as dependent on oil and our total consumption is up about 35%. The effect on our society will be devestating. The politicians in Washington will blame each other and the countries we have no power over about the cause. Talk – talk and more talk. I have been preaching over the need for a National Energy Policy (a policy that: 1. reduces our dependency on foreign oil, by using less, 2. improves World climate concerns through reduction in fossil fuel consumption, 3. develops alternative fuel solutions in both transportation and energy sectors, and 4. keeps America growing, moving forward and secure – and the answer is a direct tax on oil & coal for the consumer to change their habits, but have the tax allocated for specific uses and with public oversight), but it may be too late now because we have nothing to fall back on. Alternative energy to be successful must be adopted by the masses in the US. They will never adopt until alt energy is lower cost than status quo. Don’t ever forget that one half of the American public is below average intelligence. Not an insult, Just a statistical fact. We think with our pocket books, pretty simple. Subsidies by Government are entirely ineffective if the technology can not compete at a lower cost than status quo. A 10 or 20 year pay back does not make sense, when we don’t know where our next pay check is coming from or if it is coming.
A terrible future outcome is preventable with the right leadership people who have vision and courage. Be careful who you elect in November, they will make a difference on the outcome. Thomas Jefferson said, “If the present Congress errs in too much talking, how can it be otherwise in a body to which the people send one hundred and fifty lawyers, whose trade it is to question everything, yield nothing, and talk by the hour? ” If we do nothing, the costs of the next oil crisis will be horrific and we may never recover. It is not too late to change a preventable future!
Great observations. You’re absolutely right, IMO, about the over-abundance of lawyers and the effects that creates.
Craig, perhaps you or another reader will run with this. Why do we waste millions of megawatts of electricity and millions of dollars in maintenance fees lighting the Interstate highways all night long? If is a clear night only the signs need lighting. if it raining, snowing, or foggy the street lights blind the drivers so it is harder to see the painted lines. Instead instigate a set of reduced visibility rules, to follow the reflective lines and the lights of the vehicle ahead at the maximum distance and SLOW DOWN to 10 or 15 mph under the clear weather posted limit. That is a lot faster than waiting hours for a tow after a collision, everybody keeps moving, and our goals are met. The Megawatts of highway lighting are of no use whatsoever, take them down. The drivers must be trained to prevent accidents, lights don’t stop cars, or awaken sleepy truck drivers. Why do you thing the most often seen Truck accident is at night and the truck has left the road? I know, they are sleepy! Street lighting is a waste of Energy by the Megawatt! I drove with a “CDL” for 37 years, That is why I KNOW !
Dennis:
Regardless of the street lights turns on or off at night. Those nuclear, hydo & coal fired power plant contunie to produce power with the same turbine. Since they dont adjust or “dial” it down. The hydro will pump water back, to run at constant rotation is the most efficient way for them. We need smart grid to store the power. Electric vehicle charging at night is one solution to capture the extra juice.
As to alternative energy, the solar reached its technology limit in bring down the cost, unless there is a technology break through. The cost continue to be very high. Afterall, many PV fabrication processes are no “clean” there is a big disposal issue after their 20 years useful life.
I think the crystal ball has a lot to do with our limited vision. Energy is a global issue. We are not sure if the “global warming is due to the sun spot cycle. Instead of focusing on war, why dont we become energy independence. As EU & Asia take the renewable energy train. If we continue to think we can be the only one to stay with coal & oil, we will no longer be able to use the dollar denomiated oil to control other’s GDP. US need to join the bandwagon. Otherwise, we will not be competitive. One thing we also need to understand is we don’t generate electricity by oil. Oil is being used by cars. We generate most electricity by coal in the US. But electric car is related to oil….yup, you got the drill…dont worry about big oil & big coal, GE is into wind, so we have big corporation behind this movements afterall.
Geothermal is not efficient, biofuel takes too much land & water, and still discharges heat & tidal were way too expensive and all the system will be rusted out…we have all thes problems in innovation…but one thing for sure is we have no other choice but to adopt clean energy. US cannot change the global trends by itself. We got to realize our tunnel vision. We still use inches, pounds and gallons. So we have a tough time to sell our stuff…how many of your friends went to EU or China to travel? Or could speak Chinese or French? We have to take a macro vision to be competitive…forget about the “BIG STICK” policy, US being a global cop, everybody want US dollar. Those are old thinking right after world war two…nowaday, we need to stay ahead…we need to cut down on union pay scale, wakeup…America! In conclusion, the crystal ball needs to be traded-in with an objective version.
Craig, you have a lot right in your thoughts. The only thing that can change the world is a grassroots movement.
The top on my home page it has more than two years been written. “The world’s energy and environmental problems are resolved, Technical”
Last 2-3 hours before I opened your e-mail, I used to calculate how much energy that could be produced in a limited area.
The technology behind the calculation is a proprietary technique that is based on buoyancy in water. “Water-gravitational field fall
The technique is cheap and very simple. Can be used in a closed system or free in a body of water, fresh water / seawater.
The results of my calculations were that a small lake in Norway which has a total area of 0.56 km2, will use 0.37 km2 of the lake
could produce electricity equivalent edge Norway’s electricity production is 130 TWH / year.
The water is not consumed, the same water can be used for several years if necessary.
The next calculation was Sweden’s largest lake, which is 29 largest in the world. This lake “Venern” could with 10-20% of its waters produce 100.4 times the total world electricity production. Statistics from 2003. Nuclear power 16% of the total, plus coal, gas, oil, hydropower, wind power, etc.
This type of energy plants can be placed anywhere in the world. Adapted to local needs. Transfer Network and cables will be very little needed in the future.
For moving vessels / vehicles, the QFE generator Anlotron 1000 “could meet energy needs.
Get the grass roots on the path, that is what is needed now! Capital forces will use every means to prevent this development.
Thomas Freideman says it best.. the day will one day come where oil will be treated like table salt is today. When we get to that stage, you know renewables have finally become the new paradigm. A key component of getting there will be the contribution to the grid of those renewable sources which are outside the radar currently. They include the use of carbon bearing waste material and the conversion of the carbon obtained to cleaner fuels such as ethane, methane and butane. These conversions will be part of new fuel cell technologies which will include the production of hydrogen in ways not proven or even thought to be possible before. This takes us to a world where landfills become carbon mines and the metals trapped within them contribute to the cause. Imagine a day where your trash is used to fuel your fuel cell powered vehicle. Its coming. Proof on concept remains to be done in some aspects, while proof of scale is next on the to do list to get this form of renewable energy to the mainstream.
I have to agree with Dennis. Highway lighting is a waste of money. Keep the signs lit, but get rid of the overhead lights.
I, too, hold a CDL A.
Thanks Capt Phil,
The Photo-Voltaic industry needs to jump off the “Grid” compatibility alignment. AC is not the most efficient power at a home or business. Edison was right, DC is better.
Every appliance or electrical load works better on DC than AC or doesn’t work on AC at all with a small exception of shaded pole, hysteresis, or a few other types of electric motors used in high power industrial applications and usually not in homes.
Almost everything else except electric heat devices, convert the AC to DC to operate the internal circuits, That is radio and TVs, computers, microwave ovens, compact florescent lights, and rotating equipment with modern permanent magnet motors. The electric heat devices do not need AC so why invert the DC to AC for a heater? Older “Universal” type motors like your blender, mixer, food processor, juicer, and even corded electric shavers, work on AC, but work much smoother and faster on DC.
The reason for AC was to increase the efficiency of long distance transmission lines. Tesla and Steinmetz invented the AC system to carry cheep electricity generated at Niagara Falls to New York City to sell. Only, because a 48 inch diameter , cast iron, high pressure compressed air pipeline did not work, over the distance.
But, with wind, solar, or other generating on site and a battery bank backup there is no need to tie into the “Grid” at all. Reasonably using DC for most loads, increases efficiency. Combined with the elimination of Utility Management Expenses may increase the overall efficiency by 35 to 50 % compared to cost of being 100% on the “grid.”
True, computers use DC. However, they all use transformers to convert the AC to a suitable voltage then convert the AC to DC.
Modern computer power supplies and electronic fluorescent lamp ballasts convert the AC from the power cord to DC, invert the DC to high frequency AC (commonly from about 20 KHz to 100 KHz), use very small transformers (transformers for high frequencies are very small and light) to convert the high frequency AC to a suitable voltage, then convert the AC to DC.
Fluorescent lights, whether the compact variety or traditional tubes, need AC, if only to change the voltage to a convenient voltage to use by the lamp itself.
All electric motors use AC. A DC brush-type motor uses a commutator and brushes to convert the DC to AC for the coils in the armature. A “brushless” DC motor uses solid state components to convert the DC to AC.
BOTH AC and DC are essential; one is not better than the other.
The future will not be a gradual decline. Warming is causing climate chaos. Abrupt changes or tipping points in natural systems are already evident, especially in the Arctic and Antarctic regions. Climate chaos is disrupting and depleting Global food reserves and fresh water supplies, all while the world population is increasing by 6 million per month.
The choice is a clean energy future….or a global conflict nightmare.