So now, 35 years after we finally started realizing it, becasuse OPEC cut us off, we are supposedly getting serious about developing alternatives to fossil fuels. Personally, I think the people capable of developing alternative fuel sources have been serious about it for longer than 35 years. And I do not mean that in a negative way. I think they have worked very hard, all over the world, to develop viable alternatives to oil. That we do not yet have economically viable, efficient, alternatives says a lot about the technology levels and very little about the willingness to develop them.
While thinking about this subject I started considering the push lately to develop affordable and truly useful electric cars. I am not a big fan of these except as short haul commuter vehicles. And, even then, I am not a big fan. There are too many negatives involved.
First, consider the short operating range. Currently (no pun intended), they max out at around 50 miles. And they do not recharge all that quickly. You cannot just pull into a charging station, plug it in, and drive back out with a full battery in 10 minutes. So, even the Chevy Volt
will actually be a sort of hybrid in order to get a long range (an impressively long range, if it holds out to be true). Most people cannot afford to own an expensive (these ain't cheap!) commuter car and a family touring wagon. We like our cars to be commuters and long drive platforms.Second, consider the batteries. They have a life span and then must be refurbished or replaced. Most people will replace them. The cost for doing so will not be cheap. And then there's the pollution issues from the heavy metals, etc. Certainly, there will be entrepreneurs who will deal with recycling these things but the added pollution (old batteries are already a problem) will need to be considered.
Third, and this is a doozie, our electrical grid is overtaxed as it is. What will happen when tens of thousands of these electric vehicles get plugged into the grid about the same time in each time zone? We are nowhere near prepared for this.
Which brings me to the issue of power generation. This is where we, in my humble opinion, need to concentrate our research and investment. While transportation sucks up a lot of oil, so does power generation. And a lot of that power is wasted in transmission. There is a lot of talk lately about "smart" power grids. That's a good thing, we need that. We also need alternative methods of producing the power that feeds into those grids. Most of our electricity is produced by carbon based fuel; oil, natural gas,and coal. That's about 71%. The next largest sector is nuclear at a little over 19%. Hydroelectric is 7.1% and, finally, renewables for the rest.
(Click on image to see larger picture)We could expand our nuclear generating capability but a significant portion of our population is afraid of it. So, we don't. The renewables are nowhere near ready to take up the slack.
We had better stop thinking about cars and start thinking about that power plant no one wants in their back yard.
I'd like to take a little poll so I placed one over there on your right. That's it, just glance over at the side bar, toward the top. Now, go answer it.
Thank you.
12 comments:
"...concentrate our research and investment." Who do you suggest do this Douglas?
Oil's currently the only profitable method of generating electricity. Nuclear is close, but still wouldn't exist without taxpayer largess.
I say let people buy their hybrids or electrics if they find gas is too expensive...like they've been doing...and I'll keep buying gas-guzzling sports cars until the exciting day that we really have electric cars that have more than just extreme torque.
But stop with the government handouts to your favored industries, feds, please. I'm tired of it.
Our government leaders insist on being involved. This is due to pressure from certain interest groups. So, granting that investment by government will happen, it should be directed toward those entities researching efficient ways to produce electricity. By "efficient" I do not just mean "green" or alternative fuel sources, I mean the most electricity to the end user for the least amount of cost. Increase production, improve energy transmission efficiency (less waste), and improve the efficiency of products using that energy.
Personally, I would rather government stayed out of it altogether, I am not so naive to believe it will.
Part of the Stimulus is supposed to go to improve the energy grid. This will not only save power but make it more resistant to attack. The idiots in the Bush administration didn't care, they just wanted reasons to funnel money to Kellogg, Brown and Root, and I guess they aren't in the energy grid business.
I believe in Nuclear power, it has been used safely in this country, and others, particularly France, for 50 years. The waste is the big issue, efforts to reduce the poison have been encouraging, but the "Not In My Backyard" problem will never go away.
Government is a dirty word, but we need it. Our government sucks, but it's the best one man has devised yet.
Jonathan, the Clinton admin did nothing either, nor did the Reagan, Bush I, or the Carter admins. The weakness and inefficiency of the grid has been an ongoing problem but no one has addressed it. Can you point to the specific area in the stimulus package that addresses it?
I am on the fence about nuclear plants because I worked in a large regulated monopoly and understand the issues of indifference and incompetence. The French, by the way, are better able to control the dissident voices that impede expansion of nuclear power in this country.
I agree with you about the government but I don't trust it, regardless.
The problem is, as you say, "pressure from certain interest groups". I am in favor of pursuing alternative energy sources, but I am also in favor of using what we have available to us. So that means use clean coal systems, begin building more nuclear power plants, have offshore drilling, and we never should have opened up the Strategic Petroleum Reserves.
Enviornmental groups have legitimate concerns, but our country is also not China, blatantly disregarding environmental concerns to rape the earth and reap the benefits. We have hundreds of regulations in place for nuclear energy to prevent another Chernobyl meltdown, we have much better facilities for oil rigs in the Gulf than China or Cuba are currently utilizing in the very same waters. And coal now burns cleaner than it ever has.
Why are other countries allowed to use these methods to industrialize their country with less regulations, but we get blockaded at every pass by special interest groups.
I remember learning about the Kyoto Protocol, which Bush did not ratify. Has Obama changed the U.S. position, because he should after promising he would tackle the problem of environmental degradation during his election.
China is just... appalling.
Michael.
Michael - A little history lesson: Gore went to the meeting at Kyoto and agreed to the protocol. However, it is up to the Senate to ratify, not the president. And Congress rejected it 99-0. That was during the Clinton administration. Bush was, and is, being vilified for not doing something he is not responsible for doing. And there is good reason for the US not to ratify that treaty. Precisely because of what you said about China. China was exempt from the restrictions the treaty placed on the US and other First World nations. It was a political document, not an environmental one.
I remember learning about the Kyoto Protocol, which Bush did not ratify. Has Obama changed the U.S. position, because he should after promising he would tackle the problem of environmental degradation during his election.
China is just... appalling.
Michael.
Our government leaders insist on being involved. This is due to pressure from certain interest groups. So, granting that investment by government will happen, it should be directed toward those entities researching efficient ways to produce electricity. By "efficient" I do not just mean "green" or alternative fuel sources, I mean the most electricity to the end user for the least amount of cost. Increase production, improve energy transmission efficiency (less waste), and improve the efficiency of products using that energy.
Personally, I would rather government stayed out of it altogether, I am not so naive to believe it will.
Jonathan, the Clinton admin did nothing either, nor did the Reagan, Bush I, or the Carter admins. The weakness and inefficiency of the grid has been an ongoing problem but no one has addressed it. Can you point to the specific area in the stimulus package that addresses it?
I am on the fence about nuclear plants because I worked in a large regulated monopoly and understand the issues of indifference and incompetence. The French, by the way, are better able to control the dissident voices that impede expansion of nuclear power in this country.
I agree with you about the government but I don't trust it, regardless.
Michael - A little history lesson: Gore went to the meeting at Kyoto and agreed to the protocol. However, it is up to the Senate to ratify, not the president. And Congress rejected it 99-0. That was during the Clinton administration. Bush was, and is, being vilified for not doing something he is not responsible for doing. And there is good reason for the US not to ratify that treaty. Precisely because of what you said about China. China was exempt from the restrictions the treaty placed on the US and other First World nations. It was a political document, not an environmental one.
Post a Comment