Posted on 03/24/2002 2:09:05 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
Wind. Sun. Hydrogen. They are odorless, tasteless, invisible and abundant. And they can be harnessed to generate electricity, power cars and heat homes. So, hey, let's stop dallying! Replace those shameful fossil fuels with clean renewables. What is taking so long?
That was the gist of a series of passionate editorials in The Dallas Morning News during the past several weeks. Read them, and you might wonder what is wrong with those blockhead politicians and energy executives.
But there is a reason that renewables, despite a history of generous government subsidies stretching back to 1982, haven't made a dent in the dominance of oil, gas and coal – which together account for 85 percent of the energy used in this country. The reason is cost. As energy sources, wind, sun and hydrogen are hugely expensive and inefficient. Fossil fuels aren't.
In fact, thanks to new technology and better management, oil and gas companies – many of them, of course, based in Texas – have figured out how to bring fossil fuels out of the ground and refine them more and more cheaply. That is good, not bad. Abundant, low-cost energy is the key to prosperity, and prosperity is the key to cleaner air and water, as numerous studies, including a survey of 117 countries by the World Bank and the World Economic Forum, have shown.
The United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal, and places like Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico have tremendous potential for oil and gas exploration, which now has minimal impact on the environment. Yes, there is a lot of wind and sun here, too – not to mention hydrogen. The problem is turning those fuels into usable power.
Let's not deceive ourselves. At this point in history, renewables aren't a serious source of energy. While we should encourage more research, we shouldn't succumb to the wishful fantasy that the wind or the sun will power America's toasters.
Scientists Mike Oliver and John Hospers, writing in the American Enterprise magazine, use an apt analogy: "There are untold millions of tons of gold in the earth's oceans. Why aren't we taking this gold from the seas? It is the dilution that stops us. If we can't obtain at least $8 worth of gold from a ton of water, we will go broke from the costs of extraction."
Wind, solar and hydrogen are examples of dilution in the extreme. Wind is so intermittent and tough to harness that a wind farm that could produce 1,000 megawatts from thousands of those ungainly propeller-driven turbines ("eagle choppers," as some wags call them) would extend, according to Environmental Protection Agency research, over 400 square miles. A similar coal plant would take up just 10 acres.
Sure, the sun is bright in the California desert, and that is why a solar plant was built at Barstow a few years ago. It occupied 75 acres and cost $200 million to build, yet it generated only $1.7 million worth of energy a year – until the companies and government agencies that subsidized it shut it down.
The United States now generates 8 percent of its power from a category that the Energy Information Administration calls "renewables." But nearly all of that power comes from water and "biomass," mainly wood. Wind and solar each represents less than 1 percent – not of the total power but of the power generated by renewables!
Denmark, as The Morning News editorials pointed out, gets "a remarkable 13 percent" of its electricity from the wind. True, but the real story, reported earlier this month by the Economist magazine, is that Denmark has soured on the experiment, and "plans for three offshore wind power parks have been dropped" by its new government.
Similarly, The Morning News wants to subsidize solar cells "in the manner of Los Angeles Power and Water." But The Washington Post reported last year that this noble experiment to make Los Angeles the "solar capital" of the world, with 100,000 roofs covered by solar electric panels, has been a dismal failure. In the first year of the program, only 40 homes adopted the panels, despite subsidies averaging $8,000 per family.
Why? According to The Post, "In the real world, most systems don't pay for themselves in a few years, as some advocates claim, but take 20 years or more to return their initial cost in the form of reduced utility bills."
The truth is that, at least for the next few decades, renewables like wind, solar and hydrogen fuel cells will be boutique sources of energy – curiosities available only to the few who want to pay the exorbitant cost or to those who live in states where politicians are willing to socialize those costs by making all taxpayers shoulder them.
The economic rewards for making wind, solar and hydrogen commercially viable are immense, and many companies – often with government aid – have sunk billions into the attempt. But the science and technology just aren't there. We don't need more subsidies and special breaks for the renewables industry.
Nor should the fossil fuels that dominate the energy scene be demonized. The companies that find them and turn them into electricity, gasoline and diesel fuel aren't owed any favors, but neither should they be denigrated or embarrassed. They are fueling the main engine of the world's economic growth – growth that leads inexorably to cleaner air and water, better health and more comfortable and productive lives. Texans should know that story better than anyone else, and they should be proud.
James K. Glassman is host of the TechCentralStation website (www.TechCentralStation.com) and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
True, but they shift the demand for fuel from petroleum based products to alternatives such as biomass.
It is also true that, presently, they are not as cost-effictive as fossil fuels. However, as the technology advances and the cost of fossil fuels (including the cost of pumping pollutants into the atmosphere, which can be transferred virtually cost free to society at large) continues to climb, you will see the gap close.
It is truely sad that barely 6 months have passed since 3000+ of our citizens were slaughtered on our own soil in a plot masterminded by a "religious" zealot funded by oil money. And our so-called "leadership" wages a global war on terrorism in order to maintain our energy dependence on these same terrorist sponsoring nations.
Tell you what...let's run a few "issue ads" featuring the average soccer mom and her kids entering an SUV. Rapidly intersperse video of the HINDENBURG disaster. Then show pics of the "after" condition of the kids at WACO.
Then the voiceover about "CRISPY CRITTERS". End with "The HYDROGEN Economy...it's a BAD idea!!!
Go BACK to the literature and learn a bit about the work on new, super-strong composite tanks. You are half right--IF you use gaseous hydrogen for transportation (which is NOT what I said, by the way--I was talking about the hydrogen economy, which involves ALL energy usage--not just transportation.) the tanks DO need to be super-strong.
If there is a luddite, on this thread, you're it. Personally, I have more confidence in the abilities of my fellow scientists and engineers here in the US to solve these problems than you appear to.
Yes, MORE THAN 100% ELECTRICALLY EFFICIENT---NOT, PLEASE, MORE THAN 100% THERMODYNAMICALLY EFFICIENT. There IS a difference, folks, which is why I DESCRIBED THE MECHANISM in the post. Until you guys actually learn the fundamentals of thermodynamics, it is useless to try to have a discussion.
BUMP
Show me a system diagram and appropriate 1st Law analysis of that system, and a testbed that has done something useful, with the the slightest remote possibility of commercial scaling. And oh, yeah, it would be nice if some independant peer review were involved, and not a bunch of greenie wishing.
And BTW, you're still side-stepping the energy density issues of hydrogen for automotive use.
When folks start typing primarily all-caps when challenged about one of their statements, I find that discussion tends to head immediately far downhill. Here's hoping that's not the case here.
I work with those tanks on a daily basis. New and 'super-strong' and very, very costly.
So: either very heavy or very expensive. Take your choice. And remember what happened to the X-33 tank.
--Boris
As I said above:
"The U.S. has vast supplies of coal, shale oil, and other hydrocarbons which are currently too expensive to use--or prohibited by idiotic environmental regs. Not to mention the potential of methane clathrates (methane hydrates) which are known to contain more energy then all of the proven oil and gas reserves on the planet. All we need to do is figure out how to get at it...it sits on the sea bed, to depths of many meters."
In other words, we have the resources now--and vastly more in potential--if we would only stop refusing to exploit them. No silly scheme based on dilute energy sources (solar, wind, et al) is needed.
--Boris
You are dreaming, aren't you?
Simple--the extra energy needed (over and above electric current) comes from thermal energy. Think of it as a combined catalytic cracker/electrolysis cell without the side reactions of a full catalytic cracking process. This example was intended to point out that Boris's assertion that "...electrolysis cells are 70% efficient, tops.." was baloney. In fact, even current technology electrolysis cells AT LOW LOADS are in the mid-90% efficency region, but that drops off as the load is increased--and probably DOES drop to Boris's 70% efficiency at full production rates.
I spent years working for a chemical company that produced megatons of chlorine per year by electrolysis, so I am "somewhat" familiar with industrial-scale electrolysis. It gets REAL interesting working around a 10 kiloamp DC electric field.
Prices "do" come down with mass production. If built as "one-off" assemblies, the typical family automobile would cost $100,000 (as do the limited production "super-cars" that are built that way).
I have no problem, myself, with fossil fuels, and I trust the market to take care of future demands. But I resent being patronized by shills for the oil industry.
The fact is, if Jimmuh Carter had taken the 60 billion dollars he pissed away on bogus "synfuel" projects, and put it into solarfarms in vast empty areas of the Southwest desert, California wouldn't have an energy problem now, and if they did they wouldn't need oil to solve it.
If the gov decided to do the proverbial "Apollo" program in the 70's, we could tell the Saudi's to shove it, today.
BTW, isn't James K. Glassman the einstein who told us a few years ago that the Dow was going straight to 36,000?
Real credible futurist, that boy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.