Posting here because the drill thread has turned into a partisan bashing party...
I think the take home message from this is that there will be no single alternative energy source that works in every situation. Wind/solar/thermal/bio/nuclear/petro/fossil and others will likely all play a part. The overall cost per watt/joule of energy will probably be a bit higher than what we're used to paying now, but I suspect it will level off over the long term...
Liquid Fuels From Coal And Biomass Face Hurdles
Jeff Johnson
High oil prices, new technologies, and significant financial investments will be needed for liquid fuels made from coal or biomass to succeed, a report released last week by the National Research Council says. With respect to using coal to make liquid fuel, the report finds that to offset roughly one-fifth of current U.S. transportation fuels would require a 50% increase in coal mining, that coal-based fuel would emit about twice the amount of greenhouse gases as oil unless carbon sequestration is used, and that coal liquids would not be competitive with gasoline unless oil reaches and remains at at least $60 to $70 per barrel. For biomass to ethanol to be an economically viable option, a price of $100 per barrel for oil is needed, geological storage of CO2 generated during production is needed to achieve a negative carbon balance, and ethanol distribution will be a significant problem, the report finds. It also examined a combined coal-and-biomass to liquid fuels scenario and found that there are potential benefits and higher yields of liquid fuels, but it found no such conversion plants in operation in the U.S. at this time, and, again, geologic storage of CO2 generated will be needed. The report is available at nas.edu.
is not a solution, just more of the same problem.
The problem is not that we can't find enough energy to ruin the planet, just that exploiting these is not sustainable over the long run.
Wouter
but here is a glimmer of hope... They are finding new ways of using the byproduct of biofuel production - glycerine...
Yes, we should save all that carbon for fiber, not fuel! <img src="<>/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile" height="15" width="15" />
The problem is not that we can't find enough energy to ruin the planet, just that exploiting these is not sustainable over the long run.
More than 20 years ago Isaac Asimov wrote that there is no lack of energy sources to tap, that the real problem is the heat generated by its inefficient
transformation
(
generation
is less precise),
transportation
and
use
.
I think he is right, the main focus should be on energy efficiency instead of energy sources.
Transformation
methods abound. Their efficiency and economics vary form place to place. In principle, the adopted solutions will tend to be local instead of global.
One example is the use of ethanol in Brazil, but not in overpopulated Asia. Another one is the use of solar panels near the equator, but not near the poles.
Transportation
efficiency is improved reducing distances, so each location should become relatively independent of others. Don't expect global solutions here for obvious reasons.
Use
efficiency is improved applying good engineering solutions. Global solutions are possible in this area because human needs are more or less the same everywhere.
If I was working in this area I'd focus on
use
efficiency simply because its market is bigger. Also, retail instead of wholesale usually translates into better margins.
At around $3.50 a gallon for gasoline, the consumer starts to pay attention, so fix the price at that level. That's all the solution that is needed. The market will take care of the rest.
Price fixing or price
ceilings
do not work as an economic structure or philosiphy. Any economist will tell you that fixing prices will change the market...
i.e. You can look at the cost of housing in NYC as a perfect example... they set limits on renting and because of that.. no one moved. no apts became available... and concequntly... bribes, corruption, friends and family front of line privileges became the norm.
in the long run, fixing prices actually increases costs, decreases demand, kills the market.
Price fixing is a broken model.
But with my conclusions.... perhaps that is the answer ... a broken energy market <img src="<>/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile" height="15" width="15" />
PS there was a movie in the late 70[s i remember with John Ritter (Americathon) where the USA was bankrupt and i remember there was a charge (parking meters) for everything you wanted.. .25 cents for a cup of water, pay phones on the desk tops... etc..
that movie allways stuck with me....