EIN News says, "U.S. Makes $3 Billion Available for Renewable Energy. The Obama administration on Thursday unveiled guidelines that will allow companies to apply for some $3 billion in government funds to boost development of renewable energy projects around the country, creating jobs. (reuters.com)".
The Obama Administration? Congress has no part in this?
Is $3 billion too little? Too much? Should it be government or private industry? How does it compare with our energy needs as a whole?
From a separate article (Chemical and Engineering News 6/29/09 page 25), we can obtain a little better perspective. Renewable Energy only applies significantly to the generation of electricity, which is used for its traditional purpose of lighting and heating. Use of corn (renewable) to produce alcohol for motor vehicle use has been found uneconomical. Hydrogen for motor vehicle use has not yet been developed, nor is it likely to be in the near future.
Therefore when EIN News says "Renewable Energy", they really mean "as applied to the generation of electricity". "Renewable" means from an obviously inexhaustible supply. That would include wind, solar, nuclear, and biomass, which is annually replaceable through new growth. It also would exclude petroleum, coal, and natural gas (fossil fuels), for which exhaustible supplies can be at least estimated.
Jeff Johnson of C&EN quotes other experts as saying that an aggressive scenario would be to obtain 20% of electricity production from renewable energy sources by 2035. That's 26 years from now. To accomplish this with wind energy, which is the only significantly developed source of Renewable Energy, would require $100 billion. That's 33 times more the Obama Administration has just put up, and it would take 26 years to accomplish only a 20% replacement of fossil fuels. What about the other 80%? We have also not even considered the requirements of automotive vehicles.
Fossil fuels are a major, major portion of our current energy needs. They will remain so for any predictable time. We should concentrate on their efficient use, encourage further discovery and development of sources, and place wind, solar, tides, biofuels, etc. in the minor category to which they belong. Renewable Energy sources are not the areas on which government should be spending public money.
For those who may make the usual claims of our having to protect the environment and preservation of natural resources for our grandchildren, I have the obvious rebuttal. If we are spending our way into the poor house on ridiculous projects, we are destined to become a third world country. What difference will it make if they have to use cow patties as a fuel source to heat their cappuccinos, when they won't have the raw materials for the cappuccinos?
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Governments Grants to Schools
'EIN News says, " U.S. Senate Pressed to Aid Obama on Energy Education. More than 100 schools, student groups and nonprofit organizations have signed a letter pressing the Senate to provide the money President Obama has sought for his Re-Energyse program, which is aimed at building the intellectual capacity to transform the country's energy system. The letter, drafted by the Breakthrough Institute and sent to Senate offices this week, comes after the education program was cut to zero by a Senate committee from Mr. Obama's $115 million request. (nytimes.com)".
Schools are like the average person. They like free stuff, especially if it's easy to get it by signing a petition or writing a letter. I am a proponent of education financially supported by parents and even socialized to the extent of the local community. I can tolerate a little organization and control by the state, but the federal government should be out.
We obviously don't need Energy Education. Any federal money dumped on a school for this claimed purpose will likely be spent on other things. Practical energy usage involves basic understanding of chemistry, physics, geology, transportation, marketing, general business practices, and politics. All of these are presently being taught by so-called reputable colleges and universities. Let's not bait them to become unreliable and deceptive through offers of taxpayer money.
Congratulations to the Senate Committee that cut Pres. Obama's request for $115 million to zero. Spending reductions are the general order of the day. Please associate yourself with the committee that has taken this forward step and do what you can to support it.'
Schools are like the average person. They like free stuff, especially if it's easy to get it by signing a petition or writing a letter. I am a proponent of education financially supported by parents and even socialized to the extent of the local community. I can tolerate a little organization and control by the state, but the federal government should be out.
We obviously don't need Energy Education. Any federal money dumped on a school for this claimed purpose will likely be spent on other things. Practical energy usage involves basic understanding of chemistry, physics, geology, transportation, marketing, general business practices, and politics. All of these are presently being taught by so-called reputable colleges and universities. Let's not bait them to become unreliable and deceptive through offers of taxpayer money.
Congratulations to the Senate Committee that cut Pres. Obama's request for $115 million to zero. Spending reductions are the general order of the day. Please associate yourself with the committee that has taken this forward step and do what you can to support it.'
China on Climate Talks
EIN News says, "China Says World 'Cannot Afford' Failed Climate Talks. China, viewed as essential to the success of a new global climate accord, said the world cannot afford a failure at December's summit in Copenhagen to replace the Kyoto Protocol. (bloomberg.com)".
Whenever China and Third World countries are in agreement on anything, it is time for us to take a jaundiced look at their motivations. That goes for Russia too.
We presently use more fossil (CO2 generators) energy per capita than any other country. An arbitrary restriction on our fossil energy use, or increase in cost of using it, would do much to elevate the political and economic status of these international competitors.
Lets not give away our international economic advantage on the basis of some pie-in-the-sky theory of CO2 and global warming.
Whenever China and Third World countries are in agreement on anything, it is time for us to take a jaundiced look at their motivations. That goes for Russia too.
We presently use more fossil (CO2 generators) energy per capita than any other country. An arbitrary restriction on our fossil energy use, or increase in cost of using it, would do much to elevate the political and economic status of these international competitors.
Lets not give away our international economic advantage on the basis of some pie-in-the-sky theory of CO2 and global warming.
Government Grants
EIN News says, "Winners of Energy Grants Expected to Be Announced on Wednesday. The Obama administration on Wednesday is expected to announce the winners of $2.4 billion in federal grants to companies and universities that will help make advanced automotive batteries and electric vehicles. (washingtonpost.com)".
I suppose this could be a good program. We certainly spend a lot on foreign oil, with the associated disadvantage that those foreign suppliers will continue to have us under political/financial control.
I'm not sure about the money. I have experience in handling big numbers, and I always like to reduce them to a per unit basis. For example, dollars per capita or dollar grants per recipient. The related aspect is that improved batteries, which would be the basis of practical electric cars, would still require substantial energy from electricity power plants. This could be accomplished with nuclear energy or coal burning units, but in either case would require a significant increase in production capability.
The other possibility is: what result might we expect if we pumped $2.4 billion into oil and gas exploration in the US? Some environmentalists worry about contaminating the ecology, but with $2.4 billion we could probably make those exploration projects as neat as a pin.
There seems to be substantial information on the existence of methane clathrate at deep subterranean levels. This is also called methane hydrate or methane ice. It is a crystalline composition of methane (natural gas) and water. It can exist only at high pressures. If the hole is drilled from the surface into a methane clathrate deposit, the pressure is immediately reduced, the clathrate breaks down, and the methane comes out of the hole under minor pressure. Doesn't this sound like a good way to spend some money, with a strong possibility of gaining a financial and international political advantage?
I suppose this could be a good program. We certainly spend a lot on foreign oil, with the associated disadvantage that those foreign suppliers will continue to have us under political/financial control.
I'm not sure about the money. I have experience in handling big numbers, and I always like to reduce them to a per unit basis. For example, dollars per capita or dollar grants per recipient. The related aspect is that improved batteries, which would be the basis of practical electric cars, would still require substantial energy from electricity power plants. This could be accomplished with nuclear energy or coal burning units, but in either case would require a significant increase in production capability.
The other possibility is: what result might we expect if we pumped $2.4 billion into oil and gas exploration in the US? Some environmentalists worry about contaminating the ecology, but with $2.4 billion we could probably make those exploration projects as neat as a pin.
There seems to be substantial information on the existence of methane clathrate at deep subterranean levels. This is also called methane hydrate or methane ice. It is a crystalline composition of methane (natural gas) and water. It can exist only at high pressures. If the hole is drilled from the surface into a methane clathrate deposit, the pressure is immediately reduced, the clathrate breaks down, and the methane comes out of the hole under minor pressure. Doesn't this sound like a good way to spend some money, with a strong possibility of gaining a financial and international political advantage?
Electric Cars
EIN News says, "$2 Billion in Grants to Bolster U.S. Manufacturing of Parts for Electric Cars. Seeking to put the nation back in the lead on an important technology, the Obama administration awarded more than $2 billion in grants on Wednesday for manufacturing advanced batteries and other components for electric cars. (nytimes.com)".
Referring to my previous e-mail, $2 billion would have to be added to the cost for new electricity generating plants on each of the four energy sources (fossil fuel with CO2 sequestration, atomic energy, wind, and solar).
Referring to my previous e-mail, $2 billion would have to be added to the cost for new electricity generating plants on each of the four energy sources (fossil fuel with CO2 sequestration, atomic energy, wind, and solar).
Energy for Automobiles
Automotive batteries and electric vehicles reduce the energy supply problem to electricity from power plants.
Burning fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, oil) in power plants produces CO2. CO2 is like water. You can drown in water, in which case it is harmful or you can drink it to sustain life. CO2 is necessary for the growth of plants, which is the basic nutrition form for all animals. However, assume for the moment that it is harmful, and we must not let any enter the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning.
Converting to electric vehicles requires more electricity from power plants.
New electricity sources could be fossil fuel burning, atomic energy, wind and solar. Each of these has a capital and operating cost per kilowatt hour.
The question is which source is cheaper and more reliable; fossil fuel burning with carbon dioxide capture, atomic energy with radioactive byproduct handling, wind with downtime (no wind), and solar with downtime (night).
The question can be resolved by appropriate engineering calculations, with consideration of some practical political needs.
In the absence of the calculations, I will estimate that fossil fuels with carbon dioxide capture would lead the pack. If we eventually decide that carbon dioxide is not the bad guy it is touted to be, there would be no question as to what is best.
Burning fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, oil) in power plants produces CO2. CO2 is like water. You can drown in water, in which case it is harmful or you can drink it to sustain life. CO2 is necessary for the growth of plants, which is the basic nutrition form for all animals. However, assume for the moment that it is harmful, and we must not let any enter the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning.
Converting to electric vehicles requires more electricity from power plants.
New electricity sources could be fossil fuel burning, atomic energy, wind and solar. Each of these has a capital and operating cost per kilowatt hour.
The question is which source is cheaper and more reliable; fossil fuel burning with carbon dioxide capture, atomic energy with radioactive byproduct handling, wind with downtime (no wind), and solar with downtime (night).
The question can be resolved by appropriate engineering calculations, with consideration of some practical political needs.
In the absence of the calculations, I will estimate that fossil fuels with carbon dioxide capture would lead the pack. If we eventually decide that carbon dioxide is not the bad guy it is touted to be, there would be no question as to what is best.
Relief from Foreign Domination
EIN News says, "Politicians, Energy Leaders Meet in Las Vegas to Talk Jobs for Fledgling Industry. A high-profile cast of politicians and alternative energy leaders is meeting in Las Vegas to talk about prospects for the fledgling industry. Quick hopes for employment in alternative energy went bust quickly over the past year as credit markets seized up, major projects were canceled and workers in solar and wind industries were laid off. (latimes.com)"
Note that the quick hopes for jobs did not materialize over the past year. The claim that available credit was responsible is unrealistic. Government has poured a tremendous amount of money into alternative energy.
The real answer is that in spite of government subsidies, private companies would still have to risk a substantial amount of their own capital in the various alternative energy projects. The quick fall of international oil prices increased the risk beyond the tolerable limit, and private companies logically bailed out.
Our total economy is geared to oil as a major energy source. The motor vehicle fleet of the US almost completely uses oil as a fuel source. Add to that, oil burning heating units in residences of the Northeast, and you have the simple fact that the control of supply and price of oil also controls what the automotive and home heating markets use for an energy source.
The only way we can relieve ourselves from the burden of foreign energy competition is to compete head-on with monopolized foreign oil suppliers. This means drill, drill, drill! Once we have control of our own destiny, through an adequate internal supply of what we have been dependent on from foreign suppliers, we can then start to maneuver to alternative energy sources.
Note that the quick hopes for jobs did not materialize over the past year. The claim that available credit was responsible is unrealistic. Government has poured a tremendous amount of money into alternative energy.
The real answer is that in spite of government subsidies, private companies would still have to risk a substantial amount of their own capital in the various alternative energy projects. The quick fall of international oil prices increased the risk beyond the tolerable limit, and private companies logically bailed out.
Our total economy is geared to oil as a major energy source. The motor vehicle fleet of the US almost completely uses oil as a fuel source. Add to that, oil burning heating units in residences of the Northeast, and you have the simple fact that the control of supply and price of oil also controls what the automotive and home heating markets use for an energy source.
The only way we can relieve ourselves from the burden of foreign energy competition is to compete head-on with monopolized foreign oil suppliers. This means drill, drill, drill! Once we have control of our own destiny, through an adequate internal supply of what we have been dependent on from foreign suppliers, we can then start to maneuver to alternative energy sources.
Atomic Energy
EIN News says, "Eight Dead, at Least 54 Missing in Russian Hydro-Power Plant Disaster. Eight people were killed on Monday and 54 were missing when a turbine room flooded at Russia's largest hydropower station, forcing steel and aluminium plants in Siberia to turn to emergency power. RusHydro, owner of the Sayano-Shushenskaya plant, said damage would run into "billions of roubles" and would take several months to fix. The company's shares were suspended in Russia and fell 13% in London. (nytimes.com)".
An interesting aspect is the energy basis of the disaster. Since it is a hydropower plant, it will generally go unnoticed. If it were an atomic power plant, chances are it would receive much more attention.
Atomic power is a very significant potential energy source. However, emotional damage has been created in the public mind over many years. Two major sources of such damage have been Jane Fonda's movie "China Syndrome", which was imaginary, and the Russian Chernobyl disaster, which resulted from inappropriate design and operation. These have been coupled with the general public fear, which is usually based on some fact coupled with a large amount of ignorance. The fact is that atomic power is a major force. It can theoretically do much damage, similar to the ammonium nitrate/diesel ship that blew up Texas City. The ignorance is that most people relate atomic energy only to a bomb, which previously blew up Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
One of government's responsibilities is to educate its people. Our government should be doing more on education of the US public with respect to atomic energy.
An interesting aspect is the energy basis of the disaster. Since it is a hydropower plant, it will generally go unnoticed. If it were an atomic power plant, chances are it would receive much more attention.
Atomic power is a very significant potential energy source. However, emotional damage has been created in the public mind over many years. Two major sources of such damage have been Jane Fonda's movie "China Syndrome", which was imaginary, and the Russian Chernobyl disaster, which resulted from inappropriate design and operation. These have been coupled with the general public fear, which is usually based on some fact coupled with a large amount of ignorance. The fact is that atomic power is a major force. It can theoretically do much damage, similar to the ammonium nitrate/diesel ship that blew up Texas City. The ignorance is that most people relate atomic energy only to a bomb, which previously blew up Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
One of government's responsibilities is to educate its people. Our government should be doing more on education of the US public with respect to atomic energy.
Geothermal Delay
EIN News says, "Drilling Ordeals Said to Delay Geothermal Project. The Obama administration's first major test of geothermal energy as a significant alternative to fossil fuels has fallen seriously behind schedule, several federal scientists said this week, even as the project is under review because of the earthquakes it could generate in Northern California. (nytimes.com)".
More fear mongering without basis of fact. Drilling for oil in California took place many years ago. Has anybody been able to connect whether California has had more or fewer earthquakes because of that?
There are also other places to drill for geothermal energy.
I suspect that government is not concerned with the unrealistic fears of increasing California quakes, but are acceding to a general desire of environmental groups. The Obama Administration does not appear to be concerned with votes of individuals. Rather they have accepted a supposition that voting blocs, such as unions and similar groups, will control votes of the individual members. That may have been true in the past, but I think that is changing. Recent town hall meetings are an indication.
More fear mongering without basis of fact. Drilling for oil in California took place many years ago. Has anybody been able to connect whether California has had more or fewer earthquakes because of that?
There are also other places to drill for geothermal energy.
I suspect that government is not concerned with the unrealistic fears of increasing California quakes, but are acceding to a general desire of environmental groups. The Obama Administration does not appear to be concerned with votes of individuals. Rather they have accepted a supposition that voting blocs, such as unions and similar groups, will control votes of the individual members. That may have been true in the past, but I think that is changing. Recent town hall meetings are an indication.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
