<Mick Winter Reviews Strahan's The Last Oil Shock The Oil Drum DrumBeat: August 5, 2007>

93 comments on A federal energy policy: can it happen here?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

damac on August 5, 2007 - 8:07am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Here's your federal energy policy:

DOE's proposed budget for nuclear bombs: $15.6 billion
DOE's proposed budget for renewable energy: $1.2 billion*

War in Iraq: $300 million per DAY
National Renewable Energy Lab: $230 million per YEAR.**

Global budget for oil: about $1.8 trillion
Global budget for narcotics: $1-to-$2.5 trillion
Global budget for defense (war) spending: $1.2 trillion
Global budget for renewable energy: several hundred billion

Right on the head.

Read this article: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8QQAG2O1.htm

"A study released this year by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said if 40 percent of the heat under the United States could be tapped, it would meet demand 56,000 times over. It said an investment of $800 million to $1 billion could produce more than 100 gigawatts of electricity by 2050, equaling the combined output of all 104 nuclear power plants in the U.S."

So, lemme get this straight - Even if overruns triple the estimated costs (likely), it's still less than what we spend on a lousy 10 days worth of operations in Iraq. Plus it has the potential to provide 20% of US electricity? Likely more if we invest more heavily in it. Sounds like a screaming bargain to me.

Granted, there are potential problems, like the earthquake mentioned in CH. However, I'd think one of the big coal states, Wyoming, where the Earth's crust is relatively thin in spots, would be all over it.

Yet, with such massive potential upside, the Los Alamos project ran out of money? Such action (by the DOE?) are not just plain dumb, they border on treasonous.

Correct me if the numbers are off, but I can't believe that something like this is being virtually ignored is colossally stupid.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
FuturePundit on August 5, 2007 - 4:39pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The 100 GW per year that the MIT people hope to get from geothermal is less than we get right now from nuclear and way less than we get from coal.

Sure, if we can lower the cost of geothermal that would be great. But it would not solve our energy problems.

Our energy problem is an energy storage problem. Oil is not just an energy source. Oil is also a very convenient form of energy storage for transportation purposes. We need much better batteries so we can turn electricity into a useful transportation energy source.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on August 5, 2007 - 5:43pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

We need much better batteries so we can turn electricity into a useful transportation energy source

Not Really

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
FuturePundit on August 5, 2007 - 7:51pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Well, in some European countries (which have much higher population densities than we do) gasoline costs more than twice as much as in the United States. Yet I've read that the percentage of travel by public transport is declining in some (all? European countries. People want to go from where they want to start to where they want to finish. They do not want to take rail that goes only along fixed routes.

Would you rather take rail or take a motorcycle? My guess is that at $10 per gallon gasoline we'll see small diesel hybrid cars and more motorcycles but not a lot more rail.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
FuturePundit on August 5, 2007 - 8:06pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Check out Peter Schaeffer's numbers on population densities in some European and American cities. He dug out those numbers in the context of a debate about a Paul Krugman NYTimes column about high speed internet connection availability in Europe and America. But the same argument he makes on broadband connections is applicable to mass transit as well.

To increase US population density to European levels to make mass transit a lot more appealing would require massive apartment building construction programs lasting decades and moves by tens or hundreds of millions of people. I'm guessing that's not going to happen. We will shift to lighter and more fuel efficient vehicles (diesel and electric motorcycles in the extreme) before bunching together into high rises.

Of course if regular TOD contributors start reporting they are moving to live next to light or heavy rail stations I'll reconsider my views. Maybe once world oil production starts declining 5% per year that'll happen.

If people do abandon many small towns for densely populated cities then I'm going to find a way to move to one of the ghost towns and live in an enormous mansion (I might have to walk a long way to get there). I'm expecting mdsolar Chris will sell me a roof apparatus to keep my home office powered. Though I might need to hitch up a horse and wagon to go pick it up along a rail line.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
mdsolar on August 6, 2007 - 12:45am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

It will come installed, no need for the horse and wagon. But, it is not for sale just for rent. The idea is to make solar easy. There will be do it yourself kits coming later for barns and workshops that will be for sale. Might want you rig for that.

Chris

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
GRLCowan on August 5, 2007 - 6:14pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Perhaps as the other responder suggested we can have overhead wires almost everywhere. I tnink by "100 GW per year" FuturePundit meant just 100 GW.

To get much better than, say, Li-ion, batteries will need to take their oxygen from air. If they are much better and the oxygen is already in them, they are bombs. They can retain the zero-local-emission characteristic of today's batteries if they take air oxygen, oxidize something, but don't emit it. They can have combustion-like power-to-weight ratio and durability if their energy release is in fact combustion, not a pair of electrode processes.

--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html :
oxygen expands around boron fire, car goes

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
FuturePundit on August 5, 2007 - 7:55pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

If overhead wires could work for cars then I could see their utility. But I'm guessing it makes more sense to just have payable electric plugs in every parking lot and have a few thousand dollars worth of batteries in all cars.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on August 5, 2007 - 9:34pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Why do more than a very few need cars larger than

And Urban Rail of all types in towns as small as 50,000 people ?

Not much Suburbia & Exurbia though,

Best Hopes,

Alan

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
FuturePundit on August 6, 2007 - 12:35am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Think of it this way: Precisely because we are driving around in cars much bigger than we need them to be we have a large amount of room for adjustment. This large amount of room for adjustment (and not just in car sizes) plus the march of technology are why I'm optimistic about our ability to adjust to Peak Oil.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
auntiegrav on August 6, 2007 - 8:55pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Think of it this way: Precisely because we are driving around in cars much bigger than we need them to be we have a large amount of room for adjustment. This large amount of room for adjustment (and not just in car sizes) plus the march of technology are why I'm optimistic about our ability to adjust to Peak Oil.

I agree on this to a point. There is even more room for reduction than that, when you consider that much of our economy is based on 'creating markets' for goods that are unnecessary to a decent quality of life. Most of us could lose the dishwashers, the ice-in-door refrigerators, the multiple TVs, the incandescent lights, the air conditioning, and the 12 trips per day to soccer games / 7-11 / Wal-Mart / Home Depot.
Many could drop the extra job that goes to pay for the jetskis, the Harleys, the landscaping contractor (get a goat), and the car to drive to the extra job.
Most of the justification for our wars are based upon our fear of losing energy 'security', which is necessary only for unnecessary things. The necessary things (food, clothing, shelter, education) can be supported with the coal, oil, gas, and nukes we already have in house, (I'm guessing). Especially if we take all those people that were 'relieved' of their jobs by machines and chemicals on farms and put them back on the land where they are needed to keep an eye on things.
Most of our transportation fuels aren't transporting cargo, they are transporting transport. Not to mention how much is transported in and out of countries just to play the accounting games. (milk shipped to Canada to be turned into cheese and shipped back, etc.)

"If you want Change, keep it in your pocket."

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
FuturePundit on August 7, 2007 - 1:04am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Auntiegrav, Dishwashers use less water and energy than washing dishes by hand. I'm guessing the same is true for clothes washers versus hand washing.

Air conditioning: without it my productivity as a software developer would go down.

As for getting everyone to drop their desire for consumer goods: Not going to happen. People really like having gadgets to do things for them. Personally, I want more: Robots to clean would be great.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
CalGuy on August 6, 2007 - 1:00pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

If all you are doing is running around town, a car shaped like a large egg might be just fine. But people go other places than around town and if they buy a car, they want it to meet all their needs.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on August 6, 2007 - 1:24pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Take the train in most cases (see several other nations) or do not go in the not-to-distant future.

Alan

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
auntiegrav on August 6, 2007 - 8:44pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Somewhere I saw a picture of a smart car (or something like it) with a pickup box that attaches to the back and adds another axle. Could just as well be a van body.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

93 comments on A federal energy policy: can it happen here?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version