Indelible moments and sensations dot our lives like mental sequins. And if you look up to the sky, the carbon atoms used in those moments are still there, each one knocking around with two oxygen buddies, trapping just a little bit of solar heat, forever unavailable in the fossil fuel form that society craves and loathes.
It is not an exaggeration to say that almost all our memories took carbon to make. Whoever invented the famous tag line for cotton growers just had the wrong raw material. Carbon: the fabric of our lives…
“We could be using half the energy that we’re using,” says political scientist and energy policy expert Mark Bernstein, managing director of the new USC Energy Institute. Launched earlier this year, the think tank aims to build a community of energy and environmental researchers, expand research and education programs, engage outside companies and agencies, and – perhaps most important – help form good policy.
This is a bumper-size article. Take the time for a read.
#28, Thomas,
for every $1 of investment in oil you get about $20 worth of energy. For all other energy sources, including electrical, you get about a $1 worth of energy for every $1 worth of investment.
As usual, even though you do present a rational argument, it is a wrong assumption.
The cheapest form of energy is hydroelectric. While the initial construction may be high, most hydroelectric facilities have minimal maintenance costs, and zero fuel costs. As a bonus. most Hydroelectric facilities can also provide recreational benefits and moderate flood damage. The harm to the environment is zero to minimal and certainly less that the harm from any other forms of energy production.
7,
paddy-o,
If you really do design power systems, no wonder the grid is so fucked up.
This direction of this whole argument comes down to economics.
The more heat you can generate, you more work you can get out of your engine. Where that heat is generated doesn’t matter — under the hood, on the surface of the solar cell, at the power plant, etc. That’s why nuclear power plants produce the most power, all other things being equal. They get really hot. Next is coal/oil. Next is solar. Next is wind.
Note: Water is in there somewhere but as we are finding out, damns are not very ecologically sound.
The more heat you can generate, the more energy you have available. Create that heat cheaply and your energy costs are cheap.
If you make energy too cheap, people will use more of it because it makes their life easier. That’s why we drive to work instead of walk. Or why some people take trains instead of walking or driving. Or flying cross country instead of driving. Or using the dishwasher instead of doing the dishes by hand. Or boiling water on a stove instead of chopping the wood, starting the fire, and boiling it over that.
Cheap energy makes our lives easier.
If the government forces industry to adopt alternative energy supplies via heavy taxing, you are really not helping people out. You are only taking money out of their pockets because in order to get the same work out of these alternative sources will require larger and more expensive systems. Eventually, people will stop using this energy and we’ll be back in the caves.
That being said, we should go nuclear. Now if we could just reduce the regulations on these plants, we might actually get one built before I need a walker.
#39 – That’s why Obama doesn’t have a “workable” energy plan. He does have a plan for “make work” projects to employ people on the taxpayers dime though…
#4 – Paddy-RAMBO
Aw, quitcher sour-grapes belly-aching, ya girly man. Wait another 56 days until the President-Elect takes office, and THEN see what he does. And if you don’t like it then, take out your RAMBO-matic weapon and start “piling up liberal bodies”.
In the meanwhile, just thank your lucky stars that you’ve still got that job as counterboy at the Radio Shack. You could be out on your kiester like the rest of Dumbya’s constituency.
#39, Liberty,
The more heat you can generate, you more work you can get out of your engine.
Wrong. The more heat your engine generates is just wasted energy.
Where that heat is generated doesn’t matter — under the hood, on the surface of the solar cell, at the power plant, etc.
Actually it does matter. Too much heat concentrated in one area will destroy that area.
That’s why nuclear power plants produce the most power, all other things being equal. They get really hot. Next is coal/oil. Next is solar. Next is wind.
Actually not nearly as hot as they can.
Heat is just a form of energy. Heat can be the desired form of energy or a conduit in the transfer of energy. Nuclear, coal, and natural gas electrical generators all change their energy into heat which is transferred to water (as steam) which in turn drive turbines connected to generators so we end up with electricity. The heat (and pressures) may not exceed the material limits of the generating plant or the plant fails. The same as your engine will fail if it overheats.
With an internal engine, the object is to turn the energy into power (work) to drive the wheels. Energy turned into heat is energy not being used for power and ends up lost.
Another example is electrical lights. The more energy given off as heat, the less energy is being turned into visible light (another type of energy). Newer types of lighting give off more visible spectrum per unit of energy than do older incandescent lamps. Long life bulbs may give as much as 99.8% of their energy output in heat. A higher efficiency light might only emit 99.0% of its energy into heat but would use only ¼ the energy of the long life bulb for the same amount of light.
Note: Water is in there somewhere but as we are finding out, damns are not very ecologically sound.
Why aren’t they? Most steam generators have to be built beside a body of water so they can use the cooling. That hot water does upset the ecosystem of the water. Dams retain water during droughts, they are effective for flood control, they are used for recreation, and with assistance, fish can bypass dams with little problem.
If the government forces industry to adopt alternative energy supplies via heavy taxing, you are really not helping people out.
Sorry, but I disagree. The same argument was used to force industry to stop polluting. Guess what? Most rivers and lakes are healing from the effects. People’s health is better off too. Maybe if industry could transfer to alternate energy on their own the Government won’t have to tax them.
I seriously doubt they will be taxed though. Most companies realize there are huge savings to be had by being more energy conscious. New building and retrofitting is all energy efficient. Why? Not because of any tax breaks. But because of the amount of energy they save.
Another reason is that most industries have very little input on what types of energy they use. Larger Steel mills need coal as natural gas is just not hot enough. Most manufacturing relies upon their electrical supplier and have no say where they get that power from.
The best way to wean us from fossil fuels and oil in particular is to develop alternative energy supplies that are cost competitive. The economies of production have brought the cost of wind turbines down and their size up. Many of the obstacles to growing oil algae are being worked out. Solar panels are becoming much more efficient and the cost is dropping. Tidal generators are off of the design board.
The more heat you can generate, you more work you can get out of your engine.
Wrong. The more heat your engine generates is just wasted energy.
Actually, yes and now. We’re talking about two different things.
More specifically, the greater the heat differential the more work. If your high heat can be cooled down rapidly, that is how you get your work. Thus, gasoline powered vehicles are more efficient than steam powered ones or muscle power. Or as you mentioned, steam turbines. Colder water in the condenser produces a vacuum making the turbine spin. It’s a greater heat differential. There is a big difference between 150 psi steam and 1200 superheated psi steam. Both get reduced to around 150 degrees condensate but the 1200 psi system will do things the 150 psi system can only dream of.
Where that heat is generated doesn’t matter — under the hood, on the surface of the solar cell, at the power plant, etc.
Actually it does matter. Too much heat concentrated in one area will destroy that area.
You missed the point. If you want to use a kj of energy, it doesn’t matter where it is generated as long as you have access to it. Whether that is being generated under the hood of your car or at a power plant and then transmitted to the batteries under your hood. I wasn’t discussing ecological disasters or efficiency. Heat is found in both waste and generation. The trick is to keep as much of the heat as you can for your use and not waste it. That is what makes something more efficient. Even, if you can get 100% work out of your heat (thus being magically 100% efficient), the quote stands: more heat produces more work. Efficiency does increase cost of the final product.
Agreed, LED bulbs are indeed more efficient. However, price per watt-hour is way up there. It takes a couple of years to pay one off of the energy savings. Again, we are back to the economics of the situation. The government gives a tax break equal to about the sales tax on the newer bulbs but the cost is still up there. And now companies are thinking of fancy lighting system they wouldn’t have thought of with incands.
http://tinyurl.com/5t3v8f
Here is a 13w replacement for a 100w bulb. It costs $80 and takes $6/yr in electricity. The 100w bulb would thus cost $46/yr. Over two years to get your money back as the old style only costs about 25 cents. People who buy these pay 8% in taxes. Guess how much money the government stands to make by telling people to buy these things . . .
Damns
I agree that damns are probably the cleanest. However, they can’t be conveniently placed wherever we want them. We are pretty much restricted to where there are rivers.
If the government forces industry to adopt alternative energy supplies via heavy taxing, you are really not helping people out.
Sorry, but I disagree.
Taxes aren’t just a number on the bottom of the spreadsheet. They are hidden in all the permitting and regulations a company has to go through to get one built (compare the first nuclear power only took 4 years to build — now it takes around 20). If you force regulations on a coal-based plant and then remove those regulations for a wind-farm, or give them money to do it, you are, in effect, taxing the former and forcing them to compete on an unequal footing. In all cases, the final cost to generate the electricity is higher and thus the consumer pays more.
The same argument was used to force industry to stop polluting. Guess what? Most rivers and lakes are healing from the effects.
These are property rights issues and should be enforced. However, the EPA has grown into a monster organization and pretty much left their original mandate behind. They’ve gotten too big with the rest of their brothers.
The best way to wean us from fossil fuels and oil in particular is to develop alternative energy supplies that are cost competitive
I agree. But it’s not government’s job to do this. It’s business’ job. Where is government going to get the money to pay these tax breaks? Reduce spending, tax the other industries, tax the people, print more money for the hidden tax benefits?
other quoted methods
And all of these are nice. But until they can generate the energy fossil fuels do, they are going to be curiosities and not mainstream. Unless the government doesn’t mind raising the cost of energy.
#43 “And all of these are nice. But until they can generate the energy fossil fuels do, they are going to be curiosities and not mainstream. Unless the government doesn’t mind raising the cost of energy.”
And that is the point. Cost kw/hour is what it is for different generation methods. Gov’t taxes or subsidies don’t change the final cost to the the economy. You can shuffle around the costs, but not change them.
The next lesson, grasshopper, is to factor in real “costs” of oil. No more “shuffle the costs” as you say. Today, the US government subsidizes the cost of oil by hiding those costs in military. Never mind the cost of polluting the environment is not free.
Let’s do some real cost analysis of oil and the true cost of oil and assume we import 3 billion barrels a year
Let’s add :
Cost of War: $200B a year (incl casualties)
Cost Military presence middle east: $75B a year
This adds roughly + $30/barrel of oil
Now add, the cost of polluting the environment. How much do you think it should cost to pollute the air? I’ll put that cost at $1 trillion a year – a cheap price.
This adds roughly another + $125/barrel of oil
So there you have it. That shitty solar and wind alternative starts to look pretty god now, huh?
That should say 8 Billion barrels import per year, not 3.
#45, I’m all for green energy. But you just can’t produce energy as cheaply and as efficiently as you can with fossil fuels or nuclear energy (assuming the regs are relaxed). The power density is just too high.
Solar/wind energy requires way more land space for the same energy generation density. These are add-on products to supplement the mainstream power generation facilities. And there are only so many places you can put these.
Solar is only good for half the day (yes, we could store it but that is an added cost).
Wind is really only useful at lower altitudes and in the south — and highly dependent on winds. Cold and/or higher elevations result is lower air density which makes them even less efficient.
btw . . . I fly over a 50 mill wind farm quite regularly. I’m lucky if I see three of them spinning on any given day.
Also, I am not quite sure where you were headed with the war thing. Want to try again?
#47 “Also, I am not quite sure where you were headed with the war thing. Want to try again?”
I thought I was pretty clear in explaining. The cost of having military presence in the middle east to protect the oil fields is not factored into the cost of oil. It should be.
That was the jist of it. If that went over your head, I’ll take the hit for not being clear enough. I give up!
#47 – LL
>>Also, I am not quite sure where you were
>>headed with the war thing.
I think he was headed in the direction of saying that if Iraq had as much oil as Denmark, President Cheney and his underlings (like Dumbya) would not have had such a hardon for a unilateral invasion, dragging us into a pointless war that goes on and on and on and on. Or if we were getting our energy from someplace other than underneath the burning sands of Saddam.
So that’s a “cost” of oil too.
#48/49, ok.
It certainly appears to be a cost. But following that logic, it appears to be “Mission Accomplished” since the price is $50/bbl now.
# 45 Dallas said, “Let’s add :
Cost of War: $200B a year ……Now add, the cost of polluting the environment. :
Umm, No.
The war doesn’t enable us to buy oil we couldn’t before. So, no
Show me the bill for the pollution…
#43, Liberty,
In energy production heat is only used in the transfer of energy. Currently the only way we have of converting fossil fuels into electricity is to burn them, capture the heat, use that heat to turn water to steam, create high pressures with that steam, use the steam to turn a turbine, and use that turbine to turn a generator. In this case the heat is only a form the energy takes. It doesn’t matter if the heat is measured in joules, watts, BTUs, calories, or doo-dads. It is still just energy. It is not the heat electrical generators are interested in, it is the recoverable energy.
Thus, gasoline powered vehicles are more efficient than steam powered ones or muscle power.
Not necessarily. Much depends upon the design. Most steam powered generators are more efficient than internal combustion engines. Internal combustion (IC) has other benefits that make them preferred for certain applications, especially transportation. BUT, heat in an IC engine is still wasted energy. IC engines work on the extraction of energy by burning the fuel and utilizing the expansion of the gases. Heat is just the byproduct of that burning. If that heat could be used then IC engines would be even more efficient.
You missed the point. If you want to use a kj of energy, it doesn’t matter where it is generated as long as you have access to it.
Actually it does. If I want to heat my house I need both the energy PLUS the ability to turn that energy into something I need. In this case heat. I could use wood, straw, coal, oil, kerosene, natural gas, propane, dried buffalo chips, or electric. Joules are only a measurement of energy. If I have access to a cord of wood, that won’t help me if I don’t have a wood burning implement.
The trick is to keep as much of the heat as you can for your use and not waste it.
The only time you want to keep heat is during the winter when it is cold outside or if you are cooking. Keeping a window open or bringing a pot to boiling without a lid will waste heat. In almost every other case you don’t want to keep heat as it is already waste energy.
Excess heat will destroy your product. That is why IC engines have radiators, computer CPUs use heat sinks and fans, and electric motors have fans built in.
Damns
I agree that damns are probably the cleanest.
Please, I know what you mean but this is irritating my perfection butt. It is correctly spelled DAM. “Damn” is to put a curse on someone. 8)
Taxes aren’t just a number on the bottom of the spreadsheet. They are hidden in all the permitting and regulations a company has to go through to get one built …
Very true. They also include the diseases the pollution causes to the public. Then there is the cost (as others pointed out) of protecting the sources of oil. How about all the stunted trees, reduced / dead fresh water fishing, tourism, etc. caused by acid rain from coal fired plants. Then we could add in the cost of extra water purification because of pollutants.
So yes, there are regulatory hurdles new power plants need to go through. Those hurdles aren’t there for the hell of it though. Experience has shown us that left to self regulation, industry will dump as much of the cost on the public as it can. Love Canal didn’t happen because someone wanted to purposely kill children. They did it because it was cheaper to bury it in a landfill. Coal fired power plants didn’t just dump mercury, arsenic, sulfur and nitrogen compounds in the air on a whim. They did it because scrubbers cost money.
However, the EPA has grown into a monster organization and pretty much left their original mandate behind. They’ve gotten too big with the rest of their brothers.
If we could train industry to not pollute than we wouldn’t need the EPA. Unfortunately, they can’t be trusted. In case you were unaware, self regulation does not work. I don’t have the resources nor expertise to trace down who dumped that chlorinated solvent into the water aquifer. Maybe you don’t care, but I drink that water. The EPA needs more power and heftier fines against company management.
#52, Cow-Paddy, Ignorant Shit Talking Sociopath and retired Mall Security Guard,
Please read Liberty Lover’s posts. Although I disagree with him he knows how to make an argument. No ad hominem, sarcastic quip. No stupid, unsupported claims. No wild accusations. Anyone with double digit IQs will respect his thought and effort put into those posts.
Again, I disagree with what he wrote BUT I do respect him. And respect is earned.