The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search
Don't Miss The Great Solar Debate: Where Does the Global Solar Industry Stand? ×

Thoughts on an Energy Policy for the New Administration

Allan Hoffman, U.S. Department of Energy
November 20, 2008  |  54 Comments

This country needs a good debate on energy policy. While there are many divergent views on what that policy should be, I thought it would be useful to begin my thoughts by identifying a set of "facts" on which most people can agree. So here goes.

I would start by recognizing that people do not value energy itself but rather the services that energy makes possible. These services include lighting, heating, cooling, delivery of clean water, transportation of people and goods, communication, entertainment and a variety of business activities. It follows that it is in society's interest to provide these services with the least energy feasible, to minimize adverse economic, environmental and national security impacts. Energy has always been critical to human activities, initially in the form of human and animal labor and fire, but what differentiates modern societies is the energy required to provide increasingly high levels of services.

Population growth and increasing levels of per capita consumption will drive increasing global energy demand in the 21st century. While not preordained, this increase will be large even if the citizens of other countries do not achieve U.S. per capita levels of consumption. Important components of this increase will be in transportation, the fastest growing global energy consumer today (more than 90% of transportation is currently fueled by petroleum-derived fuels) and electrification, which increased dramatically in the 20th century and will increase in the 21st century as well. An important driver of this continued electrification will be the substitution of electricity for liquid transportation fuels.

Today's world is powered largely by fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) and this will continue well into the 21st century, given large reserves and devoted infrastructure. Nevertheless, fossil fuel resources are finite and their use will eventually have to be restricted. Cost increases and volatility, already occurring, are likely to limit fossil fuel use before resource restrictions become dominant and increasing geographic concentration of supplies in other countries raises serious national security concerns. In addition, the world's current energy delivery infrastructure is highly vulnerable to natural disasters, terrorist attacks and other breakdowns and energy imports constitute a major drain on U.S. financial resources and allow other countries to exert undue influence on our foreign policy and freedom of action.

Fossil fuel combustion releases CO2 into the atmosphere (unless captured and sequestered), which mixes globally with a long atmospheric lifetime. Most climate scientists believe that increasing CO2 concentrations alter earth's energy balance with the sun, contributing to global warming.

Nuclear power, a non-CO2 emitting energy source, has significant future potential, but its wqidespread deployment faces several critical issues: cost, power plant safety, radioactive waste storage and weapons nonproliferation.

Globally, energy is not in short supply — e.g., the sun pours 6 million quads of radiation annually into our atmosphere (global energy use: 460 quads).

There is considerable energy under our feet, in the form of hot water and rock heated by radioactive decay in the earth's core. What is in short supply is inexpensive energy that people are willing to pay for.

Renewable energy (solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, ocean) has significant potential for replacing our current fossil fuel based energy system. The transition will take time but we must quickly get on this path.

Accepting the above, I would recommend the following elements for a national energy policy:

  • Using the bully pulpit, educate the public about energy realities and implications for energy, economic and environmental security.

  • Work with the Congress to establish energy efficiency as the cornerstone of national energy policy.

  • Work with the Congress to provide an economic environment that supports investments in energy efficiency, including appropriate performance standards and incentives. This includes setting a long-term, steadily increasing, predictable price on carbon emissions (in coordination with other countries) that will unleash innovation and create new jobs.

  • Consider setting a floor under oil prices, to insure that energy investments are not undermined by falling prices, and using resulting revenues to address equity and other needs.

  • Work with the Congress to find an acceptable answer to domestic radioactive waste storage, and with other nations to address nuclear power plant safety issues and establish an international regime for ensuring nonproliferation. This includes examination of non-traditional nuclear fuel cycles.

  • Establish a national policy for net metering, to allow individuals and companies to sell electricity to the grid and thus remove an important barrier to widespread deployment of renewable energy systems.

  • Provide incentives to encourage the manufacture and deployment of renewable energy systems that are sufficiently long for markets to develop adequately but are time-limited with a non-disruptive phaseout.

  • Aggressively support establishment of a smart national electrical grid, to enable more efficient use of electricity nationally, to facilitate the use of renewable electricity anywhere in the country, and to mitigate, with increased use of energy storage, the effects of solar and wind energy intermittency.

  • Support an aggressive effort on carbon capture and sequestration, to ascertain quickly its feasibility to allow continued use of our extensive coal resources.

  • Remove incentives for fossil fuels that are historical tax code legacies that distort energy markets and slow the transition to a new, renewables-based, energy system.

I look forward to a stimulating debate, one which has been too long in coming.

Dr. Hoffman is Senior Analyst in the Office of Planning, Budget and Analysis/Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). During 2002 and 2003 Dr. Hoffman was detailed to serve as Senior Advisor to Winrock International's Clean Energy Group, with special responsibility for water-energy issues. In 1990 he served as the DOE's Associate and Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Utility Technologies, with responsibility for a US $300 million RD&D program (solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, hydropower, ocean, energy storage, hydrogen, superconductivity).

Dr. Hoffman has also served as U.S. Representative to and Vice Chairman of the International Energy Agency's Working Party on Renewable Energy. He holds a Bachelor of Engineering Physics degree from Cornell University and a Ph.D. in physics from Brown University.

54 Comments

Register To Comment
Brittany Mauriss
Brittany Mauriss
January 20, 2009
Hi Allan,

Excellent article. I hope you don't mind we used your picture in a summary on our blog here: http://solar.calfinder.com/blog/solar-politics/thoughts-on-an-energy-policy-for-the-new-administration/

Dean
Stafford Williamson
Stafford Williamson
December 7, 2008
Response to Mr. STEENBLIK's comments on my comment:

Thank you for taking the time and effort to give a well considered response to my suggestions.
I was NOT suggesting we "donate" 1000 biofuel units to Africa, I was saying it would be in our own self-interest to establish 1000 communities in Africa that could be "energy self-sustaining". The US$1 million per biodiesel unit takes into account extra costs for permitting, transport, and setup. The units I was considering are much smaller than your suggested unit capacity of 10.7 million gallons/yr per unit. The one I had in mind would produce a little less than 1million gallons per year.
Please note, however that I said we would also need to implement sewage systems and clean drinking water for these communities as well. This combination of additional "utilities" allows for production of algae as the main source of both oil and ethanol (rather than methanol) to produce the biodiesel. Algae is part of the sewage processing for purification of the water. Properly designed, this could be a recirculating water/sewage system (I know, you are probably thinking "ugh, gag" but that's what the astronauts on the space station do. It's the very latest in high tech equipment. Ours costs less for a whole town than that one). These are commercial ventures with local clinics & schools as joint venture partners.
Please take a minute and view the information at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FE4IDHX91LM (or the same video on the top of the http://daochienergy.com home page) (okay, it's 3 min.)
You will see an example of the "closed loop energy cycle" that includes algae sewage processing, biodiesel production, cattle feed, anaerobic digester, a gasifier and electric generating plant.
We can do all of that for about US$5 million per community. Jatropha or other crops MIGHT supplement veg. oil supplies, but success of these 1000 units will create demand for 5000 more, and so on.
Sincerely,
Stafford "Doc" Williamson
Richard Yarnell
Richard Yarnell
December 7, 2008
"First of all, we should address WHAT the problem is. What IS "overpopulation"? How many is too many?"

I'd begin with the notion that we should live within the means of a closed system to replace or renew the resources on which we depend. Refer to my earlier post which cites a report that suggest we're already exceeding that capability by upwards of 30%.

On your next post, relying on bio-fuels: _Even if_ bio-fuels don't add to the greenhouse gas concentrations, a suspect statement to begin with, we cannot afford to convert more arable land to energy production from food production. And if you imagine that we can convert marginal land to production of bio-fuel source material without having a serious impact on the availability of water, among a host of considerations, you're flat wrong.

The technology to replace many of the uses of fossil or bio-fuel machines already exists. Now it's a matter of deployment. As for a portable fuel, you probably carry at least one such with you most of the time. We can power automobiles for ranges of 30-150 miles with existing technology and recharge in a few hours or even less. I recharge all my batteries using solar at a considerable long term saving. And there are systems other than chemical batteries that can be used to back up "alternative" energy sources that rely on variable resources (sun and wind).

ry
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
December 4, 2008
Why go to all the trouble and expense of R&D on systems that do not exist, and build new and costlier vehicles---when no one can afford to buy the vehicles we have now?

Why not just use biofuels in the vehicles we have now? Biofuels do everything that oil does, minus the pollution. We don't need exotic vehicles with costly technology. What we have right now works just fine.
Patrick Takahashi
Patrick Takahashi
December 3, 2008
Excellent and timely posting, Alan. My Huffington Post article of 6June08 entitled, Why is there No Energy Policy?, drew more than 100 comments. We agree in principle.

I might add something about biofuels, particularly as some of the resultant comments mentioned this subect. My HuffPo of 28November08 on Simple Solutions for Our Biofuel Problems is more specific about exactly what to do regarding this issue. I might add that, as you predict, while plug-in vehicles will make significant inroads over the next decade, ten years from now, I see some interesting competition coming from the Direct Methanol Fuel Cell powered vehicle, simply because of two facts: comparing volume, a fuel cell can store 5 times more energy relative to a lithium battery, and, one gallon of methanol has 40% more accessible hydrogen than one gallon of liquid hydrogen. The problem is that, while industry is close to perfecting a DMFC for portable applications, federal policy has prevented the development of the DMFCs for transport. I hope this changes.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
November 29, 2008
---------"If we (globally) find a way to live within the means of the planet to provide resources on an indefinitely sustainable basis, then we (human kinds) will have behaved responsibly."----------------

I can certainly go along with that statement.

------"As for the rest of it, you are confusing method with goal. I haven't advocated a method at all even though you're at pains to ascribe one to me."----------

As I said before, I was not picking on you personally---if it sounded to you like I was, I'm sorry.

First of all, we should address WHAT the problem is. What IS "overpopulation"? How many is too many?
Richard Yarnell
Richard Yarnell
November 29, 2008
The conversation has gotten way off track to which I'm sure the others who subscribe will attest.

To answer your question: some one counted all the trees on the planet, divided that number by the world's population and came up with a number in the range of 57, if memory serves. That's not nearly enough, but it's the average per capita. I'm managing our forest to be sustainable and am personally responsible for many times 57.

On the vasectomy: none of your business but at the age of 68, it's now academic. So far as I know, I'm responsible for approximately replacing myself. I admit that's too many kids but we didn't know any better back when I was busy being fertile.

As for the rest of it, you are confusing method with goal. I haven't advocated a method at all even though you're at pains to ascribe one to me. I don't know how the world should go about it. What I'm at pains to say is that if we don't reduce the population (and I don't advocate extermination, just reproducing less, much less) the consequences are going to be painful, unhealthy, and needless. If we (globally) find a way to live within the means of the planet to provide resources on an indefinitely sustainable basis, then we (human kinds) will have behaved responsibly.

To those who have suffered through this exchange, I apologize, not for the content but for the forum and the need to respond. I'll desist now but continue elsewhere to persuade policy makers that we really need to address the population problem if we're to have our successors live anywhere near comfortable lives.

ry
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
November 29, 2008
?, who decided what "your allotment" is?

Have you had a vasectomy?

Who says that you are entitled to anything more than anyone else?

I'm sorry Richard, I don't mean to sound like I am picking on you personally----but the way you are saying things gives me an impression of "haves" wanting to blame problems on "have nots" and perpetuating the idea that it is morally right to take what you want by oppression of others.

What if the Chinesse and Indians operated on the philosophy that they should force people in the US to be sterilized because they use too many resources and they need them more because there are more of them? I think the people in the US would be very indignant with that idea.

I think the better plan is to promote family planning by making sure that everyone everywhere has enough to live decently. This removes the pressure to have large families just to have a few children who survive to care for parents in old age.
Richard Yarnell
Richard Yarnell
November 29, 2008
Mr. Linn,

You quote and comment as follows: "--------""... if fertility levels remain unchanged at today's levels, world
population will rise to 244 billion persons in 2150 and 134 trillion
in 2300, clearly indicating that current levels of high fertility
cannot continue indefinitely." (Population Coalition, 2005)"------------

"The basic fallacy in this premise is " if fertility levels remain unchanged at today's levels, "."

I think we agree that population limits be put in place or the fertility rate be changed in order to avoid such a calamity, yet you make no suggestion as to how we limit fertility. Everything else you mention is another kettle of fish, most of which I agree with.

But I don't believe in perpetual motion or that we can make anything out of nothing.

BTW, I'm trying hard: I'm about to occupy a "net minus house," I have a sustainable woodlot with many more than my minimum allotment of fir and cedar trees, organically produce most of my food, and rant on the need to limit our apparently endless appetite to reduce our home planet to a cinder. Even my computer is green. ;)

ry
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
November 29, 2008
Richard----YOU are the "overpopulation". Keep in mind that when it comes to "too many people using too many resources", Americans are the worst offenders in the world. If you want to talk about getting rid of people to conserve resources and maintain sustainability----the logical place to start is to talk about getting rid of Americans, who use far and away more resources than anyone else.

--------""... if fertility levels remain unchanged at today's levels, world
population will rise to 244 billion persons in 2150 and 134 trillion
in 2300, clearly indicating that current levels of high fertility
cannot continue indefinitely." (Population Coalition, 2005)"------------

The basic fallacy in this premise is " if fertility levels remain unchanged at today's levels, ".

The problem is poverty and distribution of wealth. It is a well established fact that fertility rates are dependent on the level of economic development. If we devise ways to better distribute economic benefits and reduce poverty worldwide, birthrates will come down.

What we need to do is improve the productivity of resources by recycling and sustainability, and reduce poverty and improve economic development for everyone in the world. Not promote class war and conflict by suggesting getting rid of "them". It is our job to make the life of everyone on the planet better. Ultimately, it is in our own best interest to make the best world possible for everyone. We will all benefit most from trading with equal partners, not as economic masters and slaves.
Richard Yarnell
Richard Yarnell
November 27, 2008
Mr. Austin,

I'm inclined to agree that simply saying, as did the Chinese, that only one child is permitted, won't do the job. I'm quite sure, that if nothing is done to curb population, and very soon since there is the inevitable continued growth even when the effort is made to limit either growth or population, nature will do it for us through privation, disease, and inevitably, war.

The first, and certainly not either draconian or frightening, tactic would be to quit encouraging population growth. Not least among the nations that give a bounty for extra babies is the US. To do that requires an honest appraisal of the true, long term carrying capacity of the planet, not only with respect to fuel, but to water, arable land, and the planet's ability to regenerate. (Incidentally, in mid-September, we managed to use the last of the resources which can be replaced next year by natural processes. This year, for 3.5 months, we're living on our grandchildrens' tab.) Education and a change in the economists' paradigm of incessant growth will help, but that assumes that folks like you will, instead of jerking a knee in reaction to the suggestion that there already are too many people on the globe, make an honest assessment as to how we go about supporting an population whose growth is unchecked. I don't know about you, but I'm not anxious to live in an uncomfortable world. I don't know how old you are, but you might look up the experiments that were done in the mid 50's relating to the population growth of rat colonies. It wasn't pretty.

Finally, as a way of persuading you that the problem exists, I'll use the timeless rhetorical gadget of extrapolating to the point of the ridiculous.

"... if fertility levels remain unchanged at today's levels, world
population will rise to 244 billion persons in 2150 and 134 trillion
in 2300, clearly indicating that current levels of high fertility
cannot continue indefinitely." (Population Coalition, 2005)

ry
david austin
david austin
November 27, 2008
Paul Heininwolf-

Amen brother. Willie Nelson needs to back up and realize what an unbelievable destructive monster was born out of well meaning legislation. If the farm-aid types really care about the planet they'll start singing a very different tune. They need to convert all the ethanol corn fields into algae fields with are about 100x more productive. The problem is that farmers aren't rewarded by how much energy their crops produce, but on how much corn-based ethanol they produce. That's really messed up.
david austin
david austin
November 27, 2008
I'm disturbed by the Nazi-like responses about reducing global population (namely from Pete Murphy and Richard Yarnell) as a viable, if not the only viable solution. Not surprisingly ridiculous socialist population-control ideas like this also gained popularity in the 70's during the energy crunch then - so apparently some think the largest contributor to energy depletion on AGW is population.

Poppycock. One needs look no further that China where they've been restricted to 1 child per family for decades and are currently the largest producer of AGW gases. Similarly one average American uses 10X more energy than 100 people in Africa combined. The problem never has been population, but how we create and use energy. Period.
Dale Stubbart
Dale Stubbart
November 25, 2008
Not only do we need a debate, but we need a Department of EcoSystems. This would be a cabinet level department.
You can learn more about this idea here http://ecosector.com/doe/.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
November 25, 2008
-----------"Mr Linn,

I don't think you understand the concept and direct your attention to the Krupp/Horn book. It's a quick read and very well informed.

Until carbon emissions are deemed an expense, you'll see lots of smoke. Once carbon emissions are an expense, it will be up to the managers to minimize it."----------------------

I understand the process just fine. Carbon is the cash basis of the entire biological energy cycle that the earth has operated on for billions of years. Carbon emissions are not the problem. YOU are a carbon emitting source. You take in oxygen, metabolize (burn) carbon fuels and exhale CO2.
The problem is burning carbon from fossil fuel sources without sufficient balancing photosynthesis on the energy input side of the equation. If we use biofuels produced by plant materials of any type, it is impossible to raise atmospheric CO2 levels---if plants were not taking CO2 out of the atmosphere at an equal or higher rate to what we are burning, we'd have no plants to make the biofuels from.

The problem is not carbon emissions---the problem is burning fossil fuels.
Paul Heninwolf
Paul Heninwolf
November 25, 2008
Sorry, one more comment. Of course I'm talking about algae or cellulosic biofuels here, not corn ethanol. Corn ethanol suffers the most from the embodied energy problem and seems to exist primarily for the purpose of targeted government subsidies, not for any ecological reason.
Paul Heninwolf
Paul Heninwolf
November 25, 2008
To Ronald STEENBLIK, re: lifecycle cost of biofuels:

That's a valid point and I agree completely that if fossil fuels are used to grow or transport the biofuels then of course it's not overall carbon neutral. In this way, it is like any of the current renewable technologies including solar and wind: as long as the production of the PV panels and wind turbines uses fossil-fuel-derived energy, the end result is not carbon neutral. Though good to understand, the important point is still that the use of biofuels (and PV and wind) will be immensely closer to carbon neutral than the current transportation sector, which is 100% fossil fuel driven (and which is also extracted, refined and transported using additional fossil fuels). Eventually, hopefully, the PV and wind turbine plants will run on power from renewable sources, as will the growing, harvesting and transporting of biofuels.

That's not to say I'm a huge fan of biofuels, however. Our current transportation system causes a whole slew of environmental, health, economic and social problems. Switching to biofuels solves a total of one of those problems: carbon emissions. Critically important yes, but wouldn't it be nice to address some of the other problems at the same time?
Richard Yarnell
Richard Yarnell
November 24, 2008
Mr Linn,

I don't think you understand the concept and direct your attention to the Krupp/Horn book. It's a quick read and very well informed.

Until carbon emissions are deemed an expense, you'll see lots of smoke. Once carbon emissions are an expense, it will be up to the managers to minimize it. In the meantime, if NOT emitting carbon has value measurable in money, and until those industries with huge capital investments in their plants and either insufficient capital or insufficient technology immediately available to reduce their emissions, can organize their own transformation, there will be a significant transfer of revenue to the truly innovative and low carbon businesses.

If you don't think cap and trade works, take a look at what's happening in parts of Europe with respect to carbon and what happened to mercury pollution here in the US.

ry
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
November 23, 2008
-----"It is remarkable to me that no one has taken up cap/trade seriously.

Our industrial managers are truly good at maximizing profit using whatever tools they can find."---------

That is true. It seems to me that cap and trade is just smoke and mirrors to provide the illussion that something is being done, when in fact it is pollute and profit-----Business As Usual.

I already see a lot of companies advertising themselves as "green" when in fact, if you dig deeper into the claims, you find that they are buying "offsets" from someone else to make the claims. I fail to see the logic of "it is ok for ME to pollute because I'm paying them to say that I'm not". That is lying. That is trying to buy respectability and social responsibility. Pollution is pollution---it does not matter whether it is Company A or Company B that pours the toxins in the river, the fish die either way. Offsets, Cap and Trade, whatever you call it; is just a way to continue to pollute and profit from callous and wrecklessly irresponsible behavior and try to hide the facts.

I think we should call "offsets" and "cap and trade" schemes for what they really are; lying, dishonest cheating, and trying to buy respect and admiration by covering up the truth. The social acceptance of this seems to me to be even MORE damaging than the pollution. If it becomes OK to lie and cheat to lay claim to a mantle of social respectability you not only destroy the environment, you also destroy society as well.
Richard Yarnell
Richard Yarnell
November 23, 2008
It is remarkable to me that no one has taken up cap/trade seriously.

Our industrial managers are truly good at maximizing profit using whatever tools they can find. And while government can be good at setting goals, even, on occasion, elusive ones or ambitious goals, it's not very good a choosing how to reach those goals. In fact, if they make a bad choice, it's the devil's own work to get them to desist. Abandoning a program (eg. admitting a mistakes, often eludes them.

If, we adopt reasonable but aggressive carbon emissions limits, establish an exchange that has enough enforcement authority to keep all players honest, almost at once we level the playing field on which the establishment and the innovators play. (I'd make sure that individuals are able to participate when they produce even modest carbon free energy. Nothing like getting consumers in on the act.)

Managers will then be able to ply their trade, making cost benefit decisions in order to show a profit, with carbon emissions a cost. At the same time, those industries which can't economically adopt new technology quickly, have a way to make their own transitions orderly: a process that now rewards the innovators who provide the carbon units at auction.

Government sets the goal and perhaps makes it more ambitious as technology appears; business organizes to make a profit in the face of a cost they've not encountered before; innovation produces a revenue at an earlier stage; win, win, win.

See Krupp/Horn: Earth: The Sequel
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
November 23, 2008
-------"I am not very knowledgeable on carbon capture and sequestration, but I understand that this work has the potential to make the use of coal (The stuff that most of our electricity comes from) cleaner. "--------

We have spent 40 years and over $50 Billion on "Clean Coal" technology. What we have to show is schemes that are expensive, cumbersome, does not work well and is not utilized by the power facilities because of poor reliability.

There IS no such thing as "Clean Coal" and there NEVER WILL be!!!

EVER.

Even IF there is a way to clean up smokestacks, coal still comes from stripmines that destroy earth for generations, destroy watersheds and drain toxic chemicals into our water supply, and produce huge amounts of toxic ashes, soot and cinders. It destroys our water supply, it destroys the land, both when it is mined, and after it is burned because the ashes and cinders need to be dumped somewhere---nothing will grow on coal ashes.
Ronald STEENBLIK
Ronald STEENBLIK
November 23, 2008
Correction:

"The production of vegetable oils in tropical Africa currently stands at slightly over 4.0 million tonnes [1.2 billion gallons], falling far short of the annual requirement of approximately 13 million tonnes [3.9 billion gallons]".

I said, in response to Stafford Williamson, that to produce 10 billion gallons of biodiesel a year it would need either to increase domestic production 2.5 times, or import almost the same amount of vegetable oil as is currently imported.

I was looking at the tonnes and not the gallon figures. The amounts should be 8 times again what it currently produces, or boost imports by an additional amount equal to almost 4 times (=10/(3.9-1.2)) what Africa is currently importing.

Those are staggering figures. Stafford Williamson is putting the cart before the horse. Let's see whether Africa can even increase its self-sufficiency ratio in vegetable oils (good luck: people have been trying to for years) before installing 1,000 pieces of what would be for many years to come simply expensive pieces of idle machinery.
Thomas Schmidt
Thomas Schmidt
November 23, 2008
"Establish a national policy for net metering, to allow individuals and companies to sell electricity to the grid and thus remove an important barrier to widespread deployment of renewable energy systems. "

Why must we sell electricity to the grid? Why is it not enough that we become independent of it? Are we as human beings to be attached at the belly to our mothers for our entire lives? No we are not! Are we as Americans to be attached to industry and commerce and government for our entire lives? Can you look in the mirror and honestly tell yourself "you are a free man"? No you can not! We are a slaves and it is money that is the chains which bind us. RE could have liberated us from the grid but it was the greed of a select few people in "high places" of RE that made the decesions to "slip into bed" with the power companies and politcians.

"Provide incentives to encourage the manufacture and deployment of renewable energy systems that are sufficiently long for markets to develop adequately but are time-limited with a non-disruptive phaseout."

What is this, disposable RE systems now? Like so many Bic lighters or Briggs and Straton engines? Crap filled diapers? Use it until it quits, throw it away, buy another. Aren't the landfills too fulll of garbage already? You want to add more to them with disposable RE systems? Remarkable.
Clarify please?
Fred Loeb
Fred Loeb
November 22, 2008
Dr. Hoffman

I like your idea of identifying "facts" on which most people agree as a starting point for new energy policy. In my opinion the world is experiencing an energy crisis which is independent of the short-term price of oil. We need rapid agreement on the "fact" that diminishing finite energy sources have had and will continue to have a gravely negative impact on the global community. The scarcity of these resources leads to economic and political turmoil. The environment impact of these fuels must also be stopped as quickly as possible.

I agree with most of your recommendations. I would like to see priority placed on efficiency, carbon emissions penalties/rewards and oil price floors.

I don't agree with anything nuclear since radioactive waste storage coupled with ensuring nonproliferation is a problem of nightmarish proportions.

Net metering is a great idea since it distributes the generation of electricity and diminishes the power of energy tyrants.

I don't agree in artificially slowing the development of renewable technology, but perhaps some incentive based on deployment speed can mitigate the negative impact of disruptive phase out.

Work on a smart grid makes a lot of sense for efficiency improvement and mixing renewable sources with traditional sources.

I am not very knowledgeable on carbon capture and sequestration, but I understand that this work has the potential to make the use of coal (The stuff that most of our electricity comes from) cleaner. Since we will not be able to migrate from coal very quickly this is important, but when this technology is a reality it should not impede the path to renewable energy.

I strongly agree with you last point.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
November 22, 2008
Rainmaker------"For all the Biofuel proponents:

It's not carbon neutral.

Carbon meant to remain earthen ends up atmospheric, which puts our ecosystem out of kilter. Example: when you eat vegetation, you don't breathe out all of the carbon in that vegitation. Most of it goes out as other waste. When an engine burns biofuel, substantially all of the carbon goes atmospheric."---------------

In order for plants to grow, they convert energy from the sun along with CO2 from the atmosphere and water into simple sugars. These glucose sugars are then combined together into chains to form complex hydrocarbons. This is what comprises all plant and living matter in the world.(with a very few minor exceptions in deep sea and volcanic environments).
It is impossible to put more CO2 into the atmospere using biofuels than what was taken out because each molecule of carbon in the biofuel needed to be taken out of the atmosphere by plants to produce the biofuel. Burning a biofuel only returns CO2 to the atmosphere where it originally came from, no carbon in plants comes from the ground. The only way to increase atmospheric CO2 is by burning fossil fuels dug or pumped up from underground.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
November 22, 2008
---------"Dr. Hoffman has also served as U.S. Representative to and Vice Chairman of the International Energy Agency's Working Party on Renewable Energy. He holds a Bachelor of Engineering Physics degree from Cornell University and a Ph.D. in physics from Brown University."------

------"Dr. Hoffman is Senior Analyst in the Office of Planning, Budget and Analysis/Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). During 2002 and 2003 Dr. Hoffman was detailed to serve as Senior Advisor to Winrock International's Clean Energy Group, with special responsibility for water-energy issues. In 1990 he served as the DOE's Associate and Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Utility Technologies, with responsibility for a US $300 million RD&D program (solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, hydropower, ocean, energy storage, hydrogen, superconductivity). "--------


Forgive my skepticism---but it rather seems to me that considering the current Washington administration's war on science and blind support and pandering to the fossil fuel and nuclear energy which got us INTO the current energy/economic/war crisis which is close to destroying the US---I don't take any confidence from what he says. We've had 8 years of lies and balogna covered with thick sweetly worded pancake syrup all meant deny the exitence of the completely obvious results of the science---there for anyone who looks to see happening right before their eyes. All for $$$ and political influence.
Thomas Schmidt
Thomas Schmidt
November 22, 2008
We are compelled to search the future for the answers we seek to our future.
"What is to become of us?"
Perhaps we should look for those answer is our past.
"What has become of us?"
If we stay intently focused on a single point in front of us, we will reach our destination, but we will have missed the journey and all it could have taught us along the way and we will have arrived more ignorant than when the journey started..
Thomas Schmidt
Thomas Schmidt
November 22, 2008
RE has played by the rules thus far and what has you gotten you? A few bits and scraps tossed to you from the governments table.
I wonder if this American nation would have become such that it has if our fore fathers had thought in terms of getting what they could from King George and not wanting something better.
Industry and commerce has become as the yelping hounds prancing around their keeper, wanting, fighting for whatever scraps he dispenses with. Whats worse, the keeper has become corruptted by them and is lossing his identity over them.

"There occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune....The island of Atlantis disappeared into the depths of the sea."
- Plato, Timaeus
Thomas Schmidt
Thomas Schmidt
November 22, 2008
"Many great and wonderful deeds are recorded of your state (Athens) in our histories but one of them exceeds all the rest in greatness and valor. For these histories tell of a mighty power which unprovoked made an expedition against the whole of Europe and Asia. This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean for in those days the Atlantic was navigable and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles, the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together and was the way to other islands and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the straits of Hercules is only a harbor having a narrow entrance but that other is a true sea."
- Plato, Timaeus
Ronald STEENBLIK
Ronald STEENBLIK
November 22, 2008
Response to Stafford Williamson (continued):

That means that Africa would need to VASTLY increase either its production or imports of vegetable oils -- by 10 billion gallons a year (assuming a one-to-one conversion from vegetable oil to biodiesel). That is 2.5 times current production, and almost the same amount of vegetable oil as is currently imported.

In addition, of course, one would have to find and transport to 1,000 sites 1 billion gallons of methanol (not an easy substance to transport safely), as well as the other input chemicals. And what about the opportunity cost of the vegetable oil itself? Currently palm oil, the cheapest oil, is trading at $545 per tonne ($77 per barrel). That is some 40% higher than the price of crude oil at the moment. Add another 10 billion tonnes of import demand for vegetable oil and the price of vegetable oils can be expected to rise again.

But even ignorring the dubious economics of basing transport fuels on vegetable oils, why encourage the use of biodiesel in Africa as opposed to straight vegetable oil? Africa is warm, so using SVO makes a lot more sense than in, say, Canada.And you would save having to spend $1 billion on biodiesel plants (do you really think they could be kept operating 20 hours per day?), which will require electricity, maintenance, etc.

But if SVO made sense, then you would see a lot more of it being used for fuel in Africa already.
Ronald STEENBLIK
Ronald STEENBLIK
November 22, 2008
In response to Stafford Williamson:

I'm sure your idea of donating 1,000 small biodiesel plants to (presumably Sub-Saharan) Africa is well-intentioned, but I wonder about its practicality.

I presume you have in mind something like this biodiesel plant, which retails for US$1.5 million (let's assume that a bulk order of 1,000 units would bring the cost of a plant down to $1 million per) and achieves a monthly output of 3,000 metric tonnes, or an annual output of 36,000 tonnes (10.7 million gallons) based on 20 hour production a day. Allowing for outage and down time, let's round that to 10 million gallons a year.

http://www.alibaba.com/product-free/11474578/Portable_Container_Size_Biodiesel_Plant.html?pn=2&pt=10&total=11&cids=50002112,50134916,10918926,100496210,100514064,11125870,10958539,11007528,100147426,10634645,100286039,10633734,11171832,10987060,11163380,10888533,10218162,10426053,100515196,10546408,100557699,10481586,100380510,10549657,11085083,10523450,11178183,200095000,11121277,11203682,10660695,10691157,&tracelog=detailtop12907&newId=11444975#page960

That would mean annual output of 10 billion gallons from the thousand plants. Consumption of petroleum oil in Africa is around 4 million barrels a day, or 61 billion gallons (= 4 x 365 x 42) a year.

http://www.iaconoresearch.com/BlogImages/08-06-12b_oil_consumption.png

Let's assume that 30 billion of that is consumed as diesel fuel. So we could be talking about 1/3 replacement of current diesel fuel, ignoring the slightly lower heating value of biodiesel.

But what about the feedstock requirements? According to this source,

http://www.prota.org/uk/News/Brainstorm+workshop+PROTA14.htm

"The production of vegetable oils in tropical Africa currently stands at slightly over 4.0 million tonnes [1.2 billion gallons], falling far short of the annual requirement of approximately 13 million tonnes [3.9 billion gallons]".

(continued).
Jamie Schlinkmann
Jamie Schlinkmann
November 22, 2008
@Paul & Ron:

Setting aside carbon released in the fuel-making process, none are ATMOSPHERIC carbon-neutral.

True enough, plants take CO2 out of the atmosphere. Their growth is even enhanced by elevated levels. The trouble is, burning the carbon fuel puts 100% back into the atmosphere--elevating atmospheric levels above the normal balance achieved when animals eat the vegitation and breathe a percentage into the atmosphere and the rest returns to the earth.

The same problem exists with algae, sugar, cellulosic, etc.

Ammonia is a much better fuel choice as it is carbon-free.
Ronald STEENBLIK
Ronald STEENBLIK
November 22, 2008
In response to Paul Heninwolf:

Even Argon National Labratories doesn't claim that biofuels are carbon neutral. Fossil fuels still have to be used to till, plant, fertilize, harvest and transport the feedstock crops, and then more is used to transform them into fuel. On a life-cycle basis, and compared with gasoline, the gains from corn ethanol are modest (and, essentially nill if the ethanol distillery uses coal for its process heat). Those from biodiesel are better, but only if one does not take into effect carbon released through direct or indirect land diversion, and the results are sensitive to assumptions made about soil nitrogen. Currently, only biofuels made from sugar cane and from used cooking oil comes close to achieving 85% reductions. In the future, cellulsoic ethanol and algal biodiesel might do better. (But even methyl esters require fossil inputs to produce the methanol.)
Paul Heninwolf
Paul Heninwolf
November 22, 2008
In response to Rainmaker:

Fortunately, biofuels are very much carbon neutral. The carbon is released into the atmosphere upon combustion and the growth of new fuel pulls carbon out of the atmosphere and into the plant.
Richard Yarnell
Richard Yarnell
November 21, 2008
In response to Mr. Jermano:

There's another alternative, even more efficient, to replace the long haul trucks:

Invest in an upgraded freight rail system to run on electric power. The more "alternative sourced" energy applied to that grid the better but it would start out better than even and improve over time.

There's a secondary effect that wouldn't hurt anything since airplanes don't have a viable alternative - separating rail freight from passenger rail would make the latter, in particular, more efficient and attractive to potential passengers. Over time, I can see an orderly transition from diesel to electric passenger locomotives, probably working outward from major population centers.

Have your smaller, short haul trucks pick up freight, possibly in smaller piggy back containers, where their smaller size is not a liability in cost calculations.
Dominic Jermano
Dominic Jermano
November 21, 2008
Nobody wants to talk about this but it is the entire trucking industry who is on the line...

......not just the big 3. Think about it. People buy the big SUV's because they stay on the road when a big 80,000 lb tractor trailer comes swooping by. People buy the biggest thing they can for the safety of themselves and family...without regard to the cost for gas......simply to stay alive from all the BIG RIGS on the road. Going.. Green... they consider is suicide.....

If we are going to make our cars and small trucks go Green.....that means downsizing the BIG TRACTOR JOE TRAILERS in the USA. Remember BEST WEST?

I would love to see 80,000 lb trucks get off the road....for smaller trucks... But what will that mean? It will mean smaller transport trucks, that use less fuel, and go faster...but more of them....This means more of them on the already crowded roads in America. Is that what we want?

It is why I believe the new economy is coming that will change so fast we will wonder what happened, because we Americans are not all dumb to the core.

It means a rival of the train system that runs on electricity powered from GEOTHERMAL ENERGY ELECTRIC. Trains will carry the loads across country, and smaller battery trucks will pick up the loads for delivery that assures they have more than enough power capacity to do it. This will be a win for Green Technology, smaller trucks to replace the Tractor Trailers, which means no more fear and no need to buy SUV's for protection on the road......less trucks on the road......and a working transportation system that supports truckers so they get home each night, a working train system, a working big 3 Auto Company that makes electric cars, so people can go to the stores where they dropped off the goodies the night before.

It means people have to think about the changes we need for the future that protects the environment, makes jobs, and keeps companies profitable... It can be done.....
Jamie Schlinkmann
Jamie Schlinkmann
November 21, 2008
For all the Biofuel proponents:

It's not carbon neutral.

Carbon meant to remain earthen ends up atmospheric, which puts our ecosystem out of kilter. Example: when you eat vegetation, you don't breathe out all of the carbon in that vegitation. Most of it goes out as other waste. When an engine burns biofuel, substantially all of the carbon goes atmospheric.
Stafford Williamson
Stafford Williamson
November 21, 2008
Vitally important to both ECONOMIC RECOVERY for America and the world, Green Energy Policy and implementation must include two elements: Closed Loop Energy Life Cycle considerations, and GLOBAL DEPLOYMENT.
Climate change is a global problem, and the best way to address this issue, while at the same time creating vast new export markets for American products is to export our GREEN TECHNOLOGIES to the underdeveloped countries of the world IMMDEIATELY they are developed.
By exporting green LOCAL, energy independence to small towns and cities around the world, along with improved sanitation and clean water, we can create a whole world of what we now consider to be "middle class", which is to say, "consumers" as well as fellow citizens of the world.
It is crucial to the development of the new Obama Administration's future success in economic recovery that they understand this concept.
A "mere" billion US dollars could build 1000 small biodiesel facilities all over Africa. Go ahead, try to put 1000 "pushpins" into a map of Africa.
If you actually attempt that exercise (try it in your classroom if you are a teacher) you will be amazed at just how completely transformational that one move of international economic development could make.
PLEASE, PLEASE, be sure your friends know about this, and even more importantly, make sure your elected officials are aware of it, and are pushing the Obama Administration to adopt this kind of GLOBAL GREEN ENERGY POLICY.

For more details, take a look at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FE4IDHX91LM

Thanks, and I hope you enjoy(ed) the video.
Sincerely,
Love and warm wishes,
Stafford "Doc" Williamson
http://energy.psyrk.us
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewByAuthor.asp?authorID=1059
Don Coats
Don Coats
November 21, 2008
Dr. Hoffman obviously has a very good understanding of the problems our world faces with energy consumption. He also described what could mend most of the problems. The biggest obsticle for getting good energy policy in the US is getting Congress to think past the next election. That and folks just not understanding the issues. Education is going to be key. Perhaps an 'Electricity Apreciation Day', just turn the lights off once a year, would get people thinking more about how good we have it and how nice it would be to keep it that way.

Picken's plan has some merrit and is gaining momentum. If we would allow ourselves to harvest the natural gas under our feet, to run our heavy vehicles on (much cleaner than diesel) , while capturing the wind energy of the MidWest to charge the electric cars on the smart grid, we would be making a huge improvement. Some break through technologies for energy storage would put the icing on the cake.

Why are companies investing in LNG ports on our shores when we have an abundance of domestic sources that are untapped? Can't we extract the gas as responsibly as anyone? doncoats_@hotmail.com
Jay Rosenberg
Jay Rosenberg
November 21, 2008
We have RE projects reaching beta tests to produce $.05-$.03/kWh electricity. They are low budget and include Geothermal in US/Canada. ROI is short 3-5 years. (Sannerwind@gmail.com). Direct apps and PPA's are revenue positive; PPAs are not as beneficial as integrated electricity/power apps. After RE is a high efficiency multifuel (fossil or biofuels) engine which would save 1 Billion barrels oil annually, given partial penetration for autos/transport. I've participated in 2 prior tech revolutions - revolutions are revolutions.

The secret is technology is disruptive: Death is good for the species, bad for the individual, RE is good for the consumer species. Energy is going the way of Mainframes yielding to PCs. RE will disrupt Energy Nee Oil, companies, utilities, autos, transportation but save the consuming species 100's $billion perennially. That will surmount all political opposition even the pro-RE coterie who stopped wind turbines off their sacred summer resorts. Energy efficiency will reduce transportation to a cheap commodity, e.g., $5,000 cars, just like brandless refrigerators, stoves sold by Best Buy next to the CDs. $Trillion markets will be undercut. 50% of Utility plants heat energy escapes into the atmosphere, wafting over the abundant recapture technology (including mine an made in USA hi efficiency low cost/temperature gradient turbine) and their 1st priority ROI. Leading RE companies interests are their multi-$billion markets and 1 fear: Legacy. Primo VCs-Icons have been bamboozled by pHd's selling CSP but not stated was gen1's low temps mean low NET efficiency. Did they fess-up to their Whoops (prior WHOOPS was a nuclear plant fiasco), nope, sell gen2 with molten salt thermal stores! Speak about grain of salt? We are being consumed by that which hath nourished us (Shakespeare). Dr. H's extraordinary statement: "Consider setting a floor under oil prices" corroborates that there are shocking political elements in energy policy.
Richard Yarnell
Richard Yarnell
November 21, 2008
Nothing we do, no matter how ingenious, no matter how successful in the short run, will solve the energy problem (or the food, water, air quality problems) until we confront the fact that we live on a limited resource. If we don't find a way to limit and then reduce the world's population, we're doomed to fail.

Mr. Murphy, we should start a movement.

Beavercreek, OR
(Where I'm putting money where my mouth is in a grid connected residence that will produce more energy than we consume.)
michael chenkin
michael chenkin
November 21, 2008
A floor price for oil is the most critical of Dr. Hoffman's suggestions. Without the certainty of a floor price for oil, most of Dr. Hoffman's other suggestions have little chance of achieving meaningful deployment.

As Dr. Hoffman correctly points out, without a floor, oil prices returning to their historic price range destroys the economics of conservation or alternative energy investments. Reality is that it costs very little to produce most existing oil. Middle Eastern crude can be brought to market for under $5 per barrel. The equivalent price of alternatives to oil is generally 10-20 times that amount.

Our current experience of oil soaring to $145 per barrel and now sinking to $50 is particularly troublesome as it shows just how unpredictable oil prices are.

Oil price volatility introduces a high level of risk in conservation or alternatives investments. Risk itself is expensive as riskier investments require higher rates of return. This is a major obstacle, as most conservation or alternative energy investments offer only modest rates of return.

At the consumer level, the problem of risk/return is magnified by the basic inertia of most people. Since the 1930's American consumers have had abundant cheap energy at the flip of a switch (or pump lever). Reality is that most individuals are unwilling to either devote the time and thought needed to determine energy savings investments appropriate for their circumstances or to make the significant upfront disbursements these investments require. Establishing a floor price for oil therefore has a second benefit as it forces a national recognition that the age of cheap oil is over, and we all now are forced to think and act differently.
Lynn Hirshman
Lynn Hirshman
November 21, 2008
I also welcome this article as a terrific way to start the dialogue -- look at the varied responses just on this website!

If we can only move this dialogue onto the national stage, and have people like Dr. Hoffman on major network current affairs shows, we may actually see some movement in the right directions.
Adrian Lanser
Adrian Lanser
November 21, 2008
I am in the biomass business so my comments are tainted by my vested interest. Having idenitfied my bias, however, I can say based on the extensive research that my company has done that biodiesel can and should be an essential component of our independence energy goal. While we cannot simply grow our way out of the problem, we can augment our needs with plant oil. Various Depts of Ag and several universities have ready now proposals for fuel crops that do not invade the world's food supply. And the fact remains that commerce runs on diesel and cannot run on electricity. A semi truck cannot haul enough batteries to deliver its goods. A tractor cannot plant food and carry its electric supply.

Also, why doesn't the Congress require the Big Three to manufacture wind and solar equipment as a part of a bailout? When we needed a war effort GM made tanks. We're at war against bad energy policies. The time to act is now.
Scott Greenbaum
Scott Greenbaum
November 21, 2008
Great article!!!! You hit the nail on the head. A great way to open the discussion.

We can disagree on the specific techonlogies that are needed but energy conservation and efficiency are the key to the next ten to twenty year goals of reduction of energy consumption. Exisitng Renewables are very important and proven technologies that will help.

Lets keep the goal in mind and not get caught up in rederic and allow the energy monomplies to dictate policy like the last eight years.
J Mot
J Mot
November 21, 2008
It is quite logical that we should aggressively move away from fossil based fuels. Our near future involves thin film, (Nanosolar) solar technology applied directly to metal roofing products. The idea of a solar panel on every roof is soon becoming a reality. It should be noted that legislation needs to be in place to encourage and facilitate this transition. The next administration should make a priority of utilizing this concept.

Our wind turbine installation rate needs to quadruple. The present rate is drastically inadequate. Also, work needs to begin now, on the grid system to distribute this new energy source, (more jobs).

Rasor Technologies' geothermal advancements should be encouraged and scaled up. This is a huge, huge, untapped and reliable resource, and now we have the technology to capture it. Let's use our federal dollars aggressively toward this clean, renewable, reliable and largely untapped resource.

We MUST end the ridiculous subsidizing of the oil and coal industries, by tax cuts, and all other means, and instead use those funds to ramp up clean renewable energy sources.

Our next administration should make a priority of bringing the Eestore super-capacitor technology into widespread use. The internal combustion engine is a dirty, polluting, technology, and we must eliminate it's use ASAP.

Our future is every home with an electric vehicle, an electrical storage system from Eestore for both home and vehicle, and a solar roof, coupled with much higher insulation standards for new construction, LED lighting, and home geothermal heat pumps (where applicable).

The fact of the matter is...............our 'clean' future needs massive amounts of clean energy. If we invested the same amount of money each year that we send overseas for oil, we could make this transition quickly. Thank God for a new administration, that isn't closely tied to the oil companies ! ! !
Pete Murphy
Pete Murphy
November 21, 2008
The whole premise of this article is bogus. Our current rate of energy consumption is already unsustainable. Yet, you accept as a starting point that: "Population growth and increasing levels of per capita consumption will drive increasing global energy demand in the 21st century. While not preordained, this increase will be large even if the citizens of other countries do not achieve U.S. per capita levels of consumption." To suggest that we can provide even more energy through renewable resources is disingenuous.

It doesn't have to be this way. There are no solutions to our energy problems that don't begin with stabilizing and gradually reducing our population. Until the government faces this reality, matters will grow worse as our depletion of fossil fuels outpaces our ability to develop renewable alternatives.

Pete Murphy
Author, "Five Short Blasts"
Jamie Schlinkmann
Jamie Schlinkmann
November 21, 2008
I wonder what the implications of establishing a 'floor' for oil prices would be. What about ending the whole 'futures' type commodity system for oil price establishment--in other words, change the game from the current speculation-based phony price setting to a more realistic supply/demand/production cost model? The whole 'futures' trading ponzy scheme in this country is out of control anyway. You buy an ounce of gold for $800 but if you want the ACTUAL gold it's over $1000. Tell me how that makes sense...
eugene preston
eugene preston
November 21, 2008
The root cause of our financial problems and energy problems in the US are clearly revealed in the excellent documentary film by the Australian Broadcasting Company. See this film: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20060710/
All Americans must reduce their oil consumption as soon as possible.

Dr Eugene Preston
http://egpreston.com
Abdul-Majeed Azad
Abdul-Majeed Azad
November 21, 2008
No pun intended by why these brilliant ideas are coming out from an 'insider' after 8 long years of hybernation under an adminstration that has a glittering record of flaunting anything sensible towards energy and environment. It is the same administration that gave incentives to folks buying Hummers and SUVs. Look into the abyss of automotive industry today!

CO2 problem? We are tackling that problem right now in my lab - of course DARPA and DOE denied funding for this. We are not talking about CO2 sequestration; we are talking about its utilization to run a fuel cell. We are combining it with another potent grenhouse gas (water) and converting the mixture into syngas. In our concept, CO2 NEVER leaves the system, as long as the catalyst we use is alive.

I'm willing to talk, if Dr. Hoffman is willing to listen!
Aand Rangarajan
Aand Rangarajan
November 21, 2008
Your fundamental notion that rather than talking about energy as a mere commodity, but asking the question energy for what, sheds a lot of clarity in our search for energy solutions. RE is more efficient all around relative to base line energy technologies when you approach energy planning and policy with this question in mind.

For example distributed solar electricity generation tied to specific services, for example delivering clean water, reliably is more cost effective and improves security.

In addition to (or instead of) spending money on strengthening the grid (particularly distribution) infrastructure, which is in bad shape, it will cost less money, less time and provide more security if distributed generation is included in the mix. This also needs involvement of the power distribution companies, ISO's and other non governmental entities.

This article is a wonderful starting point for an intelligent debate and planning for renewable energy policy in this country.
Dominic Jermano
Dominic Jermano
November 21, 2008
There seems to be more than one elephant in the room....that we need to take care of in escorting out onto the prairie.. First we still have a war going on gobbling up all our resources, and we have a failed banking system, or is it really a failed Stock Market Free Market System, that is only regulated when it gives them profits and the rest of us foreclosures and more debt to bail them out...We also have unresolved questions to the call and put options that were traded on and before 911 giving some people a small fortune in the USA....yet no one seems to be able to realize those things should be traced and tracked down. Strange that Bush would stop those investigations, and then afterwards enact wiretapping and spying legislation on the American people! Just whose monkey nose do they think they are trying to twist. And why should they consider changing now, when everyone is so brain dead now to include Attorney General Michael Mukasey who collapsed and believes in torture and turning the spicket on for Iraqi Crude. We didn't go into Iraq to kill thousands of innocent people to include US troops for nothing....by switching gears to the alternaive fuel debates.

I am all for Geothermal Energy that I think can be drilled in each and every State in the USA.. And I don't buy the price tag they parade around as being so expensive. They say that to discourage business in the Geodevelopment, while they make huge profits because it is the same drilling rigs that they use for going after oil.

The reason we are in trouble is because of the stubborness of the Republican body in not making oil equal partners to the other alternatives. Now banks are not lending, and that is not good news for the Greenergy's.

Yet I do believe we can overcome the death grip they have on us all....

http://my.nowpublic.com/world/geothermal-electric-makes-good-mortgages

Thanks for your article Mr. Hoffman...I can be reached at djermano@yahoo.com
Ronald STEENBLIK
Ronald STEENBLIK
November 21, 2008
Dr. Hoffman,

Thank you for an excellent, thought-provoking article. You say nothing about biofuels, except indirectly by calling for "substitution of electricity for liquid transportation fuels". That is encouraging.

But biofuels continue to be stimulated (way, way beyond a reasonable target of $50 or even $100 per tonne of CO2-eq avoided), mandated, and, in the case of ethanol, protected by tariffs, eating up the bulk of current government support for renewable energy (a classification, in the case of corn ethanol, many question whether it deserves to be included).

What would you advise Congress and the Administration do about THAT elephant in the room?

Ron
Jonathan Cole
Jonathan Cole
November 20, 2008
A few comments to add to an excellent article.

We need to use the entire power of modern communications to educate the public. A good starting place would be the elimination of wasteful energy-use practices. I will not go into details here, but when one takes a close look at the vast amounts of energy that is essentially thrown away with no additional benefit being returned, it is truly staggering.

I suggest we see energy use, not so much as a service, but as the foundation of our standard of living. If we can maintain the standard of living we expect while using 50 or 60% less energy, we would be truly idiotic not to make that choice. Yet that is possible, by eliminating wasteful practices and outlawing technologies that encourage it. We can also look at every use we have for energy and develop a discipline taught at the university level for energy-use analysis and energy-waste management. This kind of thing use to be called conservation, but that has too much of an optional feel to it. We need to make the importance of waste reduction one of the three pillars of energy policy, the other two being energy efficiency (a close relative of of energy waste reduction) and clean energy technologies that do not contaminate the eco-system of the planet.

Having used distributed photovoltaic technology in my home for the past 25 years, coupled with utilization of the most efficient appliance techologies, and the reduction of wasteful practices and systems, I can say from experience that we can have a high standard of living with clean energy technologies at an affordable price, right now.

The one other point is that we need to reduce the ability of the energy monopolies to prevent competing technologies from getting to the market. Perhaps we need to spin-off the grid from these companies to allow competition to truly flourish just as it does on the Internet.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • Wind Power — Even without the Wind

Most Commented

  • 17
    The Economic Case for Divesting from Fossil Fuels
  • 12
    Breakdown: Penetration of Renewable Energy in Selected Markets
  • 6
    Ireland Keen to Hit 2030 Renewable Targets, Says EU Ambassador
  • 5
    No Easy Fix for Broken Wind Turbine at US High School

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Eaton
  • Delta Rigging & Tools
  • 3TIER
  • 2GreenEnergy.com
  • PLANSEE SE
  • Everblue
  • Alternative Matters
  • Admirals Bank
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information