Craig's Comments

I agree with the basic idea, i.e., the pros and cons / no free lunch concept. But I think your perspective here is too harsh and a little unfair. Here's my more detailed response: http://2greenenergy.com/renewable-energy-no-free-lunch/23433/

Some fantastic comments here; that's very gratifying.

JasonMartin: I did a "quick and dirty" matrix as a part of my report: "The Tough Realities of Renewable Energy," available (free) at http://2GreenEnergy.com/truth.

Dennis Houghton: Yes, there is something wrong with every solution (thus my phrase "tough realities). Having said, the problem of our unsustainable approach to energy is so pressing that almost *anything* we do in renewables is wonderful in comparison.

Thanks, Jennifer. Here's what I wrote in response: http://2greenenergy.com/cancun/7990/.

Stephen: Sadly, you may be right. In my estimation, it depends on the public understanding of the issues and our sentiment accordingly. Here's a comment on the cost of fossil fuels I got just now on my site at 2GreenEnergy: "The biggest subsidy of all is the $500+ billion a year of military costs used to secure the world's imported oil supply ... If, because we have not made a timely effort to reduce oil consumption, Iran has enough income to go nuclear, how much will that cost?" I remain hopeful that the outrageous costs of our current energy policy (or lack thereof) will become clear before it's too late.

Patricia: Yes, the PR wars are on, for sure.

Fred: Good point; I could certainly take that tack; I wouldn't be the first stockholder to make such a stand.

Bill: Thanks very much for your kind thoughts.

This is terrific. I had just posted something on the same subject (http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2010/09/financing-renewable-energy), and was surpised and delighted to see this extremely insightful piece.

Steve: You're 100% correct. And there are even more extreme examples. I recently had numerous talks with the ammonia folks, for instance, in which I learned that they're trying to get grants etc. to promote ammonia as a fuel -- but the DoE and EPA don't even list it as a fuel at all, let alone one that needs to be understood and supported. Now THAT'S a PR problem.

Bill: Yep, it's an uphill battle -- to be sure -- yet one I'm proud to fight.

Wow, Bill. That's really good. And you're 100% correct that, as our leaders are essentially employees of the corporations that have elected them, we (the people) are in a very weak position to move renewable energy along. I find it funny that people are amazed that the US isn't taking a leadership role in renewables; given the way our government works, wouldn't it be more amazing if we were?

If you'd like to take this discussion further -- and I'd encourage that -- please call me on 01-818-864-6230. Thanks.

Great post, and congratulations on the Ausra deal. Shortly before it closed, David Mills was kind enough to grant me an interview, which I used in my book on renewables as the basis for the chapter on CSP. See: http://2greenenergy.com/solar-thermal-pioneer-dr-david-mills/2313/.

I'm a total believer in what you folks are doing.

Thanks, Keith; I should have been more clear about how I defined the world "fuel." I meant to say: Where gasoline has chemical energy already in it, thanks (most of us believe) to the radiant energy the Earth received from the sun over a period of hundreds of millions of years, the formulation of ammonia needs us to round up energy to perform that task.

Yes, and here's something else I've found: http://www.leightyfoundation.org/earth.php

I'm interested in these comments, but I still have to re-pose my initial question: Why are so few people talking about this? If my post had been on hydrogen, it would be one of thousands of discussions on the subject. Why are there only one or two places to find ANYTHING on liquid ammonia -- especially given that it's endorsed by the estimable Matt Simmons? Again, what am I missing?

Good question; sorry -- should have added a paragraph or two to substantiate my viewpoint. Here you go: http://2greenenergy.com/concentrated/3634/

Ha! This is terrific stuff. You have a great sense of humor, and you're spot-on in everything you said here.

Good comments, Phil. I guess I've always favored the simplest approach to solving world problems. And, though I impute zero moral goodness to most corporations and government bureaucracies, it's always struck me that providing energy to 7 billion people is a large-scale problem that needs a large-scale solution.

And here's another way to look at it. I hate to sound cynical or condescending, but as I wrote here: http://2greenenergy.com/energy-policy-wheres-the-solution/2478/, most people really don't care about this stuff. You and I and the other REW readers are not representative of the majority of the population. If we're going to solve this problem, we have to do it for the masses of people; we can't wait for them to figure out that it's important enough to warrant their time. I know how arrogant that sounds, but I'm afraid it's true.

JaertX: Oh, I think RE is in its essense a political topic -- quite independently of whether you or I want it to be. As I'm fond of saying, the moment you take away the subsidies and force everyone to pay the true cost of the energy they're producing and consuming, you'll have ubiquitous RE in about 10 minutes.