Tom's Comments

Pro and Con....

Good Article, I don't agree with all of the summations of 'dead' projects -- especially related to 'nuclear' and the flaws and scare tactics against it. Events like TMI and Chernobyl were clearly caused when humans bypassed or ignored multiple systems designed to prevent the problems that occurred; yes, accidents happen in any industry, but the systems in place (new builds and all others retrofitted -- at great cost and subject to EXTREME regulatory scrutiny) were human error with catastrophic results. The benefits of the abundance of energy from that source is a very positive value calculation. It remains a high-cost item to initially make a new plant, so it's not all ideal. But compared to other large-scale alternatives, well, there are none that are workable for a half-century or more, at least.

We have a situation, like the author stated, of "groupthink" and related, Group Dynamics. We don't have a choice of "this or that". We have a number of options, choices, decisions, and each with its own pros and cons. We need the power on 24/7/365 for our power hunger, but we don't even have a solid, reliable power distribution grid to get the juice to the house. Our cars and trucks are running on a fuel that we're gonna run out of before too long, but we can't seem to get out of our own way to work toward a good option of replacement -- and I'm glad the author pointed out the flaw of centrally making hydrogen and trying to deliver it to an h-station... cost makes that just prohibitive and inefficient.

There's lots of smart people doing good things in very useful and positive developments in new energy areas. And a few quacks, too.

What we really need is for the MARKET to decide these things, and not some bureaucrat with a rulebook (associated with his purse-strings) to bring ONE energy design to the front. Ultimately, the market WILL decide anyway... as we all vote with our wallets, in the end.

As a Connecticut native, I'm pleased to continue to see some 'obvious' initiatives in the Alternative Energy fields making headlines. Gov. Rell has indeed made some commitments and demonstrated efforts to get moving in a positive direction, and I'm glad to see that. This isn't the first, though, as Connecticut has made progress in a pro-AE direction and that's made it to print and press releases in the past. I see a lot more about CT than I've seen of most other states in our Union...

I don't know enough about the CCEF to know its merits or disadvantages; I admit I've not been following this one.

Seeing little ol' Connecticut in the news relating to this AE program, and that it's making an effort to get some action in the AE field, may encourage others to begin to pick up the pace... or, if nothing else, have an active thought about doing something positive about AE.

I know it's encouraging to me.

Of course, we must place our forward-looking focus on increasing our use of 'renewable' energy sources to help satisfy the US's demand for energy.

And YES, offshore drilling WILL help. Offshore Drilling with happen, whether we get the advantage of it here in the US, or not, and we'd better take the appropriate steps to use this existing energy sources offshore to our advantage.

In the meantime, and as a parallel effort, we must continue to build and rebuild our existing energy infrastructure -- largely limited by transmission and distribution problems and concerns -- to support the integration of other appropriate and life-friendly energy sources. Yes, sure, it is possible to (they 'can', at Tam indicates in his article) drill for oil for about 30 bucks a gallon, but that does nothing for the 'location, location, location' cost problem of transportation and delivery of the fossil fuel product from its remote location, and also the transportation to and from of men and equipment to retrieve it from those same remote locations.

The option of NOT drilling exists, but that isn't smart at all, now that we have the known reserves within our reach, and other countries willing to go and take those same resources away. Once it's gone, it's gone. With our continued demand for energy and no alternatives in place to supplant good 'ol oil, we must pull these resources out of the ground now.

The concerns for damage, spills, and environmental wreckage are old news... history and so highly unlikely and so many protections put in place with newer laws, regulations and checklists NOW that weren't in place before... yes, there are concerns with a 'presence' of the men and equipment, but even those impacts are very limited and inspected.

We as a society need to choose to whether we want to remain dependent on other sources for energy (and puh-leeze stop pointing the finger at 'big bad oil', or any politician) until we do indeed have the alternatives in place.

That's an interesting idea. Let's see how it proves out in real-world testing. That will probably give better information as far as real costs and whether the Loch Ness monster finds it an attractive meal, or mate...

Good for Sencera, Good for North Carolina!

I see the comments from the two above, and both have merit, and both are tangled in the 'mess' we have of better information of the value(s) of a particular alternative energy model (in this example).

I read this piece as a 'marketing communications' document, and it provides some facts and some calculations, and it's got its 'spin' going just like a turbine. Of course, big duh, the tax incentives concerning "wind projects pump money into the US Treasury" in the long term, but HOW MUCH and if compared to other alternatives, is it worth it to provide - and continue after the end of this year - the tax incentives like they are? I read this as a sales pitch to continue the tax incentives.

I'm not fooled by the spin... I read the information, and processed it. It's a good PR piece, and it seems to encourage 'the people' to think. Good.

I think the tax incentives (these here, specifically) are a good idea, in the short term. I say, yes, provide incentives for companies to develop these markets. And encourage new job development in the USA (another part of daily life in the US that is another problem we're looking for help from Big Brother government in). But I also am aware that there's a compromise for OTHER services elsewhere in our economy, and/or an increase in taxes due, by going in that direction.

In a perfect market scenario, we would have zero tax incentives and we'd have companies that would 'make it or break it' completely on their own. However, in the short term, we're trying to jump-start the process by making it less painful for these little companies (yeah, like GE is little, others, too) to risk getting into the game.

So, for now, we have the US Congress, and local land-use laws and regulations and NIMBY lawsuits and all kinds of things to sort through. We're not dealing just with 'make it or break it' anymore. These aren't the risk-takers that built America to what it is now. That's too bad. That'd be too simple.

I'm sure that all of the cold, hungry mouths in China will will work hard because they require more power and will help their country grow as a world leader in these emerging fields. Just look at what they've accomplished already, and, good for them! Good for all of the world, eventually, as these technologies do tend to spread around.

China has the brute force of the larger number of intelligent people, and we can expect a proportionate number of problem-solvers to population, and using the punchline of an old unfortunate joke making fun of linguistic challenges when speaking English, "Many hands make light work" will likely be a very huge awakening to America and the rest of the world when they've got their lights on, and we in the USA are still arguing about drilling offshore or not.
Oh, and they're holding the note on our lavish homes, too. How'd that happen? Ah... while we were sleeping...

It also seems to me that the Chinese people are still more familiar with a government that expects their participation as part of the solution, rather than one with more individuality and 'not in my backyard' concerns all the time. They seem to work together better, even if at the expense of some of their personal benefit. We seem to be more interested in 'American Idol' than the power source that makes those TV sets work in every room of the house. I'm not encouraging 'more government' (no way, too much already) but I am trying to encourage better cooperation, and a bit of a 'reality check' to those of us who work on the solutions, and getting through all of the bureacracy we already have.

Let's hope that they develop more earth-friendly methods for feeding the power needs of all of those mouths, because we all share the same atmosphere, and I'd rather see more wind power than any of the more-toxic solutions like anything burned.

I think the conversion of existing vehicles and platforms from one drivetrain system into a new drivetrain system (electric, in this case) is a wonderful way to help migrate our automotive industry into its next generation. Things are changing and innovation and change is good!

Some, like Matt, seem stuck on the idea that this vehicle must handle all driving scenarios, including a long trip. The vast majority of American drivers do not have this need -- I know from my own annual driving habits that a round trip of a hundred miles without a resting and refueling period daily is more than adequate. I would equate Matt's concern to those that occasionally might need to move a piece of furniture, which won't fit inside your Yaris or Lexus, either... or the time that you need to haul 6 people out to dinner... the same single-car solution won't solve that, either. So, please, Matt, don't limit an alternative possibility because it won't solve every possible scenario. Everything we have to choose from has trade-offs. Matt might be forgetting that one day his universal solution will run out of fuel and won't go anywhere at all... then what?

We Americans love our mobility. And we tend to have more than one vehicle. Right now we might have a car and a pickup, rarely will we choose to have two identical cars -- for that 'different situation' scenario or maybe just personal taste. Instead, we might have a regular commuter vehicle for that necessary daily routine drive, and have a flex-fueled 'other vehicle' for that occasional long trip. Or, if you drive long trips all the time, well, you buy a long-trip vehicle. Might be a special long-range electric that has a larger array of batteries, or you stop at that battery-pack-swap station... these new things will develop, depending on how we consumers also develop and demonstrate our needs, which someone, somewhere, will then make for us.

Innovation is a wonderful thing.

Theo - interesting idea, but let's not call it 'better' just yet. Keep in mind that Kirkland is an air base and your suggested alternative (NOT better alternative) would be another thing up there in the airi and possibly in the way. Therefore, for reasons having nothing to do with its capabilities or technology, it might be disqualified. I can see that even this siting of the wind turbines might raise some concerns about tall objects nearby... [and I don't have any information on the siting, distances from wind farm to runways, etc., to base that on at this point, so this is a speculative statement].

We have so many "alternatives" and we have so many things to choose from, selecting different potential options for our energy concerns. I'm so very glad that we have these choices, not only 'alternatives' to the currently-available commercial options for energy (oil, gas, nuke, hydro, etc.) but that we are now engaged in looking at site-specific options to provide energy.

And please understand, as I'm sure that all reasonable people do, that this is no 'ideal' solution for all sites, all regions, all energy needs. We have one 'universal' energy source in the sun, but even it doesn't apply in all cases, so we also look at wind currents and wave motion and rotational energy, as well as other fuels that are collected and then consumed -- that would include one that we've already done a good job of exhausting (oil) or at least sucked a lot of it out and don't have a long-term supply remaining.

Be open to Alternatives. Different Options in different places. Not just something new to replace the old. One more thing in your 'bag of tricks'.

I'm glad to see a very healthy post-article 'discussion' in this string. I'm also very glad that this study (the subject of the article) is a working paper, and not a definitive statement.

The results of the aforementioned study may be a good example of selective use of data, or looking only at certain aspects of the data. Unfortunately, others might use that resultant information as the basis for their calculations -- or, in simple terms, they'd run with that '29 to 40 cent savings if we use ethanol' headline... failing to remember other important aspects about life. Like, eating, reduced performance with reduced power output using ethanol, machinery repair cost increases, and, in a bigger picture view, still employing the internal-combustion engine as the primary power unit if using ethanol. It's an extension of the current crude-oil, finite and on its way out, no doubt.

I think this recent increase in fuel prices in the USA will help motivate Americans to make some new decisions based on new thoughts and good information. I hope that this information from this Iowa study don't gloss over the 'costs' of ethanol vs. a calculated savings based on a limited set of factors used for the calculations. Not only do we need to pump the liquid fuel into our tanks, but we have to buy and maintain the vehicle (cost factors) and we need to eat daily (crops or feed, we eat it eventually) and we're stuck with a need for a long-term problem of running on empty.

Time for a new type in engine (and requisite fuel) to motivate the machinery of our existence.

nufsed

Good work, and good to hear of programs like this that are going on.
Americans are finally getting 'stirred into action' by 4 buck a gallon (or more) fuel costs.
We seem to only pay attention to these matters when it hits us where it hurts -- that soft spot where our wallets normally rest against our butts.

Very good news.

I get a little concerned when I hear of 'legislation' that dictates some technological standard, especially when it relates to this especially young technology.

By today's marks, yeah, B20 is not a bad idea.
What's it gonna be around 2015 when this ruling kicks in? Will it be B30 or B50 or some new hydrogen-hybrid-fuel, or is some other Buck Rogers thing gonna be the fodder for these stump speeches?

It's something of a 'false security' for those that think that their politicians are doing something for them. OK, yes, it's better than not trying to move ahead... and maybe it's about the only method our government has to cause business to improve its performance...

To me, it's about as useful and positive as the oil company executives being dragged in before the TV cameras and a noisy group of politicians getting on their cases about excessive profits. (That means: it's NOT useful.) The oil companies are doing what they can to make money within the constraints of the laws that we've now tied their hands with... and when they make money in doing so, they get yelled at.

I think the politicians and legislators would be better served in finding ways to encourage growth and development for their constituents than imposing limits on those that are doing the work and getting compensated for their successes in a free-market system.

Interesting podcast. I'd not listened to one from this group before. I was just nosing around this morning for something a bit different for me.

I found the 'termites' mentioned in the enzymes discussion to be a big 'hey, why didn't I think of that?' moment... seems like a real 'natural' source for the enzymes to break down cellulose...

Ken -- why NOT muck about on the bottom? Maybe there's a better overall answer down there than what might be seen 'on the surface'.

That's the nice thing about getting some early-bird permits going... get some hardware in the water and see what works, and what doesn't. Controversial? Sure... change is always something hard for people to deal with. At least this gives those willing to take a chance on a new technology a chance to prove it out.

Otherwise -- like FJH suggested -- the innovators first have to fend off all of the oppositional groups (good and bad) and that takes energy away from being innovative. Sure, some very good designs will fall by the wayside, for a number of reasons.

If it weren't for innovation and for the vetting process, we might still be driving LaSalles, Cords, Edsels and Corvairs. At least this way, something other than just 'opposition' is happening.