Next Generation Energy

Great idea for a blog!

I think the Japanese have cracked it with solar energy collected in orbit and beamed down. Meanwhile the US and other nations which can afford to get started right away on this need to be forging ahead on ground-collected solar energy augmented with wind, tidal and wave energy.

Posted by: Ian | July 9, 2008 7:06 AM

It's a shame that we can't put significant effort into solving the rubbish problem simultaneously. Rather than primitively recycle rubbish at the endpoint of the consumption process (and hide that which can't be recycled), it would seem more apposite to find more efficacious and perhaps direct ways of making rubbish become useful energy.

Then once we've sorted that out, we could probably solve the prison overpopulation problem in exactly the same way.

Posted by: Ian Tindale | July 9, 2008 7:31 AM

One word: conservation.

Posted by: Dunc | July 9, 2008 8:53 AM

I'm down with Dunc, there is too much waste; it permiates all aspects of modern life. On the one hand we can be more careful about putting "green glass with the brown" so to speak, on the other an alltogether different solution is looming on the horizon. Alas, for that to occur, apparantly very much needs to change.

Starting with mangement. Top-down, heads need to roll. After all...is that not a direct by-product of any revolution? I've been discussing with my friends the fact that nobody cares. Sea levels are rising, species are going extinct, we have plenty of evidence of great changes in the past, yet most people are busy chasing the dollar, or otherwise doing God knows what (pun intended;), rather than thinking ahead. In Philadelphia, for example glass is not recycled in many locations because the sanitation department has found that takes more money, and it would be cheaper just pile it outside the city.

No sustainability with the present course of action.

Very few people seems to be aware, even fewer care, almost none seem to be able to change anything.

Maybe that is where change has to occur?
MAKE the public PAINFULLY aware, place responcible management, and educate the next generation to be better.
In a way this has already been happening with the gas prices, but i'd rather recycle wiser than pay $5+ a gallon.

Posted by: Andrei | July 9, 2008 10:04 AM

There are several advantages to wind energy, combined with solar. For one, their usage doesn't deplete the source. I have heard estimates that the sun has a five billion year supply of hydrogen before it starts running into trouble. The sun and wind work together. The problem of course, is to convert these sources into usable energy.

Shell, who is sponsoring this particular blog, can take the leadership on this issue without needing much government incentive. The technologies that are now being developed are expensive to produce and not yet efficient enough to make a dent in the amount of energy that we use.

Now, Tata Motor Company is producing a car that works with compressed air tanks and a small battery. Distribution of the compressed air does require electricity for special high-pressure pumps and hoses, but of course, electricity can be generated by wind and solar. I can see where Independent Shell Distributors could be sold on the concept of selling the compressed air along with prospect of building wind generators (they are getting more efficient and the vanes are getting smaller) to offset their other electricity costs. Before Tata would have hope at distributing their cars in Europe and in the U.S., they would want to make sure that there is a distribution network in place.

With the profits that the oil industry is taking in during the current oil price spike, this is a potential way for them to show that they are committed to moving from being "oil companies" to being energy companies.

Wikipedia mentions that there are four companies that are developing air compression vehicles, and while they have hoped to have them ready this year they are not being marketed yet.

Conservation is important, Dunc, but I don't see how it can save the amount that we need to cut back in order to reduce the environmental cost of the usage of the current fuels.

Don't forget that oil has only been the primary source of energy for around a century, and society adapted from whale oil for home oil use rather quickly once it became apparent that whales were not in infinite supply. People are smart enough to change our ways, it just needs to be economical and the energy companies should be leading the way.

Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | July 9, 2008 11:16 AM

Ian Tindale wrote:

It's a shame that we can't put significant effort into solving the rubbish problem simultaneously. Rather than primitively recycle rubbish at the endpoint of the consumption process (and hide that which can't be recycled), it would seem more apposite to find more efficacious and perhaps direct ways of making rubbish become useful energy.

A number of places in Europe are doing so already. The term "incinerator" has nasty associations in the U.S., and these definitely make "thermal treatment" a hard sell here and to a lesser extent in the UK. But the advanced processes that are on-stream today take in (mostly household) solid wastes and generate significant electrical power and low-grade heat for district heating or process heat schemes. Google "waste to energy" for copious information.

WTE systems do produce CO2 and in considerable amounts. Some publications say, however, that they are no worse than landfilling in this respect--and the slaglike residues occupy far less volume than untreated solid wastes while being more nearly inert. Waste to energy at least merits a look, especially where landfill capacity is approaching a crisis.

Posted by: Ben Teague | July 9, 2008 4:18 PM

Nuclear power.

It's clear that global warming is a major issue that needs to be dealt with immediately, and frankly there's no other option.

Many of the criticisms ring rather hollow. The environmental damage due to mining fission material is really low on the list of awful things we're doing to the environment. The fact that nuclear energy must involve government subsidy is an absurd counterargument considering any potential solution to the global warming crisis will involve government spending. The threat of terrorists is really kind of laughable (during the Three Mile Island disaster, which hurt no one, by the way, there was a hydrogen gas explosion right next to the containment vessel). And the safety concerns have really been addressed... Chernobyl isn't really possible on a modern reactor, the problems that lead to TMI (training, poor sensors) have really been fixed.

I never thought I'd agree with conservatives on a controversial policy issue, but things like the "nuclear fact sheet" put out by Greenpeace look almost exactly like creationists ranting about evolution or gay marriage. Lies at worst, utterly misguided, uninformed, and uncritical confirming of one's own biases with no basis in fact at best.

Trying to replace our energy with 100% renewable resources is wishful thinking in my opinion. They will play an important part, and should by no means be ignored, but reaching over 60% or so I think is an impossible task. Solar obviously doesn't work at night, getting wind to be a primary source of power requires a cost-prohibitive energy storage system (it works excellent as a supplement, though), hydroelectric can't be done everywhere, nor tidal, and geothermal has a hilarious little problem with causing earthquakes. (though from one perspective, this is a good thing)

I also agree with the above commentators that conservation will be important as well, and I also think that biofuels will be an important component as well. Not so much as a source of energy (corn ethanol right now seems to actually be energy negative. I'm sure we'll improve on it, but not by enough to make it a serious source), but something needs to fuel aircraft, ships, and other heavy machinery in a carbon-neutral fashion, and I don't think electric will replace hydrocarbons there like I think it will for cars.

Posted by: Ted Kaminski | July 9, 2008 4:24 PM

It'll take a moment to get over the fact that Shell are sponsoring the blog but I guess there's no problem with 'poacher turned gamekeeper'...

Posted by: Fair Trade | July 10, 2008 4:48 AM

This will probably not be "the world's most viable alternative energy solution", but I have a two semi-serious ideas to put forth on this subject. One in this comment, another one later.

There is a plant known as "furze" or "gorse" - Ulex europaeus. On the Oregon coast it is a common invasive weed that is very difficult to eradicate. It is also very flammable, and made the 1936 fire in Bandon Oregon very destructive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandon%2C_Oregon

I have read that the extreme flammability of this plant is due in part to oils in the spiny leaves. I have not burnt any in a campfire to observe this myself, but assuming this is the case, could this plant be a source of biodiesel? Has anyone with access to the right kind of laboratory tried this?

Posted by: mark_the_hiker | July 11, 2008 10:07 PM

Can a global economic depression save the world from Climate Change?

This is a debate that we should seriously consider. How bad has Climate Change got�should we voluntarily shutdown our economies to fight Global Warming?

Are we at a point, given the outcome of the G8 meeting, that it would be more beneficial for mankind and nature if our economies where to collapse now, rather than march on causing climatic catastrophe.

I believe that this is a radical alternative measure which should not be ruled out in our efforts to tackle Global Warming. What do you think?

I know it sounds drastic, but there was a depression around the 30s and look were we are at now just 70yrs later. If Climate Change keeps escalating, wont that result in a worse, more permanent outcome? From the now desperate calls of our climate and economic experts it sounds like Hell & High water is just a round the bend.

I am calling for a debate on this to get some input from experts to see if it is a viable solution. Global warming will be catastrophic - a depression shouldn't. We need to look at all the paths forward to survival now!

Rouge share traders do a good one person job.... Bush is doing a darn good job so far! Probably not as difficult to archive as you may think!

Part II - How could this be achieved?

Posted by: paulm | July 12, 2008 10:46 AM