Question by Trevor: What are the valid reasons to oppose the development of alternative fuels.?
Recently there have been several questions and answers raising concerns about the use of alternative fuels. To this end, different claims were made but they tended to be poorly cited and erroneously portrayed.
So… what are the genuine reasons that people have for opposing wind, solar, tidal, geothermal energy.
And please, opinions are fine but if you’re going to state ‘facts’ then please substantiate them with credible links.
Best answer:
Answer by The0wn4g3
Efficiency.
At this point, we do not possess the technology or materials to efficiently harness wind, solar, tidal, or geothermal energy on a large scale.
Think of it this way, say a wind turbine produces 100MW of power for year, but the process to produce the wind turbine consumed 500MW – building the generator, producing the blades,, delivering the components, constructing the tower, etc. The wind turbine must run for 5 years at full capacity before any advantages are produced. Take into account maintenance and repair costs, say 20MW a year is consumed in repairs, and a wind turbine at this day and age, is not a reasonable source of energy.
PS: Those numbers are completely made up, just to make a point. I hope that makes sense.
Hopefully in the coming years lighter and stronger composite materials will be developed.
Give your answer to this question below!
30 users commented in " Alternative Fuels – What are the valid reasons to oppose the development of alternative fuels.? "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackTheOwn4g …. does energy have to be produced on a large scale??
At the moment technology exists that most houses could meet their own energy needs with alternative fuels.These can and are then connected to the main power grid and fed back into the system. So with a grid connected system couldn’t energy be produced by individuals to supply others??
Also because we don’t have the technology or capabilities (??) with alternative fuels at the moment is not a reason to oppose it, but rather a reason to support it and continue development.
IM SRY I DOAN SPECIFICALLY REMEMBR IT, BUT I READ AN ARTICLE IN MACLEANZ MAGAZINE DAT SED IF WE SET UP ENOUGH WIND MILLS IT WILL DISRUPT GLOBAL WIND PATTERNS.
4 NUCLEAR (EVEN THOUGH U DIDNT MENSHUN IT) IM AFRAID OV 3 MILE ISLAND OR CHERNOBYL. U CAN GOOGLE THOZ.
None.
There are many many valid reasons to oppose subsidies for them however. The biggest of those being that the best fuel then becomes the one that is subsidized, not the one that is actually the best. Look at the boondoggle ethanol was.
Fuel from algae is far more promising than wind or solar. Geothermal is great where it can be harnessed, tidal would be awesome to harness for a lot of reasons, as is hydroelectric.
Researchers, scientists, and engineers have been working on many kinds of alternative fuels and energy sources for several decades, but the fact that you are going to be in competition with fossil fuels changes the game entirely. Until some new technology can beat coal or gas ( building new nuclear plants in this country has been stopped ) In ease of use and efficiency it’s just not going to happen on a large scale. How much has solar and wind power contributed to the grid in the last twenty years? How much more time and money should be spent on these enormously expensive projects? Do you really need links?
mintie_b: That is exactly what I have thought in the past. Hydro where I live buys electricity from producers, at least the electricity they don’t produce themselves with dams and what not, and puts it into the grid. There are numerous large personal producers of renewable energy including the Bear Mountain Wind Park by AltaGas and the future NaiKun Offshore Wind Energy Project.
There are also numerous buildings currently in planning phases that could produce their own electricity such as vertical farms, an example of which is in link 3.
As for the question: I think they aren’t happy with the costs involved though I have not looked into the pricing myself.
One would think that even the most ardent right wing denier would recognize that alternative energy sources increase the security of nations reliant on imported oil.
http://blog.usclimatenetwork.org/administration/energy-independence-is-nations-most-elusive-technological-goal/
Then there is this http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Environment/2010/08/04/oil-sands-emissions-Pembina/
http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/briefingnoteosghg.pdf
Liberals are SO prone to believe their own demagoguery.
Peter J gets it.
NOBODY is opposed to the development of alternative fuels.
What is being Opposed is MASSIVE taxpayer subsidies for alternatives that are simple not competitive.
The Logic is painfully simple.
If the Alternative fuel IS competitive it doesn’t need Government subsidies.
If it ISN’T competitive than it’s stupid for the Government to invest in it.
Some investment in basic science is fine, the Ethanol debacle is not.
Everyone knows we will eventually have to pay much more for fuel. What chafes the average man is pinheads like Obama deciding we should pay more NOW.
Thank you for the question. As I have stated several times, I am skeptical of many, but not all of the ramifications and processes postulated with respect to AGW. This question however, really cuts to the heart of the matter in a way which I personally can relate to very well. I am 100% in favor of developing alternative energies as quickly as possible. The need for them is urgent irrespective of any AGW debate. I was less than impressed the other day when I researched your quote regarding a 15% level of renewables today. What I found questionable was the fact that the majority of these renewables were comprised of “conventional solid biomass”. I am uncertain, but I think this is a fancy word for wood and trees. It raised the question in my mind as to whether trees were indeed a renewable resource. I invite you to think a bit about that yourself.
The reason for alternatives is quite simple in my opinion. I firmly believe that by 2035 the price of conventional energy will be prohibitive to the world economy and will probably be about 4 X greater on a Barrel equivalent basis than it is today. The world is wholly unprepared for this eventuality.
Ironically, my interpretation of the most viable alternative energy source will be met with abundant jeers. Why? because ironically the oil and gas industry already possesses the assets that will make geothermal the most economically viable alternative. The very wells that they have drilled for the last 100 years are the source of superheated and geothermally heated brines and brackish water which can be used to drive steam turbines and then have the fluids recycled to be used as either an enhanced oil recovery mechanism or as simply a recirculating heat loop. Many of these wells can produce very large amounts of salt water at 100 degrees C and then simply re-inject them back into their source reservoirs. They already have micro generators of electrical which sell into the Grid, using the natural reservoir temperature and pressure in combination with recirculated CO2 in commercial use.You don’t need a Yellowstone or an Icelandic volcanic terrain in order to generate commercial geothermal. It is already there in all of the cased and abandoned wellbores throughout the sedimentary basins.If I was a more ambitious soul, I would be out negotiating for older abandoned fields with potential for Tertiary oil recovery which would probably pay for a great part of a massive commercial scheme.
Wind – problem is intermittent power source combined with the resulting power grid overbuilds which are passed on to consumers by utility companies. Other problems are the land use issues it raises with respect to required agricultural developments. I my estimate, I suspect that the cost of wind and access to wind specifically will drive windpower out of a competitive market. If a farmer can grow windmills, why we he grow wheat? I guarantee that windmills will be paying more than wheat does!
Solar – Probably the best other alternative, but it has the same problems as wind does with respect to intermittency and somewhat lesser amounts of land use issues. There is also the whole problem of capacitance in storage for daily use and/or longer term source storage.
Biomass – I have seen the numbers and frankly just don’t believe many of them. A lot of the analyses present static pricing for natural gas and other fuels and I am not sure they take in a true “full cycle” analysis of the costs. I would be very surprised if things like corn ethanol are economic, when Brazil with sugar ethanol although clearly economic, should be able to knock the crap out of any other form of ethanol production (for a variety of reasons).
Tidal – It’s been proposed any times in the Bay of Fundy and never seems to get much traction. I suspect that the initial immense capital outlay does not meet up with the electrical revenue generation, on a discounted basis. In short I suspect that nobody wants to risk the kind of capital that would be required, in order to generate a substantial amount of electrical power.
Nuclear – Costly and risky. My biggest fear is that the governments will rubber stamp these applications without feeling any need to evaluate the risks themselves. The one I am most worried about is in my Province, where the initial proposals at least were to locate 4 Candus in the worst possible place that I could have imagined. Trust me when I say that I am extremely familiar with the initial proposed site. They have moved it 30 km but ironically, unlike the initial site, I haven’t actually been able to find the precise location so as to check my mapping! I could write a paper on the stupidity of the first site, but I want to keep my house and stay out of Court!
Thank you for the opportunity to vent a bit in this issue and you are right to bring it up.
IMHO, one possible downside is that a focus on alternative fuels takes away focus from the quickest and cheapest measures that we can take to reduce use of fossil fuels, namely conservation.
If we put a more serious effort into energy conservation, both at the individual level, corporate level, and the government level, my opinion is that he payback could be immediate, cost effective, and significant.
The so-called conservatives like Dick Cheney have written conservation off as insignificant. The right-wingers label all of us as hypocrites because Al Gore has a jet. They also make arguments like — We can’t all ride bicycles, or we can’t all do this or that, or I don’t want the government telling me what to do.
But of course I don’t have a jet, and it is not necessary for everyone to take every possible conservation effort. We can make a difference if we all just try to be better.
There is some risk that a focus on alternative fuels will give people a license in their own mind to continue to waste the energy that we have.
Reasons for a lacking communication could include: confusion in meanings of terms (intentional or accidental), fear of change, and lack of information (media or “press” coverage.)
–Unfortunately “valid” is a word with broad meanings. While you may be thinking of “proof” another meaning is: “3 : appropriate to the end in view : effective” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/valid and so any reason can be “valid” if it suits the purpose of the argument. Imagine for a moment a petrochemical company that wants to preserve 60 to 70% of its market in transportation and another 20% in heating fuels. A “valid” reason for them to oppose the development of alternative fuels is that they would lose markets for their products. They would lose profit. They may even consider as “valid” their loss of power in world events. By an “ends justifies the means logic” any means, argument, action, rational then becomes “valid.” … for them.
But it is not necessarily “valid” for an alternative fuel company primarily because their goals are different. We believe in freedoms. Everyone is free to think as they wish. But sometimes those freedoms interfere with the freedoms of others. GM stockholders may wish to preserve their other interests in the petroleum industry and use their influence to keep GM from making electric cars. Buyers can exercise their freedoms to choose any vehicle they wish but are never given an option of an electric car. Through limited competition and power the market would then have been manipulated in favor of petrochemicals. “Selfish self interest” can be a “valid” reason to the interest of the “self.”
–Fear is a very powerful motivator. It has been used by fascists, communists, and Nazis to manipulate their populations. It is a motivator when buildings start to burn and fall when it has never happened before. It is a motivator when searching for weapons of mass destruction. It is a motivator when we search for terrorists. It is a motivator when we are told that alternative energy sources will harm the environment or ruin our way of life. And it is a motivator when we are told that we should have “range anxiety” when driving an electric car. The person who feels fear may feel it is a “valid” reason. They may not feel that they have been manipulated. The manufacturer of a series hybrid may feel that they are presenting a “valid reason.” But in this process individuals would have been denied a choice in exactly the same way that the alternative option of an electric car is not available. Is it a “valid” reason? It depends upon who you talk to and what they consider “valid.”
–Some forms of alternative solar energy simply lack enough press. They are not widely known enough to have opposition. An example might be the solar chimney concept.1 It produces electricity from the sun day and night. A pilot plant was economical from the day it was built.2 The main expense is the chimney and this might be replaced with a fabric (3) or a vortex (4.) People will make what they consider statements of “facts” not knowing (or perhaps caring) that there are exceptions. Ignorance may be no excuse in the law but it gives conviction to the pundit who believes his facts have “validity.” There is a perspective that proclaims, “don’t bother me with the facts as I have already made up my mind.” It may be because ignorance can give a feeling of “validity,” righteousness and in metaphor even “bliss.”
There is nothing wrong with developing other form of energy. If they are viable they will succeed in the market place. If not they will fail. What we shouldn’t do is have the government subsidize alternative fuel that are not viable. Now if some environmental group wants to subsidize an alternative form of energy with private money I will support that 100%
Liberal is posing a false dichotomy. Conservation is part of the mix, and the most cost effective of all especially when designed in at an early stage; here I include things like buildings, city planning, and transport. A barrel saved is a barrel earned.
Excellent review in Nature 454, August 14, 2008. I list here some of the problems, which should of course be seen, not as deal breaking objections in themselves, but as part of the mix:
Hydroelectricity, lack of sites, environmental costs, large upfront capital expenditure
Biofuels of all kinds, competition for land
Wind, intermittency (I would now add, from what I have read, potential shortage of the rare earth metals required for suitable turbine steel)
CO2 capture, sheer scale of the problem. Even if we had a good technology for trapping it from power plants, and a good place to put it, the amount of sheer stuff to be moved would be comparable with the amount of oil we move around the globe.
Solar, perhaps the most favoured option. Much more efficient use of sunlight than biomass. Intermittency still a problem. (I would add, however, that daylight hours tend to correspond with highest demand)
Wave and tidal power, difficult engineering, best sites often remote from demand
A couple of general comments; if we are relying on market forces, the way to go is to remove the subsidies on fossil fuel, and internalise the externalities by a straightforward carbon tax. Why do the free market system’s self-appointed supporters here throw up their hands in horror at the very suggestion? There is also a case for subsidising new technologies, until they can begin to achieve economies of scale, and because private capital is understandably reluctant to take on major risks. The big problem with subsidies, especially in the US (think corn ethanol, mineral resource depletion allowances, and the biggest subsidy of all which is home mortgage interest relief) is that they come to be seen as permanent entitlements.
There are no “valid reasons to oppose the development of alternative fuels,”
However, there is no reason at all to believe that governments can legislate alternative fuels into economically viable substitutes for coal, petroleum and natural gas.
Well if you want fiction then I guess you can’t go past TheOwn4g3 answer, He even admits he didn’t research it. Sadly the pay back period (in terms of energy has been done) and for wind it is 3 to 8 months, nonsense about further consumption due to maintenance is laughable unless TheOwn4g3 is suggesting coal is maintenance free and after the 3 to 8 months wind power is pure energy profit a coal power station is going to keep needing coal for it’s entire working life.
http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_potential.html#What%20is%20the%20energy%20payback%20time%20for%20a%20wind%20turbine
I would imagine that the deniers here will come up with some clever comeback like “you can’t trust this it comes from the wind industry” O.K. Double the figure they supplied and you are still only talking about 6-18 months and then it free energy.
They are quite a number of excuses/stories that circulate about a number of green alternative energies, like wind generators are noisy, they kill birds or they look ugly (I’d like to see just one denier post a picture of a pretty coal fired power station). some deniers have even tried inventing their own, like they will stop the wind or slow the Earths rotation, pretty easy to pick those who were asleep in science class with those ones.
Even alternative doesn’t always mean green, here in Australia there is a plan to burn (20%) renewable native trees in coal fired power stations, this is technically adding Co2 to the atmosphere but it is coming from a renewable source that took it’s Co2 from the atmosphere in the first place this has a number of benefits, it reduces the stations effective emissions of Co2 by 20% it also gives local farmers a drought proof extra crop that they can grow in parts of their property were no food crop will grow.
Real easy, the environmentalists don’t want solar power in the Sonora desert because it might displace wildlife and damage the ecosystem. Environmentalists want to dictate exactly where wind turbines can be put up (can’t be were people can see them). As for geothermal energy depending on what type you are talking about, certain areas already use geothermal energy in new homes if the homeowner wants it. The main objections to tidal energy is killing fish.
Most conservatives don’t mind alternative fuels they just don’t want it pushed down their throat with increased taxes especially when the environmentalists have delayed or out right blocked most forms of energy production in the past two decades.
Wind, solar, tidal and geothermal energy are not really “fuels” they are energy sources that we get courtesy of the solar system.
Fuel is something that is burnt and that’s usually a one way process!
People object to wind power because it is considered an eye sore. People object to tidal power because it gets in the way of merchant shipping and fishing boats. I’m not saying those are good objections, I’m just saying that’s why they object.
Vested interests in fossil fuels – very probably!
Bio fuels are an extremely bad idea because they reduce our capacity for food production. 40% of the world’s plankton has gone and almost all fisheries are in a state of collapse. Large trawlers are being used to gather up thousands of tons of plankton which is being turned into animal feed. Frankly, I am beginning to doubt that the earth is capable of sustaining 6 billion people SUSTAINABLY THE way we are going?!?
Hedge funds, futures trading and commodity brokers are playing havoc with global food pricing and production. In fact, Mitsubishi is stockpiling as many Blue Fin Tuna as possible in its refrigerated warehouse because it expects to make a fortune selling it on when the Blue Fin Tuna go extinct – profiteering from extinction!
Phoenix Quill: so the future of the planet is to be sacrificed because alternative fuels are not competitive?!?? That’s a remarkable philosophy, especially coming from a “philosopher”!
If you are talking about development of those technologies, then there is none, with the exception, possibly of geothermal which has been known to cause earthquakes.
Now if you are talking about their mainstream use then we have to break them down a bit:
Wind- Can be done in a relatively cheap manner, but provides a small amount of energy and certainly can only be used as a supplement in its current technological state. When trying to use wind to supplement higher levels of consumption, it has been very ineffectual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power
Solar – Wickedly expensive. It takes 15 years to get the energy out of solar cells that it took to create the solar cells in the first place.
http://www.house-energy.com/Solar/Costs-Payback-Solar.htm
Geothermal – Good alternative, but very location dependent. Unfortunately, many of the locations in which this would be a cheap methods have siesmic activity. Given that this process is known to create more earthquakes, this can be a problematic fix. Further, this process has been known to release CO2, unless well regulated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_geothermal_system
Tidal – Currently very expensive and also very location dependent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power
The best alternative is nuclear. Currently the cost of this is high and it has a very bad reputation due to greeners once again scaring the public with garbage and psuedo-science. The cost is unreasonably high for this power due to construction costs. Fortunately, this can be entirely mitigated if they work out the construction of many sites using the same design. Combine this with the government allowing land to be bought for the purpose of nuclear site construction and allowing the reuse of spent fuel rods, and nuclear power could easily be as inexpensive as coal currently is. This is a technology that we don’t have to develop, we just have to work it in an intelligent manner. Further, unlike every other “alternative” you have listed, this power is not affected by location nor limited in its ability to provide useful consistent power. Further, you can make this power even more efficient by using the cooling water in the nuclear power plants to heat nearby factories.
The fears generated by nuclear power are entirely unreasonable. In America, there has been 0 deaths from nuclear power plant malfunctions. It is safe and the “nuclear waste” that is “horrible” and “never goes away” is blown way out of proportion. The pellets that are the nuclear waste can be picked up without gloves or any protection and cause no problems and in fact give off far less radiation that you would get a doctors office when getting an x-ray.
Paul B,
I completely agree, get rid of govt subsidies on fossil fuels use. Get rid of gov’t subsidies in general. WHile tehre are some govt subisdies for fossil fuels, there are quite a number of subsidies for every one of the “greener” energies listed. In fact, they have to subsidize at a higher rate by energy obtained. In fact, I would be all for a carbon tax and a removal of subsidies on all energy and indeed in general. Then giving that tax money saved/generated back to the people. Sure our bills will go up, but that will be more than matched by the amount of money that I don’t have to give to the govt.
Dana,
Since you are trying to call me out on my numbers for solar power, perhaps you would like to back up your statements with evidence. I looked at getting discounted solar cellls with the gov’t subsidies and placing them on my house. It would take more than 15 years to make up my initial investment. I looked at this about 1 year ago. Now if you want me to believe the figures usually quoted for 3 years to make up the initial cost of investment, as I found in a pro-greener site, then I would suggest you direct me to a site where I can purchase these solar panels cheaply, so that I can place them on my home. This way we both win. Until that point, I am going to go with my figures, thank you very much. Further, as for subsidies, you should listen to your compatriot. They cause a feeling of entitlement. Offering money for research and getting the technology up to the point of being competitive does not.
Herein lies the problem with my believing what you say Dana.
I look at the pro greener websites that say you can make up your investment on solar in 3 years which are the same that say it only takes 2.7 years to make up the energy used. I try to place solar cells on my own house and find that it will take 15 years to make up the investment by using the cheapest cells I can find and placing it together myself, even after the government subsidies. Why the inconsistency?
Phoenix nailed it! I don’t think any reasonable person is oppossed to alternative fuel.
First I want to get a quick correction out of the way, because you know how much I hate misinformation. CO2 Expeller claimed “It takes 15 years to get the energy out of solar cells that it took to create the solar cells in the first place.”
This is a false statement. What his link showed is that it takes 10-15 years for solar PV to pay for itself. This has nothing to do with the energy it takes to create them, which is relatively minimal. On top of that, I believe these figures are out of date. At the business park where I work, they just installed solar panels as shading for a parking lot, and the park manager said the payback time is only 6 years. Solar PV prices have been dropping fairly dramatically recently – in fact there was Duke study concluding that they’re now cheaper than new nuclear power.
http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/NCW-SolarReport_final1.pdf
So back to the question at hand. I don’t think anyone (other than some fossil fuel companies and those who are paid off by these companies) oppose the development of alternative fuel and energy technologies. The question is how much people are willing to fund their R&D and subsidize them. Some of the most politically conservative oppose all subsidies and think new technologies should be able to compete on their own in the free market.
The problem with this thinking is that new technologies are always expensive when first developed and produced, so it’s very difficult for them to compete with long-established technologies which already have the benefit of the economies of scale. However when the new technology provides a public benefit in comparison to the established technology, as alternative fuels and energies do (cleaner air, water, domestic energy production, no concern about fuel supply, reduction in carbon emissions, etc.), there is justification to fund and subsidize these technologies to help them gain a foothold in the market and achieve a cost reduction via those economies of scale. In fact as discussed above in response to CO2 Expeller’s comment, that’s exactly what’s happening with solar PV right now. Hybrids are another example – they were subsidized due to their public benefit (less oil consumption, less pollution, etc.), they gained a market foothold and their prices came down, and the subsidies were phased-out. Now they’re competitive on their own.
However, you could call the opposition of any subsidies a valid reason to oppose development of alternative fuel and energy technologies. It just depends how much value you place on all those benefits alternative fuels and energies provide.
Opposition to specific alternative fuels can be valid too. For example, corn-based ethanol produces approximately the same net carbon emissions as burning gasoline, so at this point there’s little justification to continue funding its development. However, the technology has paved the way for other more environmentally friendly sources of ethanol (i.e. switchgrass), so personally I think it was worth initially supporting and funding.
Some people have argued that wind turbines kill too many birds, but their avian death toll is dwarfed by utility transmission and distribution lines, collisions with motor vehicles, collisions with windows, pesticides, cats, etc. This is simply not a valid reason to oppose wind power.
http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html
Others have claimed wind power is an ‘eyesore’, which is completely subjective (I strongly disagree), and thus also not a valid reason.
Another argument is that most sources of renewable energy can’t provide baseload power. However, some can (geothermal and concentrated solar thermal, for example), and not being able to provide baseload does not invalidate their contribution to our power generation. Thus this is not a very valid reason for opposition either.
Ultimately the main reason for opposition is the cost and not wanting to fund subsidies. As I said, there is some validity to this opposition, as it simply depends how much you value clean air, clean water, domestic energy and job production, decreased reliance on fossil fuels, increased national security, reduction of global warming and ocean acidification, etc. etc. Considering all these benefits, personally I think alternative fuels and energies are well worth funding and subsidizing, but others disagree. But of course I’m right and they’re wrong
*edit @ Expeller* my criticism was not of your numbers, it was that you got the facts wrong. You used a monetary figure (15 years for ROI) and equated it with energy (“It takes 15 years to get the *energy* out of solar cells…”). I thought it went without saying that energy is not money, but apparently it needs saying twice.
As for the numbers, apparently you didn’t notice that I did give a specific example. The ROI depends on how much energy you use. For a larger application like parking lot shading, more solar panels are used, and the ROI time decreases. For a smaller application like an individual residence, 10-15 years is probably an accurate ROI time. Even for a home it depends on how much energy is used. So we both made an error in making blanket statements about solar PV ROI time, when it depends on the size of the application. But regardless, you were still wrong to equate ROI time with energy.
My company is involved in the development of alternative energy from waste streams generated by industrial processes. I have a very good business reasons to wish for slower development of alternative fuels. First, slower development of alternative fuels will raise energy prices generally, and therefore make my company’s existing investments more profitable and more valuable. Secondly, slower development means less competition for process patents and resources used to make alternative fuels. With less competition, my company can grow faster.
Note to Bad Moon. I like the geothermal concept you present, but it is a regional solution. It is a good idea in Alberta where there are lots of wells, but not as good in Manitoba with fewer wells. One advantage of geothermal that you did not mention is that deep wells can be used for energy storage from wind and solar installations.
None, but that’s not really the issue. I haven’t look at the 2010 census but I’ll bet renters are gaining ground on home owners. I’ll let your imagination run wild on that little tidbit. It’s about application, affordability, and efficiency. Not (one) GW proponent has offered any insights to real life applications. It’s basically; a do as I tell you to do thing…which is lacking insight and practicality.
Fear Death theats “Climate Scientists in US Receive Death Threats”
I think a more valid question would be to ask what are valid reasons to oppose the development of one method of alternative fuel to another.
My area of expertise is in crop science, so I’m familiar with the debate on bio fuels, particularly ethanol. The problem with corn grain derived ethanol, as someone else mentioned, is that when you get down to it it is not very efficient. The “energy balance” for corn based ethanol is 1.3, meaning that to make 1.3 units of energy (however you’d like to measure it whether if calories or Joules) worth of ethanol it takes 1 unit of fossil fuel to produce it. Starch from the grain is horribly inefficient in producing ethanol. Sucrose from sugarcane gives a much more favorable production balance of 8 (8 units of energy from ethanol produced from 1 unit of fossil fuel input). Brazil has been doing it this way for years and has been wildly successful. Unfortunately, the US isn’t blessed with a climate that allows cane to be grown anywhere outside of the extreme deep South and Hawaii.
Ethanol based on cellulose (the dense carbon chains that make up most of a plant’s cells) looks to hold the key to producing ethanol most efficiently; however, yeast doesn’t like to ferment compounds derived from cellulose very well, so science still has a long way to go in perfecting this method.
In my opinion (I say that upfront so that I shall not be expected to provide references) the world is approaching an energy crisis as well as a global warming crisis and many resources are dwindling or are threatened by pollution. In these circumstances it seems sensible to research all forms of alternative energy including new fuels.
So the simple answer to your question is there are no valid reasons to oppose the development of alternative fuels. But there are reasons to be careful about whether and how to exploit such fuels.
My first cause for concern is food prices. Alternative fuels that require agricultural land for their production are almost certainly a bad thing in present circumstances. The developed world is already forcing up food prices by eating too much meat (which requires a lot of land for production) and processed food (food is wasted in the production process) and by wasting food in the home. These high prices are beyond the reach of many poor people. But, perhaps even worse, the developed world takes over land in poorer countries for the production of tea, coffee, bananas, cut flowers and other crops for export when that land should be used for local food production. Until we solve the gap between rich and poor countries and distribute food more fairly I can not see that it would be appropriate to add energy crops to the problem. Burning fuels from such crops in cars and planes would seem obscene.
Next I am concerned by the possibility that wilderness areas (including forests) might be cleared for the growth of energy crops. Clearing such areas would release large quantities of CO2 to add to the global warming problem and would cause a great deal of other environmental damage such as loss of habitats and bio-diversity.
My next concern is the transport problems surrounding alternative fuels. If they are based on field crops (such as willow) then bringing those crops to a central conversion plant will involve a great deal of transport which will emit CO2 and use a large proportion of the energy produced. This can only be mitigated by growing the crops locally which would mean the surrounding area would have to be given over entirely to one crop, for the life of the plant, with consequent pest control and biodiversity problems.
Of course waste, both industrial and domestic, can be a fuel or can be converted to a fuel but this has its problems too. There is a need to be careful about pollution and there is the usual transport problem. But certainly there is scope for energy recovery from waste and in the process damaging methane emissions from waste can be put to good use instead of adding to the global warming problem.
Recently scientists have been talking of growing algae in large tanks and converting the algae into fuel. Again I think this should be explored but care will be needed to avoid pollution and to ensure the process is sustainable in the sense that it does not consume other dwindling resources. I would be particularly concerned if the algae were genetically modified, because of the risks of such organisms escaping and damaging the environment in unpredictable ways.
My final concern is that all these possibilities might be used as an excuse for business as usual. It seems clear to me that they can only be very partial solutions to our problems and in some cases have the potential to make matters worse. For that reason I believe we need to concentrate on reducing consumption of fuel and of products requiring fuel for their manufacture and transport.
The developed world has created a lifestyle which is needlessly profligate with scarce resources. We have also created an advertising industry that succeeds in persuading people that consumerism is a good thing and a route to happiness. The truth is that consumerism is making people less happy, less healthy and less wise. Those who recognise that sufficient food and shelter are enough can enjoy life much more. They can enjoy leisure and family rather than work all hours to keep up with the neighbours expenditure on stuff. They can spend their money on more life enhancing pursuits like theatre, dancing, singing, music. They can travel in more healthy and satisfying ways such as on foot, by bicycle and by public transport – rather than in isolating metal boxes called cars.
My conclusion is that alternative fuels and other sources of energy need to be explored but they should be used with care. Top priority should be given to reducing consumption and to enjoying healthier and more fulfilling lives that are not obsessed with stuff.
Best wishes for a more sustainable and fun future.
I once posed the thought that power lines were ugly and a blight, and I looked forward to the day there was a windmill on every lot. The response was “I think that would be a wash.”
Many alternatives have problems. They are all less problematic than the extraction and burning of fossil fuels. I believe this is self evident, unless you approve of strip mining, mountain top removal, oil spills, ground water contamination from frakking, ocean acidification, mercury contamination, etc.
Personally, I think the wind opponents have a point. 24×7 low frequency whooshing and flickering would probably give me vertigo and migraines. I’d like to see the confirmed numbers on bird / bat kills, it seems to be less than from other human installed infrastructures.
Deep well high temperature geothermal causes earthquakes.
Biofuels are potentially a dangerous route if we allow fuel to take precedence over food, we engage in more large scale destruction of natural habitat for biofuel plantations, or if reckless genetic engineering creates an environmental catastrophe.
How is it that something as simple as hemp, which has every advantage – fast growing, tolerance for marginal soil, tolerance for drought, stablizes and restores soils, high yield – is off the table for social reasons? Farmers could grow their own diesel, be self sufficient for fuel, feed the remainder to their stock and sell the fiber. But it was outlawed. Why do you suppose that happened?
We can do better.
If we put solar on existing structures the additional impact is zero. Passive solar (heating and lighting) and solar thermal are the simplest possible thing you can image, and they work great. PV isn’t far behind. We could deploy these infrastructures right now and solve 90% of the problem in a few short decades. It would have been done by now but for what?
It is morally indefensible to ignore energy conservation.
My personal short term goal is to get a low temp geothermal / solar assist heat pump installed and have it powered entirely by PV. 100% heating, cooling and hot water, off grid and no emissions. Done. Not cheap, but very doable right now.
Why aren’t we talking about truly revolutionary technologies like thorium molten salt reactors or high altitude autogyros?
The bottom line is the bottom line. There is no reason we cannot fix the world energy problem, but that it affects the bottom line of the vested interests.
We have light water reactors because the nuclear industrial complex decided they needed a technology they could make money on, selling fuel assemblies. Never mind that the taxpayer is stuck with the bill for the spent fuel.
Our friend dx is quite right, but when you scale that rationale up to the size of national government it becomes self defeating.
All the rationale you see here about subsidies and other excuses for non action is regurgitated crap that has been around since day one. The vested interests don’t want change that takes away their power and gives it to ordinary citizens. The create disinformation machines that spread narratives designed to appeal to the base instinct and prejudice. Once the memes get imbedded they self perpetuate.
Hemp was a threat to the nacent oil business so we got “Reefer Madness”. Ronnie Raygun took the solar panels off the White House because they implied “sacrifice” and we couldn’t abide that on our “Morning in America”. We get a completely fabricated climagegate story, from information stolen years ago, right before Copenhagen. Gee, big surprise there.
God forbid we stop the industrial complex raping everyone and everything for profit. That would make you a “degenerate” or a “socialist” or an “enviromental radical” or whatever the bogeyman dujour happens to be.
Alternative fuel is using things like ethanol for fuel. In theory it is a good idea but when the leftists and government get involved, they pay farmers to produce ethanol from corn and they don’t save any fuel in the process. All they do is make corn more expensive and that makes all food more expensive and poor people suffer horribly with absolutely no justification. Farmers get rich and brain dead politicians get the farmers votes. Leftists feel good because they are doing something but in typical fashion it is entirely negative and destructive except that it expands the influence of government and unjustly enriches one class of people at the expense of another. Typical socialism in action with the exception that farmer benefit. Usually nobody except government benefits from socialists.
I guess money but in the long run the benefits should out weigh the costs.
Right, you left out bio fuel because that’s a whole other debate in itself, and there is an opposing side with pages of arguments, most of them stretched, wrong or lies.
But that didn’t stop some of the deniers from turning the question right back to bio fuel anyway, and not even touching wind, solar, tidal or geothermal. Whatever. Bio fuel is where their talking points are so that’s should be expected, it’s just what they do.
And why are so many deniers so keen on algae oil all of a sudden. Is there oil funded research on that? Did Bill O’reilly talk about it? The only reason I can imagine is that it is still years away from being viable, when we have viable options now. So of course, oil companies would push for the non viable option. It has great potential though.
Another one is ethanol from cellulose, and methane from bio mass. A brewing operation like that could start with the waste from food, farming, paper, lumbar, waste disposal, and many other industries. They could produce fuel and soil.
Nobody opposes that, they oppose ethanol from corn sugar, because that’s what they know, but if there were government subsidies for ethanol from cellulose, deniers would oppose that too. Unless of course republicans were in power at the time it was subsidized, then they would be all over it.
And we can’t expect any of the alternatives to compete with fossil fuels in the market place. Fossil fuels have an unfair advantage, it’s densely packed energy that literally spews up from the ground. It’s filthy and toxic, but it’s cheap. Everything else requires a little bit more work, that’s all. But that’s not a valid reason to oppose it.
so the reasons are:
1) they have a lower profit margin then fossil fuels.
And that’s it. That’s all there is.
Well, I guess a valid reason would be oil companies feel threatened by the development of alternative fuels and don’t want us using them until they have found a way to make profit out of it.
DTE (Detroit Edison) is the company that supplies the energy source for my town and it is less than a mile away from us. It generally just burns coal so the air quality here is pretty bad; high levels of sulfur dioxide in the air. Also, the EPA is suing them for doing an illegal expansion which will make it even worse. But even a company as nefarious as this one offers geothermal energy. At a price of course.
There is a HUGE building next to me called the IHM, which basically a residence for nuns owned by the Vatican that normally pays THOUSANDS to heat and cool the facility. They switched to geothermal and are now saving money. Even the Catholic Church, which is usually so backwards, has finally gotten a clue. I don’t know why other people haven’t yet.
The ENTIRE country of Iceland is heated by geothermal energy. Sure, they have more tectonic activity, meaning they don’t need to dig as deep to access the underground heat, BUT oil/coal companies don’t have as much of a stronghold there as they do here.
Most people oppose ethanol because it uses too much land, which could be used for growing food. And with all the hungry people out there we really don’t need huge crops dedicated only to fueling our vehicles. I actually agree with this. I think we should drop ethanol/biofuels for the time being.
Wind mills are great, in my opinion. Their initially expensive to build and people just don’t want to spend money on it.
Hydroelectric energy (or tidal I suppose) is not really that environmentally friendly. The dams often interfere with the ecosystem.
Solar is an excellent source of energy. I don’t see very many problems with it, and people in Spain can verify that. They have a beautiful power station that harnesses 11 megawatts of energy without any damage to the environment.
Solar heating is also one of the best ways to heat your home along with geothermal. You save money in the long run. It eventually pays for itself despite the fact that the initial cost will be expensive. Even DTE admits it. The initial cost does make it unaccessable to many people though.
Each type of fuel has pros and cons. But the one that comes out the winner really is geothermal. I will admit that I am a little biased toward geothermal energy but for good reasons. I’m also a little biased against coal, but for good reasons, partly because I am personally affected by it. All of my points are backed up in the source section.
Of course we also have politicians with sketchy intentions telling us what we should and should not spend money on. But remember, many politicians are funded by coal/oil companies, so take everything they say with a grain of salt. Even people on here might have stocks in companies, such as DTE. Of course that will cloud their judgment and they may want to skewer the facts.
Remember the biggest reason people throw around? Money. Of course I want our tax dollars invested in something that’s going to effectively work but I also think that some companies feel threatened by this budding technology and THAT is the biggest reason we (the United States) is lagging behind other countries in our development of alternative energy. And yes, we are lagging.
We could easily catch up if we get beyond politics and started working together. The environment is a nonpartisan issue! It should be a moral issue not a political issue.
None. May the best technologies win. I really hope that the US can use a combination of the ideas to be energy independent.
Leave A Reply