Re: [pf] Alternative energy: what will we use as fuel after oil?

At 14:41 20/3/2001 -0800, Diane F. wrote:
>In the national discussion on how to lower our dependence on fossil fuels,
I have seen nuclear energy mentioned frequently as a possible "clean"
energy source.
> a Bush Guy claims radical enviros now say wind and solar energy
development will cause too much damage to the environment, although the
Green Proponent said she is unaware of such enviros.
>
>I sense a shift starting to come, a move of the nation starting to think,
OK, what will we use as fuel after oil?
>
>I invite pf-ers to share their thoughts on this topic.  Has nuclear energy
production improved to the point it is now safe to use?  Are giant windmill
fields unrealistic?  Is solar too undependable?  What do you envision as
necessary to supply your energy needs?
>
>Diane Fitzsimmons
>Norman, Okla.
>

· You should start with the general, and only after fixing the framework of
the discussion, get down to the nitty-gritty, the particular.

· Diane's last three words are "the general": what are your energy needs?

· IMO the average per-capita energy use (all types) in the USA and Canada
is way more than is needed: just look at Japan, Germany, even England. So
the almost universal economic assumption, that "to keep the economy growing
we must have more energy than we're using now", is not just suspect, it's
wrong.
· I'm not talking about just increasing efficiency, wasting less, though
that's the first and easiest place to start in estimating how much and
which kinds of energy are needed. There's an obvious limit to using various
methods to increase efficiency: growth uses up the energy savings and more.
And although certain methods have a negative cost (they pay when used),
after the cheap methods have been applied, saving more gets more expensive,
even if technically feasible.

· No, it's necessary to start from scratch, to get down to fundamentals. I
first met this point in reading Amory Lovins' "Soft Energy Paths".
· The question is: "what service does the user want, that they're currently
using this amount and kind of energy to supply?"

-  Not: 
"I need a car, of a certain size, which uses X amount of gasoline per year".
   But:
"What do I want to do, that I use my car for? Will a different car provide
that service just as well?; can I do some of those things by other means?
('let your fingers do the walking'); can I gain the same benefits by other
arrangements like car-sharing and/or hiring a car on those few times a year
I need it (or when I just feel like going for a drive)?" And so on.

-  Not:
"Electric energy use has been growing for more than a century; we're at the
production limit now so There Is No Alternative to building more power
plants; otherwise the economy will slow, or even stop".
   But:
"What is electricity being used for where it is less suitable than some
other energy type?" "If the cost of electricity was ten times, a thousand
times, what it is now, how would it be used differently?" "If /I/ want
electricity, why don't /I/ produce most of what I need?"


· Getting down to fundamentals.
  Not simplistic thinking; or worse, leaving the thinking to someone else.


· /After/ some answer is obtained for those basic questions, so you've got
facts suitable to provide the framework or parameters within which you're
working, /then/ you can start looking around at your options.


· I don't have a magic wand, or The Plan, or anything.


· What I am convinced of, is the need for diversity; some reasonable
alternative, if your original (maybe cheap) source of energy starts to vanish.

· So every home and factory should have at least two sources of energy.
Right now, if you've got gas reticulated down your street, /it/ should be
used for heating and cooking (and is available for lighting when
necessary), and your electric power supply used just for the things it does
best, like electronics, motors, and fluorescent lamps.
  In the near future, you'd have a natural-gas-powered fuel cell (or
microturbine, if you're in an apartment building) in your basement, and
during part of the day and year your equipment would be one of millions of
power plants supplying electricity to the power grid. The rest of the time
you'd be using electricity from the grid. Further on, hydrogen, perhaps
produced renewably via wind, solar or geothermal power, would be the energy
carrier your fuel cell runs on.

· I've said nothing further about nuclear production of electricity. I
think leaving such a dangerous and everything-affecting technology to
private enterprise was and is a major mistake. But I'm no longer as
strongly against it in principle as I was, before genetic engineering came
to the fore. It /may/ have a place, if of the right type, in the right
hands, and at certain locations where there's nothing else that's close to
competing with it (in all dimensions, not just economic). 
  The early February item:
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=9689&newsDate=4-Feb-2001
says: "The US nuclear power industry on Friday offered itself as a
'low-cost' alternative for helping to solve energy shortages .."
   shows exactly the wrong way to go about taking such decisions. Wrong
type, in the wrong hands, and wrong information being presented.


· I see this whole scenario, with people getting upset all over the place,
as a great opportunity to have a damned good look at the way things have
been done in the last few decades. 
 I've just come up with my motto: "A wind turbine in every farmer's field!"
There's /nothing/ people do that has /no/ effect on the environment, but
choosing the methods that have the least effects is the way to go. IMO

David.
(David MacClement) davd@ihug.co.nz 
http://www.geocities.com/davdd.geo/index.html#top
************************************************

____________________________________________________________
T O P I C A  -- Learn More. Surf Less. 
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose.
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01