COAL
World coal consumption is increasing
nearly 6% annually, driven largely by China, where it is increasing 10%
annually. China now consumes over 40% of the world’s most polluting
energy source; the U.S. consumes 14%.
WIND
The NY Times reported that U.S. wind
power had a “lousy year”, down 72% from last year’s pace, at only 395MW,
the lowest level of new wind energy installations since 2007. Advocates
of wind energy blame the recession, low natural gas prices that make
wind less economically competitive, and uncertainty regarding government
subsidies. Wind has been the most cost-competitive renewable energy
source, thus this is very bad news for everyone hoping to quickly reduce
fossil fuel consumption.
Oregon became our largest producer of
wind energy this year, surpassing Texas, which long held that position.
Further growth of Texas wind power is hindered by transmission
limitations. Most of their wind is in the western side of the state, far
from major population centers—a common problem with renewable energy.
SOLAR
Conversely, California regulatory
authorities have suddenly shifted gears and are now approving solar
energy projects at “warp speed”, per the NY Times. The apparent reason
for this haste is federal subsidies that are scheduled to expire.
Currently, the feds will pay for 30% of solar project construction costs
and will provide low-interest loans for 80% of the balance. The direct
payments end this year and the loan offer expires next September, per
current laws. The NY Times expressed concern that when these federal
subsidies expire, new solar projects will plummet. One power company
executive said “these projects are driven by public policy, not by
economics”, confirming that solar is intrinsically still far more
expensive than other energy sources.
Since late August, California has
approved 7 major projects. The latest was the Calico project in the
desert of San Bernardino County. This 850MW project was scaled down to
664MW to reduce its impact on desert tortoises and bighorn sheep. Calico
is a solar thermal rather than a solar photovoltaic project—the sun’s
rays are reflected by giant mirror arrays, heating hydrogen gas that
drives an electric generator. Each of the 26,500 mirror arrays is nearly
40-feet across and tracks the sun across the sky. A slightly larger
version of Calico will be built elsewhere with 28,400 mirror arrays
generating 709MW. Together these two projects are budgeted to cost $4.6
billion for 3.6 billion kWh/year.
I compute that scaling up these two
projects to provide all U.S. energy needs (25 trillion kWh/year) would
cost $32 trillion—over $100,000 per U.S. resident—that’s about twice the
estimated cost quoted in a report by solar proponents that was
published in Scientific American last year.
CLIMATE CHANGE SKEPTICISM
The LA Times recently reported on what
Americans believe about climate change and global warming. Polls show
that in the last 4 years, the portion that believe there is solid
scientific evidence for climate change has dropped from 79% to 59%,
while those who believe humans are the cause of global warming has
dropped from 50% to 34%. Some compare human-induced climate change with
the much-ballyhooed Y2K disaster that never happened. It’s extremely
regrettable that this very important issue has become so
politicized—many scientists behaved unprofessionally and did society a
great disservice.
POOR EXXON
Ever wonder where you gas dollars go?
Exxon Mobile, the world largest public company, spent $41 billion to buy
natural gas company XTO Energy. Exxon is very keen on natural gas,
saying it is available, is affordable, has infrastructure already in
place, produces 60% less CO2 emissions, and is abundant enough to last
another 100 years. Too bad for Exxon that natural gas prices have
dropped so low—guess they’ll just raise gasoline prices to cover their
loss.
WHAT SHOULD WE DO?
Climate change and all that has become
such a divisive issue that Americans may well never reach a consensus.
But, I think we can all agree that we are bankrupting our economy and
poisoning our planet by making energy with 19th century technology.
We’re paying over $400 billion each year for foreign oil, enriching a
lot of people who don’t like us. We then convert less than one-billionth
of that fuel into energy and convert all the rest into pollution. We
aren’t going to solve this problem by trying to force Americans to use
half as much energy or pay 3 times as much for it.
We need science to develop far better
solutions. We need new energy sources that are clean, cheap and
abundant. I think LENR (Low Energy Neutron Reactions) is our best hope.
LENR doesn’t require inventing any new “magic”. The theory is
straightforward and so simple that it’s brilliant—most of the greatest
ideas are obvious once someone else has thought of them. For about the
cost of 30 minutes worth of imported oil, we can give LENR a chance to
prove itself. We have so little to lose and so very much to gain.
Regards,
Robert
www.guidetothecosmos.com
Author of "Everyone's Guide to Atoms, Einstein, and the Universe"
and "Can Life Be Merely An Accident?"
|
