# Lots of Cheap Energy In Sight? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 26, 2004, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lots-of-cheap-energy-in-sight/261654 "2004-08-26T18:52:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![spingears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ebca7d/32.png) [@spingears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spingears)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2004, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lots-of-cheap-energy-in-sight/261654/1 "2004-08-26T18:52:47Z")
A companion post: [$50/Barrell Oil](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=272741) Haven’t you hear of Wind Farms with 3MW Generators? (BIG Wind Mills!). Ocean currents water mills? Ocean wave gemerators? Ocean Thermal Engergy Conversion? (OTEC) Photo Voltaic Arrays for your house top? Prefabed insulated concrete walls for you new house? Etc, etc. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2004, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lots-of-cheap-energy-in-sight/261654/2 "2004-08-26T21:21:09Z")
Nice thought. unfortunately, they are all together dwarfed by hydro, petrochemical, and nuclear power. And the former is easily tapped out in the developed world and the latter currently faces untenable barriers because of very shortsighted environmentalists. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2004, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lots-of-cheap-energy-in-sight/261654/3 "2004-08-26T22:47:58Z")
> [@smiling bandit](#): > > and the latter currently faces untenable barriers because of very shortsighted environmentalists. Cite to evidence the barriers to nuclear power are these rather than economic barriers, at least partly due to the subsidization and effective subsidization of fossil fuels? (Hint: Nuclear power is apparently not cheaper in countries like France and Japan that use it more than we do; it is just that fossil fuels are more expensive there.) There are also real issues with nuclear power, in regards to waste, safety, nuclear proliferation, and terrorism. These aren’t necessarily insurmountable but they are unlikely to be surmounted unless they are dealt with honestly. ---
**Author:** ![Colophon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f05b48/32.png) [@Colophon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colophon)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2004, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lots-of-cheap-energy-in-sight/261654/4 "2004-08-26T23:20:57Z")
Yes, but the greens are also misguidedly trying to stop wind farms from being built, on the grounds that it spoils the landscape. Yeah? Not half as much as being _underwater_ would spoil the landscape. Personally I find wind turbines quite beautiful, especially in the knowledge that they are generating clean power. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lots-of-cheap-energy-in-sight/261654/5 "2004-08-27T01:11:41Z")
Wind is nice and all that and can certainly be part of a coutnries energy generating protfolio. But iconsidering the low load factors for Wind and the inability to dispatch it when needed, menas it will never amount to much of the generation. Dispatchable energy sources, such as gas, coal and hydro will always rule the day. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lots-of-cheap-energy-in-sight/261654/6 "2004-08-27T03:54:17Z")
**Colophon:** _Yes, but the greens are also misguidedly trying to stop wind farms from being built, on the grounds that it spoils the landscape._ Some environmentalists are making such objections, it’s true (and so are many property owners and developers with not-so-environmental motives). However, I think it’s fair to say that a solid majority of people who describe themselves as “environmentalists” support renewable energy development, including wind farms. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lots-of-cheap-energy-in-sight/261654/7 "2004-08-27T05:54:01Z")
Just not in their backyard. Nantucket Sound is densely populated with people who profess to be environmentalists, and they are opposing offshore wind farms because they spoil the skyline. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lots-of-cheap-energy-in-sight/261654/8 "2004-08-27T06:15:19Z")
> [@spingears](#): > > A companion post: > [$50/Barrell Oil](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=272741) > > Haven’t you hear of Wind Farms with 3MW Generators? (BIG Wind Mills!). > … Those are great and all but there are a limited number of places where the direction and speed of the prevailing wind currents is consistant enough to make wind turbines worthwhile. That is not to say that we shouldn’t use them. ---
**Author:** ![Jdeforrest](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/49beb7/32.png) [@Jdeforrest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jdeforrest)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lots-of-cheap-energy-in-sight/261654/9 "2004-08-27T12:23:21Z")
This just in. Cheap, clean, abundant energy for everyone in seven years. [Link](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/040825094820.htm) I’m keeping my fingers crossed. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lots-of-cheap-energy-in-sight/261654/10 "2004-08-27T12:37:44Z")
**SS:** _Just not in their backyard. Nantucket Sound is densely populated with people who profess to be environmentalists, and they are opposing offshore wind farms because they spoil the skyline._ Are you claiming that **most** environmentalists don’t support wind farm projects that happen to be in their backyards? Because the [poll numbers](http://www.utilitiesproject.com/documents.asp?grID=111&d_ID=2404) on wind energy in general and on the Cape Wind project (for an offshore wind farm in Nantucket Sound\*) don’t seem to bear that out: > [@](#): > > In nearby Massachusetts, the proposal for a large offshore wind farm in Nantucket has triggered well-funded and vocal opposition, which has been widely reported in the media. At least one poll has been undertaken so far, commissioned in 2003 by Cape Wind, the developer proposing the wind farm, and carried out by Opinion Dynamics Corporation. Among the residents of Cape Cod and the islands surrounding the proposed wind farm location, 42 percent of the respondents favored meeting future energy needs with wind, compared to 7 percent for nuclear, 7 percent for oil, 6 percent for natural gas, 7 percent for “other,” and 3 percent for coal. Statewide, the figures were 47 percent for wind, 25 percent for natural gas, 6 percent for oil, 5 percent for nuclear, and 3 percent for coal. Responding to a question about the Cape Wind project in particular, 24 percent of Cape and island residents “strongly favored” and 31 percent “somewhat favored” the proposal (55 percent approval), while 16 percent opposed and 19 percent strongly opposed the proposal (35 percent), the rest being undecided. \*Nantucket Sound itself is not in fact “densely populated with people who profess to be environmentalists”, although many anti-environmentalists probably wish it were. 😛 The dry land where the self-described environmentalists and other residents of the area actually live is generally called “Cape Cod and the islands” (Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket). ---
**Author:** ![WoodCM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/7bcc69/32.png) [@WoodCM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WoodCM)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2004, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lots-of-cheap-energy-in-sight/261654/11 "2004-08-28T06:54:19Z")
Cheap energy will always be a chimera, given the human’s infinitite capacity for power and greed. More power to preaching I say! ---
**Author:** ![Capt\_B.Phart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc29f/32.png) [@Capt\_B.Phart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt_B.Phart)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2004, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lots-of-cheap-energy-in-sight/261654/12 "2004-08-28T12:32:43Z")
> [@Jdeforrest](#): > > This just in. Cheap, clean, abundant energy for everyone in seven years. > > [Link](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/040825094820.htm) > > I’m keeping my fingers crossed. More Aussies with novel energy ideas :- [The Solar Tower](http://www.enviromission.com.au/index1.htm) Which it looks like they’re actually going to build, which since it is basically a 1Km tall chimney, scores highly on the “Gee Wizz” scale (Interestingly, none of the simulations on the site show the plume of water-vapour that the thing will generate, I’m guessing that would make it look too “industrial”) ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2004, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lots-of-cheap-energy-in-sight/261654/13 "2004-08-28T16:50:42Z")
As one who thinks that the recent Iraq war had at least a teensy bit to do with securing Mideast oil supplies, I wonder what sort of impact that $129 billion+ we spent might have had on the development and exploitation of renewable energy sources. Especially considering our entire federal investment in renewable energy for next year will only be around $375 _million_. > **[Cost of National Security](https://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/?redirect=cow)** > > What counts as national security depends on your perspective. These embeddable counters track how much the U.S. spends on a variety of programs that protect our future, from military to food assistance. Do our nation's spending choices align with... [http://www.ucsusa.org/news/positions.cfm?newsID=380](http://www.ucsusa.org/news/positions.cfm?newsID=380) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2004, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lots-of-cheap-energy-in-sight/261654/14 "2004-08-28T16:57:29Z")
> [@spingears](#): > > Haven’t you hear of Wind Farms with 3MW Generators? (BIG Wind Mills!). > Ocean currents water mills? > Ocean wave gemerators? > Ocean Thermal Engergy Conversion? (OTEC) > Photo Voltaic Arrays for your house top? > Prefabed insulated concrete walls for you new house? > Etc, etc. But you can’t use any of those things to power a car or an airplane. Not directly. You might use some of them to extract hydrogen from water, but the prospects for a “hydrogen economy” are iffy, to say the least. From the Wikipedia ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen\_car](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_car)): > [@](#): > > Three major obstacles exist in the development of a fuel cell-powered hydrogen car. The first problem is that hydrogen has a very low density. Even when the fuel is stored as a liquid in a cryogenic tank or in a pressurized tank as a gas, hydrogen cars have limited range compared to their conventional counterparts. Some research has been done into using special crystalline materials to store hydrogen at greater densities and with better safety margins. > > Instead of storing molecular hydrogen on-board, some have advocated using hydrogen reformers to extract the hydrogen from more traditional fuels including methane, gasoline, and ethanol. Many environmentalists are irked by this idea, as it promotes continued dependence on fossil fuels (at least in the case of gasoline). However, given an efficient reforming process, a vehicle using reformed gasoline or ethanol to power fuel cells would still be more efficient than vehicles running internal combustion engines. > > The second major problem involves the fuel cells that would provide electric power in a hydrogen car. Scientists are also working hard to figure out how to produce inexpensive fuel cells that are also robust enough to survive the bumps and vibrations that all automobiles have to handle. Most fuel cell designs are fragile and can’t survive in such environments. Also, many designs require rare substances such as platinum in order to work properly. > > The third problem is that while hydrogen can be used as an energy carrier, it is not an energy source. It must be produced from fossil fuels, or from some other energy source. Since all energy sources have drawbacks, a shift into hydrogen powered vehicles will require difficult political decisions on how to produce this energy. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2004, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lots-of-cheap-energy-in-sight/261654/15 "2004-08-30T17:58:11Z")
> [@](#): > > Instead of storing molecular hydrogen on-board, some have advocated using hydrogen reformers to extract the hydrogen from more traditional fuels including methane, gasoline, and ethanol. Many environmentalists are irked by this idea, as it promotes continued dependence on fossil fuels (at least in the case of gasoline). However, given an efficient reforming process, a vehicle using reformed gasoline or ethanol to power fuel cells would still be more efficient than vehicles running internal combustion engines. Actually, there was [an article](http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/305/5686/974) in _Science_ a couple of weeks ago (which you probably need a subscription to access) entitled “Hybrid Cars Now, Fuel Cell Cars Later” which argued that the best estimate of the efficiency difference between a hybrid internal combustion engine vehicle and a fuel cell vehicle using reformed fossil fuels is so small that it really is better to focus on hybrids in the near-term, with the probability that we won’t be able to get a significant improvement over hybrid technology with fuel cells until we go beyond ones that reform fossil fuels to ones that use hydrogen that is generated in some presumably renewable manner: > [@](#): > > We compare the energy efficiency of hybrid and fuel cell vehicles as well as conventional internal combustion engines. Our analysis indicates that fuel cell vehicles using hydrogen from fossil fuels offer no significant energy efficiency advantage over hybrid vehicles operating in an urban drive cycle. We conclude that priority should be placed on hybrid vehicles by industry and government. > > … > > Our analysis shows that hybrids offer the potential for tremendous improvement in energy use and significant reduction in carbon emissions compared to current ICE technology… > > Fuel cell technology is not here today. Both the Bush Administration’s Freedom-CAR program and the earlier Clinton Administration Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) launched major DOE research and development initiatives for FC-powered vehicles. The current FreedomCAR program “focuses government support on fundamental, high-risk research that applies to multiple passenger-vehicle models and emphasizes the development of fuel cells and hydrogen infrastructure technologies” (19). A successful automotive FC program must develop high-durability FC stacks with lifetimes of 5 to 10 thousand hours, well beyond today’s experience. It is impossible to estimate today whether the manufacturing cost range that FC stacks must achieve for economical passenger cars can be reached even at the largescale production runs that might be envisioned. > > The government FC research and development initiative is welcome, but it is not clear whether the effort to develop economic FC power plants for passenger cars will be successful. In parallel, we should place priority on deploying hybrid cars, beginning with today’s automotive platforms and fuels. If the justification for federal support for research and development on fuel cells is reduction in imported oil and carbon dioxide emissions, then there is stronger justification for federal support for hybrid vehicles that will achieve similar results more quickly. Consideration should be given to expanding government support for research and development on generic advanced hybrid technology and extending hybrid vehicle tax credits. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2004, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lots-of-cheap-energy-in-sight/261654/16 "2004-08-30T18:23:11Z")
Fuel cells powered by hydrogen alone pose a number of significant obstacles. One we hear about rarely is the simple but very serious problem of getting and keeping the hydrogen in the tank. It is estimated that about 60-120 million metric tonnes more of molecular hydrogen would be released into the atmosphere every year if we all switched to an effective hydrogen economy. This hydrogen easily rises to the stratosphere, and by changing the temperature and chemistry of that part of the atomosphere, could seriously impact the ozone layer. Nothing’s ever free, it seems. Cite: [http://www.h2cars.biz/artman/publish/article\_180.shtml](http://www.h2cars.biz/artman/publish/article_180.shtml) ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2004, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lots-of-cheap-energy-in-sight/261654/17 "2004-08-30T18:26:20Z")
> [@](#): > > As one who thinks that the recent Iraq war had at least a teensy bit to do with securing Mideast oil supplies, I wonder what sort of impact that $129 billion+ we spent might have had on the development and exploitation of renewable energy sources. > > Especially considering our entire federal investment in renewable energy for next year will only be around $375 million. I know you think this. if it was oil we wanted, we could have easily just bought it. Iraq was basically for sale at a very small political cost to Bush. In any event, considering renewable energy sources are essentially pipe dreams (in terms of making cost-effective facilities usable anywhere like oil or coal) 375$ is a heck of a lot of dough. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2004, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lots-of-cheap-energy-in-sight/261654/18 "2004-08-30T20:18:07Z")
> [@smiling bandit](#): > > In any event, considering renewable energy sources are essentially pipe dreams (in terms of making cost-effective facilities usable anywhere like oil or coal) 375$ is a heck of a lot of dough. It’s pretty small on the scale of subsidization for fossil fuels and for nuclear energy, which with their considerable externalized costs (esp. in the case of fossil fuels) have much less strong cases for why they ought to be subsidized. And, I don’t think they are exactly “pipe dreams”. Wind is pretty close to economically competitive today even when you don’t consider externalized costs. (Solar is still cost-competitive only in certain niche markets.) ---
**Author:** ![keeper0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b19c9b/32.png) [@keeper0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/keeper0)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2004, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lots-of-cheap-energy-in-sight/261654/19 "2004-08-30T20:34:24Z")
A sustainable fusion reaction is the only energy transition that I have heard of which would not require massive changes in the lifestyles of the industrialized world. Twenty years ago, we were twenty years away from a fusion based power plant. Today we are twenty years away. I am guessing that twenty years from now we will still be twenty years away. ---
**Author:** ![Capt\_B.Phart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc29f/32.png) [@Capt\_B.Phart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt_B.Phart)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2004, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lots-of-cheap-energy-in-sight/261654/20 "2004-08-30T21:32:15Z")
> [@keeper0](#): > > Twenty years ago, we were twenty years away from a fusion based power plant. Today we are twenty years away. I am guessing that twenty years from now we will still be twenty years away. That’s because the oil has been about to run out in 10 years for as long as I can remember. The deadline hasn’t got any closer, so small teams of specialized scientists keep chugging along with their research, without anyone bothering them much. When the oil does start to run out for real, and when it starts to hurt (and there’s lots of debate about when this will actually be) I wouldn’t be surprised to see a Manhattan Project or Apollo Program style effort - bringing in experts from many disciplines to crack the problems, things would move orders of magnitude more quickly. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lots-of-cheap-energy-in-sight/261654.md?page=2)