As the price of oil continues to climb, everyone is suddenly thinking about energy again. This is a good thing. Unfortunately, some good physics needs to be applied when looking at all the new technologies and prospects out there, and it’s simply not happening. So, I beg you, when someone starts blathering on about some new technology that is going to save the world, slap them with these three words: “Conservation of Energy”. For the physics crowd out there, you know what I mean, but just to be clear: Energy can neither be created or destroyed… all than can be done is to change its form.
The “Hydrogen Economy” is an excellent example. We’ve all heard the hype: “Cars running from Hydrogen! If only the local filling station supported it!”. Well, where is the energy coming from to generate the Hydrogen? Follow the energy trail back to its source and you’ll find Fossil Fuels (Coal, Oil, etc), Nuclear (Fission), Hydro, Wind or Solar. That’s it. That’s the list. So Hydrogen is not a net energy source, it’s an energy delivery mechanism, and the inefficiencies of generating Hydrogen for energy delivery make it unattractive in my book. Even this startup doesn’t fix the problem, they just shift the energy balance issue over to making sodium from salt… it still takes energy to convert the sodium into a form usable for their solution, so the question still comes: where is that energy coming from?
My point is that there seems to be a tremendous amount of attention at the wrong end of the problem. The rising oil prices have focused attention where the pain is, namely at the pump. But the real issue is in the generation of power, not its delivery (there are problems there too… but not as serious as the generation issue). Which brings me to those sources I just mentioned.
If you’re curious about where our (US) energy comes from, you can consult NationMaster, or if you’re ready to dig, the DOE site has some information as well. The raw data is available at the Energy Information Administration web site. The bottom line: 85% of our energy needs are supplied by fossil fuels: petroleum, coal and natural gas. These resources are finite… nobody disputes this, though how long they will last is hotly debated. One thing is clear, based on how oil prices have grown in the last few years: as China’s and India’s 2 BILLION people seek to enjoy the lifestyle that Americans and Europeans have had for the past 50 years, we are going to chew through those resources at a record pace. It’s not sustainable, perhaps not even to the end of my lifetime, much less my kids.
So here is the new rule for looking at all these new energy wonders: if you trace the energy source back to fossil fuels (by way of the electricity gird, for example), then it’s not a solution, just a mechanism for converting some of that precious energy into entropy.
With that in mind, what are some of the energy wonders out there that may be part of the solution? Biodiesel has had quite a bit of buzz lately, and while its carbon-neutral nature is laudible, it’s still solar power re-packaged. The use of waste-streams for biodiesel creation is interesting, but nobody expects that to make a significant contribution to the overall energy balance. Growing crops or algae for biodiesel is interesting, though again it’s important to point out that it’s just solar power re-packaged. Depending on who you believe, photosynthesis has an efficiency of roughly 5% (see this paper for some theoretical limits), though this research report suggests that algae efficiencies might be much higher, with hydrogen as a byproduct. As exciting as this is, it’s important to note that this process does consume fresh water, and some folks think a fresh water shortage is looming. That’s a topic for another time.
What about solar power? To cut to the quick, it’s not viable at today’s energy prices… though as energy costs rise, solar will become mainstream. Indeed, through government subsidies, you can get a solar energy system for your house (roof mounted) that will pay for itself in 5 - 7 years. An excellent resource is the Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy (DSIRE), which provides a wealth of information on what sort of grants are available to defray the cost of a solar install on your house. Again, it helps, but unless they come out with solar power roofing tiles that are economically feasible, I don’t think it’s going to hit the mass market enough to make a huge dent. Don’t get me started on those “solar-power from space platforms!” nutballs….
Hydro power is excellent, but the impact on the surrounding area usually makes such projects rare. China’s Three Gorges Dam is an amazing project, but you’d never see anything so ambitious today in the US. While there is still some Dam construction in the US, looking at the completion times of the largest dams shows that it’s been almost 30 years since a big project has been completed. An interesting talk that postulates the end of the Dam building era in the US can be found here. It’s a pity, because even though hydro is solar power repackaged (rain is the result of energy input from the sun), it’s still a renewable energy source, and it’s CLEAN.
Wind power is nice, though there is a growing NIMBY problem with those projects, along with concerns about birds being killed by the spinning blades. It’s unclear if enough of these projects can be built to make a substantial dent in the Energy budget. The same goes for tidal power.
Which brings us to the red-headed stepchild of the energy industry. Everyone’s favorite whipping boy: Nuclear fission. We get roughly 8% - 10% of our power from Nuclear energy. We could get alot more, but between NIMBY for the facility itself, NIMBY for waste storage and one ton of government regulations and bureaucracy… well, lets just say there’s a good reason a new reactor has not been built in the US in 32 years. That may be about to change. Nuclear power has been written off for quite a while now, and I think it’s time that everybody step back and take an honest look at all the issues involved and how technology has developed in the last 32 years. I think a compelling case can be made for Nuclear power, without Smithers or any three-eyed fish. But even the amount of nuclear fuel is finite, with an estimate of 4.3 - 10 million tons of uranium available. Today’s reactors use 60,000 tons annually worldwide, but they’re producing only a fraction of the world’s needs. It’s still a 100 year patch at current consumption levels (NCPA argues it’s a 300 year supply).
So it’s really a big mess. Nobody should expect any easy answers, or there wouldn’t be a problem. It’s my great hope that someone will make an impressive breakthrough in nuclear fusion that will give the prospect of fusion power generation on a reasonable timescale. However, a look at the timeline for progress in fusion research does not paint a promising picture. Sometime I’ll have to delve into why these projects take so long to complete. Look at ITER as an example… the project is planned to last 30 YEARS, with 10 years for construction and another 20 in operations.
I think the answer to the timescale question is simple however: money. The money to fund this research comes from governments, who are quick to spend when people are beating on the doors of power, but otherwise are content to feel projects a drip of cash so that they can say “look, we’re making progress!” Look at ITER as an example: the partners will fund its 30 year operation for $10 billion total, or roughly $350 million per year, split between 7 - 10 parties (depending on who joins). So that’s $50 - $80 million for the US per year, for a country that spends $703 BILLION per year on it’s energy needs [1]. Just to keep things in perspective, the budget for ‘06 for DOE is $23.4 BILLION… do you think developing fusion technology is a priority? I don’t.
By now, my rant is pretty well spent. The energy issue is incredibly important, because it underpins so many other aspects of our society. If we look at the nations of the world and ask who has a competitive advantage, I think China would float to the top of the list pretty quickly. They are a low cost supplier of goods, whose quality and creativity are starting to rival the world’s leaders. Even after China has fully developed, it will still have a competitive edge through lower energy costs, by virtue of the vision of their current leadership. If we, as a nation, do not rise to the challenge of developing sustainable competitive energy sources, we may find ourselves at a sustained disadvantage that will lower our collective quality of life. I hope we wake up in time…