RE: Energy Policy / Junk Science Environmentalism

Charles Carrigan wrote:

CC: There are many energy sources available to use besides fossil fuels.
  
AK; Agreed. The central question is what the final cost will be to extract the energy from these sources. As an extremely simple case: If one unit of oil costs $1 per unit and alternative energy X costs $2 per unit, of which $1 is due to the cost of oil, then alternative energy X will never be economically viable. So the discussion among the alternative energy people is what part of the cost of alternative energy is due to cheap oil. There are endless arguments and I know of no definitive source to sort this out, but it is by no means as straightforward as the optimists claim. The argument about ethanol from corn using more energy to make the ethanol than is finally used is an example of one prominent ongoing argument in this area. Almost no knowledgeable person sees this as much of a solution, although I think the average American on the street thinks this will be a major method of weaning ourselves from oil.

CC: Nuclear power generates ~20% of US electricity (although here in Illinois the percentage is much higher than that), and is the only non-fossil fuel that is used in any considerable abundance worldwide. France for example generates ~80% of its electricity from nuclear power. The US was at one point scheduled to have many more nuclear reactors than it has now, but many of these plans were cancelled in the 1970s-80s due to growing public concern over anything nuclear (nuclear holocaust, 3 mile island, cold war, cuban missle crisis, etc.etc.). Our low use of nuclear power comes not from a lack of U fuel, poor technology, or high cost, but rather from political pressures that make nuclear power rather difficult to push forward. In my opinion this is mostly due to public ignorance, but there are of course significant concerns with the disposal of radioactive waste.

AK: The initial costs of getting a nuclear plant on line are enormous, and there is unlikely to be any private money willing to go this route even if the political climate should change. There is also the question of how much of the cost of a new nuclear plant will increase as the cost of oil increases. Here is a story about nuclear costs and the optimism that often takes over in initial estimates:

(Greenville-AP) December 28, 2005 - A federal audit shows construction of a South Carolina factory to convert weapons-grade nuclear material into fuel for power plants will cost $2.5 billion more than expected. The Energy Department Inspector General's Office blames cost overruns on what it calls "weakness in project management" and problems with contract administration.
Previous cost estimates for the facility at the Savannah River Site near Aiken have ranged from $1 billion to $1.6 billion. The National Nuclear Security Administration disputes the cost estimate and says project management is not to blame. They blame increases in labor and construction costs and changes to the design and construction schedule.

http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4294160

Nuclear power may be in our future, but the costs of decommissioning plants and disposing of the wastes have not been factored into the cost even now. Of course, our children are extremely smart and will easily find a solution to these problems :)
 
CC: I've no doubt that there will be an oil crisis in the "near" future, but I have my doubts that there will be an energy crisis. Some on this list seem to equate the two. However, the transition may not be completely without hiccups and bumps - but a realistic national energy policy could go a long way to averting those bumps, in my opinion.

AK: I don't see much chance of a realistic energy policy arriving soon without an obvious crisis. I see more than hiccups and bumps; I see surgery and cliffs. The infrastructure built up over the past century for the fossil fuel industry is enormous and gradually replacing that will be a difficult proposition. Replacing cheap oil with more expensive energy is going to be a long hard road. If it had been done with foresight and had been started 25 years ago, things would be considerably different, but with the current huge trade deficit, looming Social Security and pensions questions, increasing healthcare cost and the ever increasing deficit spending along with ecological deterioration, you definitely have to be an optimist to think this will be a good time for the next generations to navigate.
 

 
 
<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><
Charles W. Carrigan, Ph.D.
Olivet Nazarene University
Dept. of Geology
One University Ave.
Bourbonnais, IL 60914
PH: (815) 939-5346
FX: (815) 939-5071
 
 
Received on Thu Jan 5 11:10:28 2006