25 thoughts on “The Energy Revolution”

  2. Yes, gas is better than coal, and it’s better for us to have supplies in North America. But burning fossil fuels, and increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, isn’t a revolution. It’s business as usual.

  3. LFTR now!!! Truly limitless energy; the science is proven, all it needs is the final engineering development.

    1. I’m watching the polywell fusion reactor myself. But LFTR is a strong option if that doesn’t work out.

      1. From what I can see on the internet (bearing in mind my physics is under a couple of decades of rust) focus fusion looks better than Polywell – if only because it holds out the promise of aneutronic fusion, with energy extraction directly from the reaction products without a thermal step in the middle. The reaction most likely to be used would be proton/B11.

        1. The polywell holds promise for p-B11 fusion with direct conversion far more easily than any other configuration I’ve seen. The non-thermal energy profile is a huge advantage here. If that reaction doesn’t work out, D-D fusion is a backup fuel option.

          With Focus fusion they’re looking at fusion gains so small that the cycle won’t work unless they can get aneutronic fusion and direct conversion to work.

          1. Polywell and some others are good things to keep going; however, my point was that LFTR is already known to work – on the TRL scale, it’s at least a 6, and could be at 7 (full-scale prototype demonstrated) within 5 years if the money were made available. None of the fusion technologies are beyond TRL 2 (basic science not yet proven). And LFTR truly is limitless energy: thorium is more abundant than uranium, and requires no enrichment steps.

  4. There is more recoverable oil available today as was predicted in the IEA reports and contrary to the doom and gloom scenarios. However the EROI is still going down. Which means oil and natural gas are going to be more expensive than they were in the past making everyone poorer as a result.

    1. However the EROI is still going down. Which means oil and natural gas are going to be more expensive than they were in the past making everyone poorer as a result.

      That does not necessarily follow. EROI is energy returned per energy invested — which is not the same as dollars invested. There are also labor and technology components.

      While labor probably won’t get less expensive over time, technology can and will improve.

      Modern agriculture is very energy intensive compared to primitive farming, yet food is much less expensive, per calorie.

    2. Except – and this is big – the money for the energy is being spent in America. We’re having to import less energy from often hostile nations around the world. Keeping the money in America helps make us richer even if the energy costs a bit more that buying it overseas.

      1. Keeping the money in America helps make us richer even if the energy costs a bit more that buying it overseas.

        That’s a fallacy. If it were true, we could make ourselves richer just by printing more money. It’s goods and services that make a nation rich, not little green pieces of paper.

        If we found someone who would trade oil for little green pieces of paper, and never do anything with them, it would be a fantastic deal for us. The real problem (as you allude to) is what some of those people do with those little green pieces of paper.

  5. This is a useful site to follow trends in fossil fuel production and consumption

    http://mazamascience.com/OilExport/

    If you look at the booming consumption in the quick growing economies like China, and in the major oil exporting countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and you check out the rate of oil production declines from Mexico, Indonesia and other exporters, it’s easy to see just why oil consumption has nose dived across Europe, Japan and most other OECD countries, The cost of oil has been too high for such countries to continue using it as they have in the past.

    Fracking and horizontal drilling have been widely used for a decade or more now, so we’re already using the oil these techniques produce.

    So I’ll stick with the view that we’ve seen the end of cheap (“conventional”) oil, from more expensive to extract lower EROI oil we’ll continue to see more expensive oil, and so no quick economic recovery.

  6. Here’s the “clueless and loopy” Paul Ryan requesting stimulus funds from Steven Chu:

    I was pleased that the primary objectives of their project will allow residents and businesses in the partner cities to reduce their energy costs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and stimulate the local economy by creating new jobs.

    Ryan predicted the $20 million grant would be able to “create or retain approximately 7,600 new jobs over the three-year grant period and the subsequent three years.”

  7. Opening up every possible reserve would be worth it if we could free ourselves from the crazies in the ME. And if electric cars mature in conjunction with a new means of generating electricity then maybe we could sell oil and gas to the rest of the world and get rid of our debt.

    1. I had always heard that petroleum was far more valuable industrially than as a fuel. I hope your scenario pans out just the way you described

      1. Makes sense. What’s more valuable in its intended role? A gallon of petrol or a gallon of insecticide?

      2. It’s true that a hefty chunk of raw crude ends up as other things. A long list of chemicals are most economically made that way. But it is repeatedly reported as if “running out” would be the end of, say, the entire plastics industry.

        It absolutely would not. We know the chemistry to go -up- in length as well. Yes, it does cost energy. (Which is why it isn’t done currently.) But it absolutely -can- be done if needs be.

        Biodiesel is a way of making more expensive but not outrageous diesel from plant oils. There is a process to crack diesels into gasoline, so you could have ‘biogasoline’. There is also the syngas process used in WWII to convert coal to gasoline. There’s ethanol, but we’d need to get a lot better before that’s a real contender.

        Any of these could be used to make plastic precursor chemicals. Or hair products, or whatever.

        Even if all reserves were eliminated, the entire process -could- be “sustainable”. Nuclear power via the sun powering the many plant-based methods of generating petroleum products. And direct nuclear power applied not only for electricity, but to fundamentally make the interesting chemicals “from scratch”.

        Honestly, it’s always reported like we have never switched our primary energy source EVAR.

  8. “In a few years, people are going to look back on this era and marvel at how clueless and loopy the Obama energy policies were.”

  9. Sorry ’bout that – somehow hit “post” instead of “enter” so I could go down a line. 🙁

    Let’s try that again:

    “In a few years, people are going to look back on this era and marvel at how clueless and loopy the Obama energy policies were.”

    I’m there now.

  10. “In a few years, people are going to look back on this era and marvel at how clueless and loopy the Obama energy policies were.”

    Clueless if you think in terms of energy. But very effective if you consider that it was really a method to transfer billions of dollars to cronies under the guise of ecology. It looks clueless. But is is precisely what O intended to do.

  11. Worth repeating: “In a few years, people are going to look back on this era and marvel at how clueless and loopy the Obama energy policies were.”

    In 10-15 years, when defending Obama isn’t politically important, you will see junior high school science projects that demonstrate the Solyndra idea (using cylindrical solar cells in place of flat ones) is measurably less cost effective.

    The instrument should be called a “Chu’s Solar Derpometer.”

Comments are closed.