A VC« MP3 of the Week | Main | Are You A TV Trivia Fan? »
Issues 2004 - Energy
If you take all the Issues 2004 posts that I've done, none of them matter as much to me as this one.
I believe that our dependence on foriegn oil is the biggest threat to our economy, security, and way of life. And we need to do something about it.
Jeff's post was OK, but the comments had some gems. I'd like to repost parts of some of them here:
From Karl
Known alternative forms of energy are not displacing oil because they are not competitive.In some cases, they are not competitive for technical reasons. For example, hydrogen is not an alternative source of energy as much as it is an alternate way of storing energy, and the energy consumed in the process of storing it (generally from fossil fuels) is not economical.
Other alternate sources are not competitive because they simply do not carry the same bang for the buck as fossil fuels. Perhaps some method will be discovered to make those sources (e.g., biodiesel) more competitive, but there is no reason to believe that government funding of such research will produce that method, as opposed to private funding by businesses which would stand to profit greatly by such a discovery.
Other sources are feasible technically, but not politically or legally. Nuclear power is such a case in the U.S., as environmental activists and their lawyers have esssentially shut down new construction. I agree with Jeff that we should take steps to improve the nuke picture here, but I wonder which candidate in the current contest is more likely to work in that direction.
From Tim Worstall:
Just about every person on the planet who can usefully contribute to the development of alternative energy sources is already doing so. There are hundreds of companies and thousands of research groups beavering away. Whatever it is that we needed to do to start the ball rolling, we've already done it. Within two decades (and I hope to be around to crow about this prediction) we'll have solar power competetive with fossil fuel. At that point the greater energy efficiency of fuel cells will make the hydrogen cycle for cars work.
Don't get excited about it, don't start any "Manhattan Projects", above all don't waste hundreds of billions of dollars trying to change the world before the appropriate technologies are ready. They're being worked on and there is little one can do to make the engineering cycle move faster.
I won't bore you with masses of detail (or rather, might save it for a Techcentralstation piece) but I have seen at least 4 major breakthroughs in the last 18 months on the long road to getting free of our dependence upon fossil fuels. Ranging from making solid oxide fuel cells massively cheaper, to solar cells at 35-40% efficiency (at reasonable prices), a catalyst to use sunlight to manufacture hydrogen from water to a safe method of storing nuclear waste for 100,00 years.
From Keith:
Oil is not yet scarce in the world and yet because of geo-political reality, it is nearing $50/bbl. What do we see at the same time? Hybrid cars are the new big thing. They will only get more popular and oil will only get more expensive.Big Oil is already figuring this out too. Most notably, BP is spamming the TV world with their ads about how BP stands for "Beyond Petroleum." Between Big Oil and Big Car, they are figuring out their own migration path to the new world. I am sure there will be major fallout along the way, but that migration is happening already.
These posts give me hope that the dramatic rise in oil prices in the past year is not a blip like we had in the 70's but a permanent rise which will lead to, and in some ways finance, the next wave of energy solutions.
I wish I knew enough about this topic to be able to profit from the coming changes. I believe that investment capital is needed to move alternative energy from the labratory into the marketplace. Finding the sources of this investment capital and the people talented enough to allocate it well among all the potential opportunities is going to be a challenge.
I'll end with a link to one of my favorite blogs, the Alternative Energy Blog. There's great stuff on this site every day.
Comments (12) | | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2c969e200e5503674a78834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Issues 2004 - Energy:
Posted September 28, 2004 in PoliticsComments
Oil is one of the most energy dense forms of fuel known to man. It is finite and it's mass availability will end most likely during our lifetime. It will take decades to make a smooth transition to alternatives. That's why we have to get started now.
Like Tim I believe there is the POSSIBILITY of a breakthrough in solar cells but we can't risk our future on a possibility alone.
As for nuclear here's a great quote from the California Institute of Technology Newsletter:
"To produce enough nuclear power to equal the power we currently get from fossil fuels, you would have to build 10,000 of the largest possible nuclear power plants. That’s a huge, probably nonviable initiative, and at that burn rate, our known reserves of uranium would last only for 10 or 20 years.
As things stand today, the only possible substitutes for our fossil-fuel dependency are light from the sun and nuclear energy. Developing a way of running a civilization like ours on those resources is an enormous challenge. A great deal of it is social and political—we’re in the midst of a presidential election, and have you heard either party say a word about this extremely important subject?"
from: http://pr.caltech.edu/periodicals/CaltechNews/articles/v38/oil.html
As to Tim's comment that "every person on the planet who can usefully contribute to the development of alternative energy sources is already doing so", I disagree.
Fossil fuels are subsidised to the tune of billions per year.
(see: http://alt-e.blogspot.com/2004/08/235-billion-subsidy-for-fossil-fuels.html )
Yes some energy companies (i.e. BP and Shell) are putting a few million into alternative energy research. However they EACH put billions each year into oil exploration.
The technology exists today to wean us off our oil addiction. It does not depend on some mythical hydrogen future (which would take hundreds of billions in new infrastructure) which is perpetually on the horizon. Instead it is in "strong" hybrids which CAN be plugged in at home or the office (something which is completely possible but not made available on current hybrid cars) and run primarily on electricity making them cheaper than running them on gasoline. Combine this with a major increase in electricity production from renewable sources like wind power and there is a clean, sustainable and economically viable path to energy independence now.
James
Alternative Energy Blog
Posted by: Alternative Energy Blog | Sep 28, 2004 10:10:45 AM
I believe that most everyone's sentiments are beginning to revolve around sustainability (even though most don't know what that word means). Anyone interested in global economics, the environment and energy should read Lester Brown's "Plan B". Most of the book is already available -- for free -- in PDF form on www.earth-policy.org.
While it's convenient to silo issues for purposes of debate, the fact is they're related. Understanding how they're related, and where the pressure points are clearly demonstrates our reliance on fossil fuels...and what dangers that immediately and increasingly poses.
James from AEB is right on target: we are simply not doing enough. A goodly portion of BP's investment in alternative energy goes directly to international ads promoting their "commitment". Any entrepreneur out there knows from experience that PR can often be little more than a red herring.
The facts and the analysis are out there, folks. We'd all do good to brush up on them.
Posted by: Michael Beckner | Sep 28, 2004 10:42:37 AM
What i don't like hearing is all the 'we can't' or 'it won't' stuff. A guy named Joe Satlin brought his country from a post feudal agrarian society to an industrialized nation in five years, why can't we get this thing into overdrive. Our current Presidentila candidates aren't talking much about it, but Al Gore did four years ago, again, nobody was listening.
Posted by: jackson | Sep 28, 2004 10:58:00 AM
Finally! Jackson unveils his true idol - Joseph Stalin! Well, even if he did murder 20 million Ukrainians, create the iron curtain, the cold war, create the gulags for political prisoners, and generally stain the 20th century as one of history's blodiest and saddest, that's OK since he engineered an ultimately disastrous command economy that did absolutely zero to reduce our dependency on fossil-based fuels. Well done, Jackson. Be sure to commend Chairman Mao in your next post for his contributions in education policy.
Posted by: Hector | Sep 28, 2004 12:21:52 PM
The problem with 'hoping' that oil prices stay really high is that it will lead to much lower economic growth. This means that many more people in this country and in the world will remain in abject poverty than would otherwise be the case.
I'm with James on the subsidies - let's get rid of all of the subsidies for fossil fuels, for driving, for buying huge SUVs that are over six tons (you can only write off 100% of the cost of your vehicle if it's over 6 tons). Let's get rid of congestion (via congestion pricing) and thereby lower all of the pollution and wasted gas from traffic jams.
Then, once we have gotten rid of all of these distortions, let's look at putting a tax on gas, and make a real decision based on the the short term cost (less economic growth and more poverty) vs. the long term benefit (less or no dependence on the Middle East, less pollution) of higher oil prices.
Posted by: Stephen Bronstein | Sep 28, 2004 4:31:16 PM
What alternative form of energy can power a steel mill? Or any other energy intensive form of industry?
Posted by: Richard Cook | Sep 28, 2004 4:56:08 PM
As usual Hector needs to have things spelled out for him. Webster's defines sarcasm as: "A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule." The point was that anything can be accomplished if it's given priority. Final point, you are my true God Hector, for I worship ignorance.
Posted by: jackson | Sep 28, 2004 5:19:54 PM
Comrade Jackson please don't attempt sarcasm going forward if that's what you meant, as it was, like so many of your attempts to entertain us, flaccid. We all know you come from the loony left so it was no surprise to any of us that you look to "Joe" (leftists like to call mass murderers by their nicknames to make them appear warmer and fuzzier) as an example for us Americans.
Posted by: Hector | Sep 29, 2004 2:47:41 AM
Making life MORE difficult for everybody is no solution at all and that is what Stephen's recommendations would do if implemented. While I would like to see a lift of all the incentives that make buying gas guzzlers so easy, making gasoline the enemy to every citizen is the wrong way to get us to jump on alternate energy. We need to WANT to go in another direction. Don’t know you, but your comments suggest you might be a city guy. I drive to work and there is no alternative to doing so. Enacting your plan would only piss off a guy who is a willing supporter of cutting dependency on foreign oil.
Hybrid cars are an excellent example. Currently, most of what is available is very practical in design, but not very appealing from a drivability standpoint (if that's a word) and they are far from sexy. I happen to be a sports car guy and have been all my life. I would absolutely buy a hybrid car that looked like any of the sports cars I've owned, but no way will I ever purchase a Toyota Prius. Make these hybrids go fast and look good and I'm on board.
If you're going to jack up gas prices, do it because we're going to completely embargo ANY terrorist supporting country, not for the sole purpose of accelerating alt energy research.
Posted by: Tony Alva | Sep 29, 2004 9:24:29 AM
Tony,
How's this for sexy:
James
Alternative Energy Blog
Posted by: Alternative Energy | Sep 29, 2004 2:26:18 PM
Biodiesel requires no modification of current diesel vehicles. No behavior or lifestyle change required, drive a big Excursion if ya like. 100% USA produced fuel. This is a step we can take today. Price is an issue (current ~ $3.35/gallon for b100).
Posted by: Rob | Sep 30, 2004 9:33:29 PM
Rob,
Biodiesel, to the best of my knowledge:
a) requires significant fossil fuel inputs in the form of fertilisers and pesticides (most of the current US biodiesel production is effectively a subsidy to mid-west states. These fossil fuels will typically be imported - particularly natural gas.
b) biodiesel is not scalable. Sure you can run your car on waste fat from french fries but not everyone can. To produce enough biodiesel to fuel America's current fleet of vehicles would leave practically no land left for food production.
c) most biodiesel produced is energy negative. i.e. it takes more energy to produce than is recoverable
Posted by: Alternative Energy | Oct 5, 2004 2:51:58 AM
Main RSS Feed of All Posts
VC and Technology Posts Only
