finknottle Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 This is hostile ground for Gore, but what do people think of his recent speech? Specifically, the following idea: forget about the issue of Climate Change. I recently read an interesting editorial by Andrew Grove (of Intel fame). He makes the point (which I agree with) that energy independence misses the reality of the market place. If we drill more, it goes on the global market to the highest bidder, making us no more independent than before. The real objective should be energy transformation. Completely electrify the nation, including the transportation sector. Oil and gas are unique because they require their own delivery and infrastructure. This is both inefficient and locks us into that resource. The electricity infrastructure can have any number of sources feeding it - nuclear, hydro, solar - and the mix can change as the market and politics dictate. Gores plan calls for heavy investment in linking up all the power grids, making them more efficient, and extending them to transportation - the last part is of course the big problem. But once you take that medicine (estimated at 2-3 trillion over 30 years), you have a much more flexible system which I think would be economically transformative and serve us well for the century ahead. I have always had nothing but ridicule for electric cars in the past, but I've become sold on the idea of focusing on a core power grid to provide an analogous national economic advantage that early electrification and telephony did. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 This is hostile ground for Gore, but what do people think of his recent speech? Specifically, the following idea: forget about the issue of Climate Change. I recently read an interesting editorial by Andrew Grove (of Intel fame). He makes the point (which I agree with) that energy independence misses the reality of the market place. If we drill more, it goes on the global market to the highest bidder, making us no more independent than before. The real objective should be energy transformation. Completely electrify the nation, including the transportation sector. Oil and gas are unique because they require their own delivery and infrastructure. This is both inefficient and locks us into that resource. The electricity infrastructure can have any number of sources feeding it - nuclear, hydro, solar - and the mix can change as the market and politics dictate. Gores plan calls for heavy investment in linking up all the power grids, making them more efficient, and extending them to transportation - the last part is of course the big problem. But once you take that medicine (estimated at 2-3 trillion over 30 years), you have a much more flexible system which I think would be economically transformative and serve us well for the century ahead. I have always had nothing but ridicule for electric cars in the past, but I've become sold on the idea of focusing on a core power grid to provide an analogous national economic advantage that early electrification and telephony did. Thoughts? I have not heard the speaches but will comment on your points. I do agree that oil is a commodity in the international marketplace. The advantage we get by discovering our own sources of oil is that we become less dependent on other nations, some hostile, for our oil and gas needs. Also, directionally, it reduces a 'war and chaos' premium, if you will, in the price of oil. Another pipeline being blown up in Nigeria will surely have an upward effect on the price of oil. On to the topic of electricity and developing sources to supply an enhanced grid - it will all come down to economics & politics. Nuclear - Can we get more nuclear plants approved at a fast enough place ? Will the communities support nuclear plants in their backyard ? Solar - Can price of wafers be brought down to generate the amount of electricity we are talking about ? Also this needs serious real estate (as do algae farms) in locations where there is plentiful sunshine. Wind - Cannot be a base-load source as it is dependent on the availability & force of the blowing wind. Also is pretty expensive and economically infeasible without subsidies. With the higher price of natural gas, perhaps wind farms become more attractive but again, they are supplemental to the base load source. Finally, serious NIMBY issues exist. Geo-thermal: Technology needs a lot of development and siting of such plants will be critical. No matter what the electricity source, the efficiency of transporting electricity from the plants to the end user has to be increased. The attractiveness of fuel cells was that they could generate power at source greatly reducing the grid losses. Finally, batteries need to be advanced to increase miles per charge and also drop in price to make the entire value chain competitive with hydrocarbon based power generation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted July 17, 2008 Author Share Posted July 17, 2008 The advantage we get by discovering our own sources of oil is that we become less dependent on other nations, some hostile, for our oil and gas needs. Also, directionally, it reduces a 'war and chaos' premium, if you will, in the price of oil. Another pipeline being blown up in Nigeria will surely have an upward effect on the price of oil. Yes, but a pipeline blowing up in Nigeria increases *everybody's* prices whether they buy there or not. The US get's very little oil from the middle east today, maybe 20% (we are balanced among 5 sources - Canada, Saudia Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela, and Nigeria). It is far less than it was in the 70's. And yet, ensuring that the oil flows smoothly there remains of paramount concern. Let's face it - if the Middle East blows up and the price of oil skyrockets, do you really think Exxon et al is under any obligation to sell Alaskan oil to the US at below-market prices rather than to the highest bidder? As long as they are paying the USG for the lease they are free to sell it wherever they want and at whatever price they can get. And frankly, that's the way it should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 On to the topic of electricity and developing sources to supply an enhanced grid - it will all come down to economics & politics. On this one, politics will loom large, simply because nearly every block in the US will be touched by the grid update. For anyone caring to understand how long it will really take, attend a town meeting that discusses new power lines or a cell tower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Jarhead Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 On this one, politics will loom large, simply because nearly every block in the US will be touched by the grid update. For anyone caring to understand how long it will really take, attend a town meeting that discusses new power lines or a cell tower. NIMBYism will be a major contributing factor in the downfall of our nation... Why do you think the oil companies aren't drilling on all the land they presently have leased? Even when approved, where are we going to build the Nuke plants? We're looking at YEARS of litigation before the first shovel of dirt is moved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 NIMBYism will be a major contributing factor in the downfall of our nation... Why do you think the oil companies aren't drilling on all the land they presently have leased? Even when approved, where are we going to build the Nuke plants? We're looking at YEARS of litigation before the first shovel of dirt is moved. Come on, who would not like the worlds biggest tribute to the female anatomy in their backyard. Is it me or is it cold by the beach today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted July 17, 2008 Author Share Posted July 17, 2008 On this one, politics will loom large, simply because nearly every block in the US will be touched by the grid update. For anyone caring to understand how long it will really take, attend a town meeting that discusses new power lines or a cell tower. Well, Gore's (and Grove's et al) point is that you need a national Manhattan Project-style effort to make it happen - I think that's why 30 yearsv is the target. Otherwise it would be a no-brainer (and we'd be tooting around in our electric cars today). On a related point, I happened to read in the paper today that we spend 7 billion dollars annually on ethanol subsidies. It's a bit apples and oranges, but consider if you spent that money instead on a rebate program for homeowners to install solar panel roofs and tie into the grid. I *think* that runs about 20k, and power usage typically drops to the connection fees (~10/mo). Within 10 years we would have most homes in the country electricity neutral... and could have all the corn we wanted! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Well, Gore's (and Grove's et al) point is that you need a national Manhattan Project-style effort to make it happen - I think that's why 30 yearsv is the target. Otherwise it would be a no-brainer (and we'd be tooting around in our electric cars today). On a related point, I happened to read in the paper today that we spend 7 billion dollars annually on ethanol subsidies. It's a bit apples and oranges, but consider if you spent that money instead on a rebate program for homeowners to install solar panel roofs and tie into the grid. I *think* that runs about 20k, and power usage typically drops to the connection fees (~10/mo). Within 10 years we would have most homes in the country electricity neutral... and could have all the corn we wanted! We already had way too much corn - which is one of the reasons why the ethanol spending happened in the first place. Corn is artificially cheap because of the farm subsidies that encourage farmers to grow as much of it as possible. Politicians see: Removing subsidies make Iowa farmers vote against me. However, if we keep the subsidies, and then turn the excess into Ethanol, we get votes from the farmers and environmental types. Brilliant! Plus, it reduces the cost of oil. However, it also removes the incentives to grow other crops. Why should they when they're getting pai dso much for ethanol? And thus increased food prices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 (edited) This is hostile ground for Gore, but what do people think of his recent speech? Specifically, the following idea: forget about the issue of Climate Change. I recently read an interesting editorial by Andrew Grove (of Intel fame). He makes the point (which I agree with) that energy independence misses the reality of the market place. If we drill more, it goes on the global market to the highest bidder, making us no more independent than before. The real objective should be energy transformation. Completely electrify the nation, including the transportation sector. Oil and gas are unique because they require their own delivery and infrastructure. This is both inefficient and locks us into that resource. The electricity infrastructure can have any number of sources feeding it - nuclear, hydro, solar - and the mix can change as the market and politics dictate. Gores plan calls for heavy investment in linking up all the power grids, making them more efficient, and extending them to transportation - the last part is of course the big problem. But once you take that medicine (estimated at 2-3 trillion over 30 years), you have a much more flexible system which I think would be economically transformative and serve us well for the century ahead. I have always had nothing but ridicule for electric cars in the past, but I've become sold on the idea of focusing on a core power grid to provide an analogous national economic advantage that early electrification and telephony did. Thoughts? Electric motors produce ozone. http://www.naturalnews.com/022481.html Hydrogen combustion produces water vapor. And water vapor is the predominant greenhouse gas (shhh - dirty little secret). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas Our upstanding visionaries seeking office and rule like to talk about electricity and hydrogen. I have a problem with "Great Men" leading the way to the future. History is splattered with "Great Men" who buried their mistakes under the rubble of cities... It's not easy, is it? Edited July 17, 2008 by stuckincincy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 I wish to know more about this electricity that is produced from oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 I wish to know more about this electricity that is produced from oil. Fuel for the power plants that generate electricity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 I wish to know more about this electricity that is produced from oil. Looks, smells and feels pretty much the same as electricity from other sources. US statistics for power plant fuel usage: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/tablees1b.html While not directly crude oil, the 'petroleum liquids' refers to fluids that are derived from crude oil. These liquids accounted for less than 2% of electricity generated in 2007. Notice how that percent has tanked in 2007 to <1% presumably due to their higher cost and shift to natural gas powered plants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted July 17, 2008 Author Share Posted July 17, 2008 Electric motors produce ozone. : It's not easy, is it? That's why I'd like to leave the whole climate change debate out of it, and simply look at the idea from the perspective of whether having a uniform 'plug and play' energy infrastructure would give us a competative economic advantage. What originally caught my eye about Grove's piece was that the argument had nothing to do environmental concerns: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8071102549.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted July 17, 2008 Author Share Posted July 17, 2008 Our upstanding visionaries seeking office and rule like to talk about electricity and hydrogen. I have a problem with "Great Men" leading the way to the future. History is splattered with "Great Men" who buried their mistakes under the rubble of cities... You must be one of those frustrated AMD partisans to cast such aspersions on Grove. I thought he did a fine job at Intel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 On this one, politics will loom large, simply because nearly every block in the US will be touched by the grid update. For anyone caring to understand how long it will really take, attend a town meeting that discusses new power lines or a cell tower. The big question is this- do the politicians have the guts to put our money where their mouths are. They have to take this out of the hands of the economists and tell them to get it done. Achieving energy independence through the conversion will be VERY expensive, but it will pay for itself many times over. To me, it will be worth it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 The timing is good, the media and everyone else has been whining about the state of our aging grid, refineries, etc for years now. It's a lot easier to start a transition by "cutting in" new technology bit by bit instead of one fell swoop. It's less expensive, and will allow time to learn and improve the technology and process. It's just the first step that we seem to find so hard. When you're an addict, you need to hit bottom in order to realize you need to make a change. I am not sure we've hit it yet, but we're close. Eight or nine dollars a gallon of gas ought to just about do it - yeah I know we're not talking about gasoline here, but we ARE talking about a real paradigm shift and given the impact this has on America, it's probably going to be the catalyst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted July 18, 2008 Author Share Posted July 18, 2008 By coincidence, those crazy liberal oil-hating business-eschewing Texans yesterday approved a $4.9 billion dollar plan to link wind-generated electricity in the west into the population center infrastructure. Texas leads the country in wind generation at 2.400 megawatts - that's equivalent to 2-3 nuclear power plants. The initiative will increase Texas' transmission capacity to 18,000 megawatts, almost twice what the US currently produces. Clearly they are betting on a massive expansion. Darn that pied piper Al Gore for hoodwinking da' boys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 Just wait until the environmentalists start suing because they are killing a bunch of birds that are flying into them or thieves start stealing the copper out of them. The second largest wind farm in the US is at Altamont Pass, about 15-20 miles from me. This is near where the Stones movie Gimmie Shelter occurred and I will be driving by it in about 90 minutes from now. A bunch of the windmills sit idle or have been dismantled because of those two reasons. Before you start saying I am against these, I am not. I am just pointing out that there are down sides to all things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 The big question is this- do the politicians have the guts to put our money where their mouths are. They have to take this out of the hands of the economists and tell them to get it done. Achieving energy independence through the conversion will be VERY expensive, but it will pay for itself many times over. To me, it will be worth it If it is going to pay for itself many times over, why will the economists complain ? Do you trust the politicians to make rational, financially feasible, long term decisions ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts