TR: Seems like we've been hearing about these kinds of technologies for years, even decades.
MH: These are not "on the shelf." They exist in the sense that nuclear weapons existed in the late '30s and that crewed lunar vehicles existed in the '50s. It took efforts like the Manhattan and Apollo programs to make them so.
TR: Wind turbines are sprouting all over the place, aren't they?
MH: We do need to massively scale up renewable energy -- it's the most ready for prime-time. But we don't have a grid system, an energy storage system, to take up the major load from wind. That would require restructuring our electrical grid and building new kinds of storage devices. We need something like that to get renewable energy working, but we don't have it, or the social institutions to allow that to happen, because the electrical utilities have been deregulated. Nobody is responsible for these electrical distribution grids. That's got to change. And even though we are devoting resources to thermonuclear fusion, we have no comparable programs for solar power satellites or vastly expanding the electric distribution grid, for distributed solar energy.
TR: You alluded to breeder reactors, arguing that they make more efficient use of uranium supplies. Many say their production of bomb-grade plutonium is an unacceptably high price to pay.
MH: We believe there are technological approaches to the proliferation question. One approach is a global electrical grid, as proposed by Buckminster Fuller in the 1970s. You could produce power from breeder reactors in the secure parts of the world, and sell the electrons to the Saddam Husseins. The grid can be your nonproliferation treaty. High-temperature superconductors and carbon nanotubes can help make long-distance, low-loss transmission lines.
TR: Won't the high cost of fossil drive the economics for these things to happen naturally?
MH: One problem is that policy analysts working on global warming mitigation are dominated by economists, not engineers, and most don't have any clue that these things are not only possible, but exist in the laboratories today. We hear talk of carbon taxes and that the natural workings of the economics system will generate this technology. The truth is that's not the way it works at all historically. Since World War II, the development of everything from gas turbines to integrated circuits to the Internet were all devised by R&D paid for by the government. We should target the R&D we need to make the energy system sustainable.
E-mail
Audio »
Print
Favorite
Share »
Digg this
Add to del.icio.us
Add to Reddit
Add to Facebook
Slashdot It!
Stumble It!
Add to Newsvine
Add to Connotea
Add to CiteUlike
Add to Furl
Googlize this
Add to Rojo
Add to MyWeb
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Comments
But rising energy costs and astronomical energy company profits - not ot mention a few more Enrons - will get rid of them. Hopefully before it's too late.
04/20/2006
Posts:1
04/20/2006
Posts:1
04/28/2006
Posts:1
Governor Arnold Schwartzneggar wants a million solar roofs in California, but the legislature killed it. The political process in America is inefficient and messy. However, where is the King who will solve these problems in a stroke of the pen? He will arrive on the scene. Everyone will be crazy about him. Then, absolute power will corrupt absolutely, and we will be worse off than we are now. I am not an optimist. The solutions are before us, but we will not pick them up and put them in our mouths.
04/20/2006
Posts:1
A.) H2 and O2 can be pipelined inland to wherever it's needed by Utility Companies (for the Short-Run), just as Natural Gas & Petroleum is done, and electricity provided over the established Grid Power distribution networks;
B.) Alternatively, Salt can simply (and economically) be added to Fresh-Water generator / processing tanks as the electrolyte to INDEPENDANTLY produce H2 and O2 fuel locally, wherever fresh water can be found or supplied. In the Long-Run, why be dependant on "Monthly-Bill" mainstream suppliers?
04/20/2006
Posts:1
04/20/2006
Posts:1
B. Electrolyzing water into H2 and O2 takes a lot of energy, close to what it provides in output energy. How are we going to get that energy without carpeting the country in solar cells or windmills?
Much more efficient would be to -
1) Increase our energy efficiency by substantially increasing our population density. Transportation is one of the largest uses of energy.
2. Gradually decomission our oil, gas and coal fired electric plants to be replaced with nuclear and renewables where it makes sense.
3. Investigate opportunites for utilizing our various waste energy and resource streams. This would include more efficient methods of fractionating water into H2 and O2.
04/20/2006
Posts:1
1 There will be abundant natural gas in the world for the next few decades.
2 The cheapest means of producing hydrogen is by steam reforming natural gas.
3 In the process of producing hydrogen from natural gas, useable energy value is lost (2nd law of thermodynamics), and much expense is added (equipment and wages).
4 Natural gas is cheaper and easier to store and transport with reasonable energy density than hydrogen.
5 It follows from points 1 to 4 that it will be cheaper and easier to use natural gas directly for electricity generation and transport fuel than hydrogen - that is until a global natural gas production peak is reached.
04/21/2006
Posts:1
Seriously, take away some of the
zoning powers, so I can have a
windmill on top of skyscrapers.
Let me run lines to adjacent buildings for use at peak times.
Government protected monopolies
are part of the problem.
04/20/2006
Posts:1
Face it, energy is still too cheap (in both monetary and political terms).
Once it gets expensive enough you'll see things change. Not before.
04/20/2006
Posts:1
04/20/2006
Posts:1
04/20/2006
Posts:1
04/20/2006
Posts:1
04/20/2006
Posts:1
In the early 1990s, it was more like 20x and 10x respectively. Volume manufacturing has driven the prices down, while conventional rpcies have come up to reduce the delta.
I don't see any problems here that are solved by launching it into space at $10,000 per pound in exchange for a 25% increase in performance, and I've never heard anyone other than socially detached physicists say so.
04/20/2006
Posts:1
04/20/2006
Posts:1
04/20/2006
Posts:1
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.11/ecohacking.html
A better approach would be to use algal blooms for energy. As you say, 70% of sunlight falling on the Earth, falls on the seas and oceans. Vast algal blooms could be created by seeding the oceans with cheap dissolved iron. Maybe it is time to produce GM algae that tangle together so that they can be easily scooped out of the oceans to provide biomass fuel. Preferably the algae would be 'designed' to require artificially high levels of iron to thrive, thus aleviating concerns of the planet's waterways being choked by a GM menace. Anaerobic bacterial decomposition of vast quantities of algal mass could provide methane biogas for energy use and methanol production. Nutrient rich sludge left over after biogas extraction could then be returned to the ocean for further algal bloom seeding.
04/21/2006
Posts:1
04/21/2006
Posts:1
04/23/2006
Posts:1
(MIC) System for Space Applications should radically alter the equation for solar space power. Using a superconducting cable to expand large (kilometer) scale structures in space. The procedure seems straight forward and doable. The launch could be from current systems but would unfold into gigawatt solar power systems. It seems like a breakthrough that could be part of a crash program.
http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/library/meetings/fellows/mar06/1133Powell.pdf
04/20/2006
Posts:1
www.spaceelevator.com/
www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_elevator_020327-1.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator
science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast07sep_1.htm
www.liftport.com/
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/mar/HQ_m05083_Centennial_prizes.html
$10,000 per pound launch to geostationary orbit may become $100 per pound with constant supply day and night from microwaves beamed around the globe and finally to ground collecting stations. However one can't predict whether a breakthrough in Focus Fusion or other technology would render this irrelevant by CE 2106.
04/21/2006
Posts:1
USA spends $300m/yr (million) on fusion and 16B$/yr (Billion) on nasa .
put nasa to work on energy and in the longer term it will be better for the space program too.
04/20/2006
Posts:1
"Americans have always pulled together during tough times to accomplish great missions. We can do it again. This time we need a moonshot for energy independence and good jobs. A crash program for sustainable energy independence would create three million good jobs, free the nation from imported oil, and promote a healthier environment. States and cities are leading the way toward a clean energy future. Now, the time has come for our nation to take up the challenge."
04/20/2006
Posts:1
04/20/2006
Posts:1
04/20/2006
Posts:1
As to Intel using more power than AMD, at least in the past you could heat your house on what the AMD chips generated (but they were good). And, unfortunately, the people that can afford to buy Hummers still do. If you make $1M /year even $5.00 gas is no big deal(and the auto companies know this). I think at last count there are now over 8 million "millionaires" in the US alone. That's still a lot of potential big car and SUV sales.
04/23/2006
Posts:1
04/23/2006
Posts:1
If the public is redirected to embrace conservation, insist on development of renewable energy sources, view the burning of fossil fuels as the root of all evil (ecologically, politically, and economically), and prodded to take their government to task for energy policy, the current energy situation would not last two more decades.
Think not? In the fifties gun ownership and gun training were the norm in America. It was even promoted by social institutions like the Boy Scouts and considered a normal and natural activity for youngsters. Today guns are vilified as evil incarnate, even though they are inanimate objects. This could be oil's future, if given the relentless treatment guns have experienced.
Nothing is good or bad, but thinking makes it so. --Hamlet
04/24/2006
Posts:1
04/20/2006
Posts:1
04/21/2006
Posts:1
06/17/2006
Posts:1
Eventually, clean, high tech solutions will win. Maybe the Chinese will surprise us by developing a program to use coal for energy and sequester the carbon. They are sick and dying in large numbers from pollution-induced respiratory disease over there.
Meanwhile, electric vehicles are coming, faster than we think. Battery technology will improve when it hitches up to Moore's Law with nanotechnology (gold plated carbon nanotubes or some such technology).
New, more efficient engines are being developed that are small and generate much more horsepower than our 100+ year old clunky, mechanical internal combustion designs.
Biodiesel may blossom and grow. Who knows, except that someway, somehow, solutions will be found somewhere in the world and we will move beyond our unhealthy dependence on the liquid petroleum that is in all the wrong places.
04/20/2006
Posts:1
Focus fusion looks to be a disruptive technology... if it pans out that is. But so far I haven't seen anyone prove it "Can't" work unlike cold fusion. Doesn't seem to be any theoretical problems to making it work. Unfortunately BIG fusion (ITER) gets all the money and focus fusion is looking for handouts. Guess I'm a fan of focus fusion since I work with plasma etch equipment in semi-conductor mfg.
04/20/2006
Posts:1
04/20/2006
Posts:1
04/20/2006
Posts:1
04/21/2006
Posts:1
China (of all countries) has recently sayed it will try to get at least 15% of its power from renewables by 2020.
And I believe Denmark plans to be completely oil independent by 2020.
Now what has the US pledged to do? So far, not much but talk.
04/23/2006
Posts:1
Could launch 200MW systems 913meters in diameter in one big launch of about 93 tons or a handful of smaller ones. Slides 25-27 have some specifics of a solar beaming to earth system.
Can even reasonably scale to 18 Gigawatts.
No amazing technical breakthroughs needed, although continued improvements in superconducting cable help.
http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/library/meetings/fellows/mar06/1133Powell.pdf
04/20/2006
Posts:1
04/21/2006
Posts:1
04/21/2006
Posts:1
04/23/2006
Posts:1
It's already here in public view, but because of the bad press of the past,it has been put aside and laughed at. Eventually(mark my words), we'll all realize it wasn't crackpot science. It will take a few more years of high gas prices and speculators to realize this. Then watch out.
-JChan (http://www.atomicmotor.com)
04/22/2006
Posts:1
04/22/2006
Posts:1
The problem at hand is not technical it is political. We have people who would rather hate than love others leading militant islamic terrorists. In DC we have a pork fest where feeding is king.
04/22/2006
Posts:1
2) Replacement of wasteful incandecent lighting
3) Continuing to expand renewable energy sources (including wave energy)
4)Developing (low power) high efficiency distributed power generation and storage systems (Stirling?)
5)Quickly replacing large displacement IC engines with either hybrids, diesel, or all electric vehicles
04/23/2006
Posts:1
05/02/2006
Posts:1
As worldwide living standards increase fossil fuel use will be unsustainable. In his book “Hubbert’s Peak” Kenneth Deffeyes predicts that the peak in oil production will occur within the next 10 years. Many other experts agree. Soon after the peak, we will exploit deposits of lesser quality such as shale oil, tar sands and synthetic oil from coal. Use of low-quality sources will increase pollution. After the peak in production, during depletion, the price of fossil fuels will spiral, driven by fierce competition over dwindling supplies. This will escalate the cost of plastics, synthetic textiles and drugs produced from fossil fuel chemicals. Competition over resources will cause significant friction between nations.
The extraction of fossil fuels damages the surface of the earth. Fossil fuel combustion vents fossil carbon into the atmosphere in th
04/23/2006
Posts:1
04/24/2006
Posts:1
04/25/2006
Posts:1
Our military, econnomic and diplomatic clout is being eroded becuase we subsidize our enemies with petro-dollars. If the US were to look at a strong energy policy - cut our oil consumption by 50% - in the light of our spending for Defense,the State Department and other government sctivities, then funding a program to reduce our deoendence on oil (from all sources) would be a valid tradeoff.
If the US were to announce a credible energy policy, both short term and long term. Short term orobably coal, longer term nuclear, plus solar, tidal, biomass (rather than corn) then that fact aloine would cause an immediate drop in oil prices For countries such aas Iran, and Venezuela the results would be devastating. These governments, accustomed to spending at the rate of $70 a barrel oil and facing say $35 a barrel, would feel real pain
The problem with energy is that we are using the wrong criteria against which to measure investment.
don.hutchins...
08/28/2006
Posts:12
mswisher
12/05/2006
Posts:5