The Future of Energy: Things Never Change So Much …

Things never change so much as they stay the same. That’s the saying, anyway, and I figure I’ll see how things balance out if I stick around long enough.  I expect that there will be surprises, and some advances people expect won’t happen, or will be disappointing, while other inventions will become mainstays of our civilization.  Inevitably, the deciding factor behind the decision to discard or keep something involves money, and I believe that will extend to our energy infrastructure.

Transportation Off-Earth Could Become Less Prevalent in the Next Few Decades

If rising fossil fuel costs were all that mattered they would eventually make space travel prohibitively expensive, but such decisions are more political than economic. Still, as fossil fuels become increasingly scarce and expensive, traveling off-earth will become accordingly more costly, especially for human beings, whose need for as bulky life support equipment greatly increases the energy requirements for space transportation systems. As a result, cost will become an increasing concern in space-related projects, and take on an increasingly high profile in the political and scientific debates that govern space programs. Recent cutbacks in funding to NASA shows evidence of this. Increasing costs and decreased funding may result in an increasing proportion of robotically-manned space expeditions, and could even reduce the human presence on the space station in the future and see it refitted for increasingly automated operation.  Eventually a new, cheap, and powerful energy source (fusion?) will be developed and a new era of space travel will come about.  How soon that happens, however, depends on us.

Calls for Offshore Drilling and More Nuclear Plants May Be Ill-Advised

Panic over rising energy costs is something we can’t afford.  It would be easy to panic about energy supplies when faced with the 33% gasoline price rise in 16 weeks such as I documented here in the Detroit area.  Panic doesn’t put one in the mood to make sound choices, however.  Now conservatives, some of whom stand to make a lot of money if their advice is followed, are telling everyone that we in the US need to start drilling for oil on our continental shelves (link) and in previously forbidden parts of Alaska, and that more investment in new fission-based nuclear power plants is needed (link).  I believe that, once again, those with profit motives are going to try to play on the fears and desires of average citizens in order to become richer.  Fortunately there are many more who have opposed increased oil drilling and more nuclear power plants (link), and with good reasons. 

Iraq Provides Illuminating Insights on Decentralized Solar Power

Rebuilding Iraq’s economy could go faster with solar power.  A radio story on Iraq this morning cited the fact that banks there have video surveillance systems, among other security measures, but that the systems don’t work when the power is off, which averages a significant part of each day.  Banks, obviously, are a key part of reviving the Iraqi economy, but while banks are being re-established in neighborhoods where violence has declined, their security is still an issue due to daily power outages.  This presents an obvious opportunity for solar power systems, even if they only power the security systems.  It also brings out the question of why, in a country with a lot of dry weather and little cloud cover, solar power isn’t being pursued with vigor in all its forms. 

Alternative Power Sources are Coming, But Not Before Fossil Fuel Costs Reach Greater Heights

Alternative power sources have been in the news for years, with many exciting developments, but won’t be available in time to prevent much higher fossil fuel costs.  If you “google” terms like “solar cell developments” or ”wind power trends”, or just pay attention to the daily news, you will see glowing accounts of new developments in alternative energy sources.  New developments in alternative energies have been trumpeted to the world for decades, but we see few effects on our daily lives (or bills).  This is understandably frustrating, and even more so when fuel costs are rising as they have recently (in my area a 33% increase in a 16 week period in the spring of 2008).  So why is it taking so long for all these wonderful ideas to become “real”?

Shell Scenarios Attempt to Bracket the Energy Future

This morning NPR revealed to me (as I crawled down the freeway trying to get 30+ mpg with SUVs blasting by in the fast lane), that energy giant Royal Dutch Shell had released a document titled “Energy Scenarios to 2050″ at a conference in Brussels on April 7th, and I found more details on line at a site called Euractiv(link).   Euractiv interviewed Shell’s vice president for global business environment, Jeremy Bentham, who proposed that public money be put into play to encourage development of carbon sequestration technologies (link).  Bentham suggests that, while there is no “silver bullet” solution, there is probably a “silver buckshot” approach that works.  This is all well and good, but we, the public, need to consider the source and understand that there is more here than meets the eye. 

A Moral Hazard – Fast Rising Economies Have Incentives to Pollute More

This week NPR (National Public Radio) carried an item mentioning how fast the third world industrializes.  China’s economy has developed rapidly in the past decade or two, and a radio story this morning mentioned that the bulk of their electrical demands are going to be met with coal-fired power plants – the most polluting alternative – and that most of the plants in question are still being built.  They didn’t mention that these plants are going to be in operation for decades to come, and will inevitably be far cheaper to continue to use as opposed to building more efficient, less polluting, alternative energy sources.   There is more to this problem, however.