As a chemist I tend to look at this thermodynamically.
You have geometrically (not linearly) increasing world energy consumption.
You have a finite fossil fuel source. Even with efficiencies, you only delay the reckoning by a few (maybe tens) of years.
The most fundamental issue is that we have too many people on the planet. Water, CO2, energy, disease -- the ecosystem WILL take care of itself. I do fear what that will be, but I believe that the time of serious troubles is a lot closer than most people realize.
Given the above, it is unconscionable that our government has had no leadership whatsoever on energy policy.
My first pass would go something like this:
First, there is no magic bullet and the solution must be a combination of greater efficiencies of energy usage combined with multiple alternative sources.
Announce steadily increasing gas taxes, but phase them in over say, 5 years so that the initial pain is lessened, but the anticipation starts moving industry to some solutions.
Near term (1-5 years): Raise gas taxes incrementally to values that might double the price of gas (it needs to make a difference), fund new programs and research from these taxes. Hopefully this incents industry and consumers to use smaller more fuel efficient cars like in Europe, and to make job and home choices based upon distance to work. Clear the way for easier approval/licensing of nuclear powerplants, provide big credits for hybrids, raise CAFE requirements for cars even more than currently, and NO SUV loopholes.
Mid term (5-20 years): More nuclear power, more solar power, more wind power. Look into wave/tidal power generation.
Long term (20+ years): Fast breeder nuclear plants. Hope fusion is harnessed.
Rationale for this approach:
- Raising taxes changes consumption patterns and funds research (and I tend to be Libertarian!)
- Raising fuel efficiency slows growth of consumption
- Wind and solar will help somewhat but won't generate enough energy to be a full solution, they only delay the inevitable
- Nuclear energy is actually a substantial source of energy and can buy us lots of time while we look for much longer term solutions
- Fusion would be the ultimate energy source if we could harness it and make it viable.
What won't work/is not a good idea:
- E85/Ethanol: consumes almost as much energy as it produces, raises cost of food
- Hydrogen cars: Hydrogen is a CARRIER, not an ENERGY SOURCE. It takes energy to make the hydrogen and there is an efficiency loss in any conversion. If you have the energy to make hydrogen why not use that energy directly?
- Wind/solar: A stopgap measure, but the amount of wind and solar that can be generated is small relative to the energy consumption we have in fossil fuels.
- Electric cars: See HYDROGEN. Electricity is a carrier of energy, not a source. Where are you going to get all that electricity? That's why you need nuclear power!
- Fuel cell cars: See HYDROGEN. Why is GM even working on this? Could possibly be more efficient if the source of fuel is hydrocarbon rather than hydrogen.
- Orbiting solar stations: A possibility, but my suspicion is that this will be too difficult and expensive to be viable.
Of course the real answer is reducing world population. I doubt we can even sustain the current population for over 100 years (I hope I'm wrong).
You have geometrically (not linearly) increasing world energy consumption.
You have a finite fossil fuel source. Even with efficiencies, you only delay the reckoning by a few (maybe tens) of years.
The most fundamental issue is that we have too many people on the planet. Water, CO2, energy, disease -- the ecosystem WILL take care of itself. I do fear what that will be, but I believe that the time of serious troubles is a lot closer than most people realize.
Given the above, it is unconscionable that our government has had no leadership whatsoever on energy policy.
My first pass would go something like this:
First, there is no magic bullet and the solution must be a combination of greater efficiencies of energy usage combined with multiple alternative sources.
Announce steadily increasing gas taxes, but phase them in over say, 5 years so that the initial pain is lessened, but the anticipation starts moving industry to some solutions.
Near term (1-5 years): Raise gas taxes incrementally to values that might double the price of gas (it needs to make a difference), fund new programs and research from these taxes. Hopefully this incents industry and consumers to use smaller more fuel efficient cars like in Europe, and to make job and home choices based upon distance to work. Clear the way for easier approval/licensing of nuclear powerplants, provide big credits for hybrids, raise CAFE requirements for cars even more than currently, and NO SUV loopholes.
Mid term (5-20 years): More nuclear power, more solar power, more wind power. Look into wave/tidal power generation.
Long term (20+ years): Fast breeder nuclear plants. Hope fusion is harnessed.
Rationale for this approach:
- Raising taxes changes consumption patterns and funds research (and I tend to be Libertarian!)
- Raising fuel efficiency slows growth of consumption
- Wind and solar will help somewhat but won't generate enough energy to be a full solution, they only delay the inevitable
- Nuclear energy is actually a substantial source of energy and can buy us lots of time while we look for much longer term solutions
- Fusion would be the ultimate energy source if we could harness it and make it viable.
What won't work/is not a good idea:
- E85/Ethanol: consumes almost as much energy as it produces, raises cost of food
- Hydrogen cars: Hydrogen is a CARRIER, not an ENERGY SOURCE. It takes energy to make the hydrogen and there is an efficiency loss in any conversion. If you have the energy to make hydrogen why not use that energy directly?
- Wind/solar: A stopgap measure, but the amount of wind and solar that can be generated is small relative to the energy consumption we have in fossil fuels.
- Electric cars: See HYDROGEN. Electricity is a carrier of energy, not a source. Where are you going to get all that electricity? That's why you need nuclear power!
- Fuel cell cars: See HYDROGEN. Why is GM even working on this? Could possibly be more efficient if the source of fuel is hydrocarbon rather than hydrogen.
- Orbiting solar stations: A possibility, but my suspicion is that this will be too difficult and expensive to be viable.
Of course the real answer is reducing world population. I doubt we can even sustain the current population for over 100 years (I hope I'm wrong).
