Relax

It may come as good new to many, but the United States if finally a net exporter of energy. That's right, we send more energy out of the US than we take in. In an article in the Wall Street Journal, we are told that "U.S. exports of gasoline, diesel and other oil-based fuels are soaring, putting the nation on track to be a net exporter of petroleum products in 2011 for the first time in 62 years." Expect the Obama administration to take credit for this, of course.

THE Future

Range anxiety, long charge time, expensive; these are all valid criticisms of today's electric vehicles. To get a range anxiety-free, no charge time, inexpensive, zero-emissions vehicle requires cutting out a lot of the "middle man" of power production, distribution, and consumption. People are taking the wrong route at the fork in the road for EVs. They see setting up charging stations everywhere as the way to keep people connected. That's not going to solve anything, even with speed chargers. I don't want to hook up anything to my vehicle at all...ever. Now, how can all of this be achieved? Centralization. What's more likely to happen? America's electric vehicles all being powered by home-owned solar arrays or from a company which consolidates solar and does the work for them? I'm going with the latter. I want you to imagine a few things, all of which are technologically feasible. What if we built vehicles so that they could absorb an electromagnetic signal from a tower which received space based solar power? Imagine, the sunlight would hit giant mirrors which would concentrate an enormous amount of solar energy onto a solar array which would then beam the power down to a distribution station which could send the power to cars, buildings, and even planes. This would negate the need for a national electric grid. A vehicle would function much like a cell phone. You would have areas of coverage, where one day, the whole planet would be covered. The car would have a swappable on-board battery for emergencies and when repairs need done. Hopefully, batteries would become obsolete.  You can go anywhere, zero-emissions, for as long as you like. It's like turning on the light switch though. You could pay a monthly subscription which would provide unlimited driving. Wireless power transmission has already been proven to work, it just needs to be improved further. Space based solar power is also an up-and-coming technology which makes plenty of sense, especially since investors are growing interested in this idea. Remember, solar energy is more intense in space and has a 100% capacity factor.


"solarity"

Efficiency First

Many renewable energy advocates always support more and more renewable energy. That's not necessarily a bad thing. However, while many people asser the "twin pillars" of sustainable energy, being energy efficiency and renewable energy, efficiency is more where more of our energy should be focused. If you're not using x amount of energy, there is no need to create any more energy. It's like economics. We'll compare energy efficiency to tax dollars being spent, and renewable energy as taxes. If our money is being spent well and wisely, there is no need to increase taxes, now is there? Likewise, if we use our energy in a reasonably efficient manner, there is no need to increase any more power generation, is there? This should delight renewable energy proponents, because quite honestly, every time renewable energy is in the news, its usually not good: From Solyndra, to Government Motors (or General Motors, whichever you prefer), people are starting to get a similar feeling of renewable energy companies comparable to oil companies like BP and Enron. If there is no need for 50 MW of solar energy, than I don't have to worry about covering hundreds of acres with panels. If I don't need 500 MW of energy, I don't have to worry about covering hundreds, possibly thousands, of acres with unsightly wind turbines. I'm not an advocate for incentives, but if they are going to remain in place, we should be incentivizing items that save energy, instead of subsidizing energy production sources which inefficiently produce energy. In a telling article in the Wall Street Journal, Sari Krieger pits Energy Efficiency v. Renewable Sources. “When you look at the stimulus tax rebates, the amount that goes to insulation is the least, but it’s the most effective,” says Peter Welch, a Vermont Democrat. She then goes on to say the following: "A study by New York-based management consulting firm McKinsey & Co. earlier this year compared the cost of eliminating one ton of CO2 emissions using different means: Wind power cost about $38 per ton of CO2 saved; solar cost about $30. But replacing incandescent lights in a home with light-emitting diodes saved about $159 per ton of CO2, and using energy-efficient appliances saved about $108 per ton." Renewable energy has many challenges as is, so trying to keep up the pace with providing small amounts of power for inefficient energy consumption makes no sense. Make sure the place of consumption is using that energy as efficiently as possible in the first place, then provide the renewable power. As I've advocated in an article of mine from last year, it may be a good idea to sell the power to LEED Certified homes so it makes more business sense. All this visual pollution coming from the overwhelming amount of wind turbines would not be necessary if the homeowners or businesses that they were selling the power to used the energy efficiently in the first place, or were LEED certified.

This "energy pyramid" picture is pretty telling of how energy should be viewed.

What people are doing instead, is putting renewable energy on bottom. This is truly an unsustainable path, because inefficient sources of power production cannot keep up with a power hungry planet. In conclusion, when we view the topic of energy, always start with thinking about using the power efficiently, and then producing it. As a final illustration, look at this picture describing the energy-efficient home. Notice how it puts power production, or solar panels, as number nine on the list of whats important.

Triumph for the Environment and Economy.

My morning was already going great when I read the exciting headline "NRC approves first new nuclear plant in 3 decades." With the incident where a nuclear power-plant was knocked offline at Fukishima, Japan on March 11, 2011, fear-mongering has run rampant. The media, in step with Hollywood, has produced false or highly exaggerated reports of the nuclear energy industry in America and across the world; simultaneously, Hollywood produces highly discredited "movies", interpret propaganda, with the intent of needlessly scaring people so they take irrational decisions based on fear. Media talking heads with abysmal ratings provide a platform to the anti-nuclear left.Thankfully, all of this is nonsense. Jon Stossell, a well respected TV icon, has produced an excellent video debunking all of these concerns.

                   

After discarding all the nonsense produced by Hollywood and the liberal media, vying for plummeting ratings as usual with bombastic headlines, you should be excited about the good news. This means a few exciting things for America and our energy future. Firstly, improved safety. Despite what you may hear on TV or read, there has not been a single death in the United States Nuclear industry...ever. You are more likely to die from riding a bike, driving a car, riding roller skates, or even lighting a candle. What we've learned is that the nuclear industry is the safest one in the world, and improves daily. Secondly, jobs! The $14 billion dollars being pumped into eastern Georgia's economy will be a real boost to the state's economy and to those desperately searching for jobs. Thirdly, abundant, zero-emissions power. This will be gigawatts of clean power at a scale we need at a price we can afford. Wind and solar can not lay claim to that. Internationally renowned pioneering environmentalist Stewart Brand is on board, and to find out why, watch this excellent debate where he explains why we need nuclear energy so bad which helps reinforce my points. People don't realize it America could have been the first zero-emissions super power years ago if we had stayed constant and consistent. France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy. In all, it also derives 16.7% of its power mix from hydroelectricity, so it overall comes out to 90.7% zero-emissions power. America could have a similar story, but until we continue to have victories like todays, abundant, affordable, zero-emissions power will just be a figment of our imaginations.

Plasmagasification: The Sleeping Giant

Vehicular Ultimatum

If you think about it, what would the ultimate vehicle, being a car/train/plane, be? It would be one that is high performance whose fuel source is unlimited and has no byproduct whatsoever.