But not many would be in favor of turning our nuclear weapons against ourselves.

WW II also involve massive conversion of civilian industry to war production - often overriding extremely loud complaints by that civilian industry.

I would add that while Romm is right that deployment is the key. But I would also add that government funding could greatly speed up that deployment. For example he talks about CSP providing two wedges. If we put large scale subsidies into CSP it might provide a lot more than that. The same argument applies to wind.

Natural life span [say] 75 years (or less) politically possible?

I'de almost have to agree..

-JChan

I'de like to join the "drink the coolaid to beat C02 party", but lately I've come to the conclusion and I also see many others [ recent Nature March/April articles as examples] that trying to stop mankind's C02 imprint is the equivalent to (excuse the analogy) trying to stop the whole world from flushing daily. It's about on that scale as far as changing human behavior, educating the growing populace and redirecting the path of the underdeveloped world's awakening to mass consumerism worldwide.  What's that old saying.."as you teach ..so shall others follow?"

I predict that within ten years CO2 issues will look old and outdated compared to materials sustainability issues with water, natural resources (lumber), and fisheries, and other food issues while environmentalism will continue to be the "blessing and curse" high trapeeze balancing act we;ve all by now learned to grwo and love. Any new ideas that try to germinate and take hold and spread will need to clearly demonstrate a prudent approach to balancing "risk analysis" and educating millions worldwide on just what that really means. Probably the biggest lesson of this century unfolding that I see currently.I am optimistic, but the enormity of the challenges we should not underestimate.

I'm beginning to think this will be a combination of the "quantum" and  "crisis century". The potential to unleash so many blessings unto the world, but the scope of the human challenges may be very overwhelming by even 2030 by some estimates that I've been reading. A fine balancing act indeed...and a race in many ways.  

I'm glad to see some 'DoE retirees' sticking their necks out to educate more. Sorely needed! Hopefully for our children's sake some ideas and lesson's learned (over many years) will take hold and grow as we have seen in the last two or three years as the mass media becomes more educated on all the various engineering, technological, psychological and educational issues needed to really make progress. Keep praying ...

-JChan

Interesting thoughts re' future energy realities, and indeed the challenge is great, with politicians and bureaucrats trying to hide behind no end of useless catch phrases and gimmics. But watch what's going on at the National Ignition Facility lab in Lawrence Livermore California over the next 2 to 3 years.  Watch for the achievement of "First Ignition" of hydrogen isotopes Deuterium and Tritum using a high-powered laser... then swing to Europe, and watch what happens with the international HiPER project, which is already preparing the way to take the proof opf principle the next critical step forward towards development of fusion power generation.  No, this isn't the instant answer and, if there is a serious CO2 problem, fusion won't fix it in the next few years, simply because it will take longer than that to master the new technologies.  Obviously we need to get away from burning fossils as fast as we can educate the vast fossil-burning world out there, but that means first we must win their hearts and minds.  They are not going to stop building coal-burning power stations in China and India or driving gas-guzzling SUV's in the USA without some serious understanding of where that is leading.  Apart from the task of making billions of people (and their Governments) change their ways, there is the immediate challenge to science AND to industry.  We know that renewables can't even begin to dream of handling the electricity base-load we now need.  Right now, new fission plants have to be the answer, but as soon as fusion comes on line (either magnetic confinement or inertial confinement, or preferably both) we can leave the long-term radioactive waste problem behind.  Fusion creates radioactivity too, but only very small amounts and with a half-life around 50 years, as opposed to hundreds of thousands for fission.  ... and the levels are lower than those of hospital waste.  Something of a no-brainer in my opinion !  Remember that the atom is really just a tiny "battery".  The enormous amount of energy stored in it was put there a long time ago when it was made... in the Big Bang.  We are only slowly learning how to unlock that energy.  But we ARE getting there !  Watch the fusion story !!!  James Makepeace

This article covers one of the most important topics under consideration today.  The emphasis on the timeframe needed for change is the keystone issue.

Why is this not on the forefront of every media outlet and educational forum?  The general public knows little or nothing about the urgency of the energy issue and if you are following the presidential candidates potential energy policies, it seems they are undereducated on the urgency question as well.

With Earth Month, networks and publications carried story after story about "greening" technologies and home energy saving strategies.  Not once did I hear any hint that major policy shifts have to occur in a matter of years for those CFLs and additional insulation to count on a global stage.

We need to devise policy and funding to deploy the off-the-shelf technologies along with conservation and efficiency immediately.  But we also need an educational component that will reach the public domain in an accurate and understandable form.  Try asking five people you run into today which choice is better for a promising energy future - higher percentage funding for  available technology or for R&D.

I would encourage authors and researchers to work harder to get their information to the main stream media when energy bills come before Congress and when candidates stump for elections.

aside from the subsidies and unassessed externalities giving us a false price on hydrocarbons, the US blows away trillions a year on insurance and finance overhead, social and industrial welfare through the military,

we just blew away trillions more in real estate equity because our geniuses thought a good way to heat your home was to set it on fire.

we have no problem with spending stupid money here. we have no problem with wind potential here. throwing money at turbines would -- maybe for the first time in decades -- actually get us a return on our investment.

"water vapor, etc. are not important." Water vapor is a feedback not a foricing like the aforementioned chemical arrangements, CO2, methane et al. Of course some refuse to believe the difference, since there's mor water than the others, but chemistry isn't subjective.  

Marky48

Our CSP team is grappling with the issues of rapid scale-up that you so eloquently write about in this post, forwarded to the team now competing with diverse business models.  My model is open source technology freely available to all producers and consumers.

In simple, one significant numbers, $1000 installation CSP cost will displace one ton of carbon per year for 30 years, (O&M 3%/year).  Simple payback is one to two years, EROEI less than 6 months.  24 hour storage will increase cost 25%. That, my friends, is much cheaper than burning carbon.

The plan -- thousands of people building millions of units, followed by millions of people building billions of units.  The capital is trillions. The cost is zero via profits.  

The method is to use existing commodities of concrete, steel, and glass from existing industries with existing tooling and existing skills.  Parallel production (horizontal integration) can scale very fast.

Pangolin, I'm not sure what or for who you were apologizing but I think there are some very good comments here. Some of them come from people like me who have spent years actually putting energy systems into use. Widespread deployment of technology that, in many cases, is marginally developed is very difficult.

There are some people on this site who have very dark rose colored glasses when it comes to real cost and practicality of renewables. Remember "hope is not a plan"?

Sunflower and I have dueled on this before and I will gladly concede defeat when there is a large cost effective CSP operating with storage, but I don't expect that to happen.

I wonder if we are being unusually silly here. Is there anything to say that the Ultra High Tech lifestyle of Unlimited Energy is a good idea? No one has demonstrated this to me yet. So far this umwelt has fragmented society and our environment to the point where both might be on the brink of collapse.

Perhaps it might be time to set aside some of our toys and learn to live more simply. If renewable energy sources won't supply our current baseload, well then why can't we reduce our baseload? Is the human condition so dependent on plasma TV's?

If you continue to do what you've always done you'll continue to get what you've always got. - Yogi Berra

Another post for your blog? Thanks.

Joseph,

Some parts of your statements are spot on, some are way off.

First, your dismissal of hydrogen, "It ain't even an energy source" implies that electricy and batteries should be dismissed too, since they "ain't" energy sources either. We all know you don't support hydrogen, but your rationale is wrong, as this flippant remark demonstrates.

But, lets talk about what you're right about.  You're absolutely right that the country lacks political will because the near term direct economic impacts are more concrete and easy to calculate than the far more significant but more abstract and indirect long term economic impacts.  How do we change this?  Well first, we can't just give up.  Set a price for carbon?  Agreed!  And make it fluctuate based on the amount of carbon already in the atmosphere.

You're also right about the need to invest heavily in technologies are available today, and all the technologies you specify are right on.  There are a few more that you missed, however.  Here is just one: we already have the technologies to create hydrogen off an alternator and inject it into the combustion chamber of an internal combustion engine.  Doing so improves the combustion of the fuel (particularly with diesel), resulting in more power, better gas mileage, and lower emmissions.  The primary delays to those technologies have been patent squabbles and the vehicle manufacturers' failure to license the technologies. (Perhaps due to the patent squabbles? Perhaps due to the patent owners' terms?)  Without the manufacturers supplying these technologies as OEM equipment, they won't catch on.  Who wants to risk impacting the warranty with a third party add on?

The real beauty of hydrogen that you miss is that it allows for a smooth transition, rather than an abrupt change.  The hydrogen injection above is an obvious first step.  A somewhat similar blended approach that is already available is hythane to provide cleaner fuel than straight natural gas. Dual-fuel internal combustion vehicles and fuel cells for fleet vehicles and niche markets fill the gap as the infrastructure is built out.  Hydrogen generated from natural gas fills the gap as methane digesters, direct solar-to-hydrogen, and electrolysis from wind, solar, and hydro, and other sustainable sources mature.  You flippantly say the fuel cell car is dead.  So what?  More and more applications are emerging  where it *already* is cost effective to implement fuel cells, such as forklifts in large distribution centers.  Don't forget the stationary applictions, with combined heat and power.  Does the electrolyzer in the consumer's garage make sense? Certainly not right now, but a molten carbonate fuel cell in a large switching station or hotel already does.  Will the fuel cell car be reborn?  Maybe.  After all, it looks like the electric car will, only because of a TILT called the lithium-ion battery.  Welcome to the world of transition.

None of these compete with the approaches you suggest.  They can coexist - in fact, they must coexist.  As the wedges demonstrate, we have to get away from a silver bullet mentality, and accept the shotgun reality.  We need many solutions. Each will have pros and cons.  Some may be interim, some may be long term.   It is much like a balanced investment portfolio.  And like that portfolio, you need to have some high-potential assets, that may take longer to mature, and carry more uncertainty.  When you dismiss hydrogen, you fail to create a balanced portfolio.  As a hydrogen advocate, I also point out that investing solely in hydrogen is as big a mistake.  It's all about balance, and mitigating one set of risks with other, different risks.  Your strategy is all about investing in low-yield bonds (exemplified by the statement "If a new supply technology can't deliver half a wedge, it won't be a big player..."). I recommend a more strategic porfolio.

Paul Faulstich
President, Hydrogen Energy Center