Election 2008: Energy Independence Bunny Trail

[psophia17]

I'm not entirely sure what "energy independence" is - I think it means decreasing our reliance on foreign oil, and also decreasing our reliance on oil in favor of other energy sources, preferably renewable sources. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong.

In any case, I'd like to know your thoughts on how to establish some energy independence over the next decade or so?

etc: typo and poor word usage

[LarsMal]

Have you seen the commercials for the Pickens Plan? I finally went to the website and checked out the video. It has a lot of interesting information and statistics on our dependency on foreign oil and what we can do to change it. I haven't seen the commercials linked to either candidate, and all I could find on the website (although I didn't spend a whole lot of time looking around) was a line that said, "On January 20th, 2009, a new President will take office. We're organizing behind the Pickens Plan now to ensure our voices will be heard by the next administration."

I'm not endorsing the plan. It just has some interesting information if you want to check it out.

Basically, in 1970 our use of imported oil was 24% and today it's about 70%- costing $700billion. We have 25% consumption with 4% of the population. So, there's our dependency!

Other options include: coal, natural gas, hydro power, bio fuel, wind, solar, and nuclear.

**Kiddos just got home with Daddy. I'll post more later!**

[gatorsmom]

I'm not entirely sure what "energy independence" is - I think it means decreasing our reliance on foreign oil, and also decreasing our reliance on oil in favor of other energy sources, preferably renewable sources. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong.

In any case, I'd like to know your thoughts on how to establish some energy independence over the next decade or so?

etc: typo and poor word usage

I've always been a huge environmentalist and come from a family that respects the earth and it's natural resources. Then I met DH. He's from Texas. His whole family has been in oil and gas for several generations. My FIL is in the senior ranks of one of the major oil and gas companies. My husband was a directional driller for an oil and gas company. His sister works in oil and gas. Makes for some interesting holiday talks! Especially since they have insights into some of these issues that many of us don't.

I've always been against drilling for oil in Alaska since I was so concerned about the environmental consequences of it. That is, until recently. People in America are going hungry because of the cost of oil going so high. It has had a huge effect on our economy and families are suffering. Alaska has oil- lots of it. I have to say, I'd rather see the caribou suffering than our families here. Desperate times call for desperate measures. It is time to drill in Alaska. At least to help with the supply to offset the price of foreign oil. My husband has always assured me (and I just ignored him until recently) that directional drilling is so much more precise nowadays. He actually worked on the north slope of Alaska for 6 months and said they have the best, cleanest set ups he's ever seen (and he's drilled in Holland, Venezuela, and Oman). He swears the cost to the environment would be minimal. That's somewhat comforting.

What I really don't understand is why the powers that be in our country are dragging their feet on all the other untapped resources there are. According to DH's family (I haven't verified with other sources) the US has the largest untapped reserves of natural gas in the world. There are enormous pockets of them all over the US. He mentioned areas outside of Austin, Texas, North Dakota and some other places that are ripe with it. And why aren't we using this to fuel our cars like they do in Venezuela and other countries? The technology is already being used in other countries- why don't we borrow it?

I find it so frustrating because so much of this is out there and big businesses are trying to bury it. I had first hand experience with that at my last job. I worked for a start-up company that installed geothermal heat pump systems. It's really a fantastically clean, efficient, and cheap way to heat buildings. They were being installed in schools and apartment buildings. Even George Bush's ranch had a geothermal system installed. But like so many of the other geothermal installers, our company suffered dramatically when Bush took office. He did NOTHING to promote this wonderfully simple energy source. It made me sick because he even had it in his own home!!! Many of these little start up installers needed venture capital (sp) to stay running because they were fighting established construction companies. Many of them have gone under.

Resources like these are at our finger tips. Who is it that is fighting to keep them hidden? Obviously the big oil and gas guys are at it, and I'm sure the car manufacturers are grumbling about change too. It's true change is uncomfortable but the alternative is no longer acceptable. jm2cents

[kijip]

No amount of new drilling in the states is going to lower prices at the pumps here and now. It is just not.

Frankly, we (and our kids and grandkids) have a large problem- we have developed a way of life that is dependent on fueling large hunks of metal to transport us and more worrisome our food and other needed goods from place A to place Z. Oil, even if we do have more here, is not going to be around forever- I think most people agree on that. We need to be using other energy sources that are renewable rather than draining our energy capital till it is gone, gone, gone. That means we need new, cheaper technology. If we wait till the oil is gone, it will be more painful to develop that technology. While there is work being done on this, I think we need a bigger investment here to make it work. The reason new stuff gets tucked under the rug is because there are a number of powerful lobbies and industries committed to sticking to what we use now till the wheels fall off the bike altogether. We desperately need to stop listening to them.

Tax breaks for reducing your carbon foot print might be one incentive. Obviously, there are a lot of ways to measure that but it needs to be a priority.

[Sillygirl]

It makes me sick to hear that Saudi Arabia is considered by the current administration to be an ally. I think that country should be isolated like South Africa was for apartheid. The way they treat women is disgusting. But we're buddy-buddy with them because they have oil. They take our billions and use it to spread their virulent Wahabism all over the Muslim world.

If we focused on developing non-oil technologies we could be independent of them. We could sell the technology to China and India. We could create hundreds of wonderful jobs here in this country. And we would make the Middle East a provincial backwater until they got their cultural &^%&^ together, without firing a shot.

I don't see how extra drilling brings about any of that.

[mamicka]

I absolutely think that drilling for oil now will impact the price we pay at the pump relatively quickly. Its a bit more complicated than just how long will it take to get that oil into the market - think long-term commodity investing.

I also don't think that new drilling with have any significant impact on the environment or wildlife. I think that this is too often stated as a given when it really isn't. I would really encourage people who haven't already to do your own research & find out what the experts are saying & form your own conclusions.

But I don't think this should be our only solution, not by a long-shot. I'm too tired to really get into a lot of this now but I think that we really need to look to nuclear. Among others, but that's a really big one for me.

[kijip]

Its a bit more complicated than just how long will it take to get that oil into the market - think long-term commodity investing.


I majored in Economics and Finance so I understand that factor in the market. New oil drilling would be a short term supply starting maybe a decade-ish from now. If the markets were looking at some magical certainty in the market for the next decade, then drilling could lower prices. But we are facing anything but certainty in the oil market over the next 1-10 years. Ever growing demand from India and China, ongoing conflict in or with the countries that produce most of the oil we consume, lower or limited by OPEC supply. Any price benefit to new domestic drilling is far outweighed by the massive amounts of upwards pressure on prices in the much nearer term or such potential pressures. Uncertainty is the main thing that drives up price. To say nothing of the fact that there is NEVER decade long certainty in the market.

It can't escape us that in a World War situation, we don't have any true mega oil producing allies. Seriously, we would be at serious risk. Energy independence is a SECURITY issue as much as anything else right now.

[shilo]

hmm, this one's a toughie for me. ready for another mind dump essay ;). i'd like to have a thread at some point about all of the other ways i think 'we' should be looking at reducing our 'need' for energy/fuels in this country (mass transit/infrastructure funding, weatherizing and improving energy efficiency in our homes, factories, public/commercial buildings, etc) or ways that we are robbing the planet of combatting our damage (deforestation). but since i think the gist of the question has more to do with how to improve our independence, efficiency, etc given our current consumption, i'll try and give you my ans. from that perspective...

i guess i fundamentally am somewhat confused with the term 'energy independence' too, at least in current common usage, since the intent of the term vs. it's recent common usage are so vastly divergent. couple that with the fact that "fuels" vs. "energy" in this country are really two separate issues, and it's a heck of a mess.

this is totally my view of the recent history, i'm sure there will be many who take issue with it (and that's ok)... but... at it's heart, i think the original intent of re-proliferating the term/concept/whatever in the last, oh, lets say 6 or 7 years, was to imply the 'security' piece, but really only economic security. basically the current administration beating the old nixon-era war drum that we needed to end our dependence on foreign oil by ramping up domestic energy production (anyone remember W's 2002 speech about how we were 'addicted' to foreign oil?). and while on the surface that's true and a great thing to draw public attention to it again, the solutions being offered, funded, subsidized, etc. were/are largely not renewable or clean. in practice, "energy independence" has come to represent how big-business can make a bigger profit off of our energy production and use domestically, not about how to improve efficiency and ensure not only our economic security, but our physical and environmental security as well.

if we're talking fuels, as in fueling our vehicles:
- 'clean' coal is domestic, but it isn't really clean. as i understand it, the technologies that are being developed to allow us to use it as 'fuel' (syngas) can and do significantly reduce the carbon emissions during the refining process, but haven't been demonstrated to do anything about the CO2 emissions when we burn it in an engine.
- we have 'untapped' natural gas resources domestically. but it has the same inherent problem as any other "fuel" - it does have an environmental impact involved with the mining/refining and most especially the delivery/piping processes.
- ethanol can't really ever be viable here. even if you somehow overcame the corn lobby and managed to ramp up ethanol production from more efficient plant stock (sugar beets, cane or switchgrasses all have far less impact on the global food security than the corn we mandate here, to name a few), it would still require something like 70% of our arable land to grow enough crop to replace our gasoline. while there is a lot of promise in the production-end efficiency and decreased impacts on our food crop land with the newer cellulosic ethanol ideas (wood chips and bio-wastes), that still leaves a fundamentally flawed delivery system that takes large amounts of energy to transport said fuel to the end consumer.

so that leaves us with:
-plug in electric hybrids. they would certainly seem to be the best long term viable solution IF we can figure out a way to produce the energy that is clean, renewable and efficient to deliver and vastly improve our energy storage efficiency and find clean ways of producing the necessary 'batteries'. but that's a big IF. most of our energy production here today comes from burning coal and natural gas. the argument goes that even if we still burn those fuels, but at centralized locations (power plants), there's still a pretty big (>25% according to the dept. of energy) savings to be had in both efficiency and emissions over delivering it to a local fuel station and combusting it in a car.

so the philosophy i buy into? abandoning most of our fossil fuel use at the car level has 2 major advantages. 1. it makes the energy 'grid' itself more efficient by running it 24/7 rather than the current idle night times. 2. it gives us the time to R&D and implement much more clean and efficient methods of production over time. and this is where the real 'savings' are to be had - it's estimated that these new 'clean' technologies would cut our foreign oil use by an additional 30+%. funny thing tho, this (10-12 years) happens to be the SAME amount of time it's estimated that new domestic drilling would have even it's miniscule projected 2% improvement on our reliance on foreign oil. it also happens to be the same amount of time that is projected to realistically develop and deploy a greener fleet of cars here (10-15 years). i don't know about you, but dollar for dollar, a 30% cut in our foreign oil dependence that actually improves our environmental impact sounds much better to me than a 2% savings to be had with 'drill baby drill' in the SAME time frame with much more uncertain environmental consequences.

so this idea of cleaner energy production is an area where i see huge potential, but very little in the way of funding and R&D to actually move us towards true 'independence'. and it's not too shocking as to why, IMO. with things like wind and particularly solar, we get more efficient at harnessing and delivering over time, not less. so there is less profit to be made and less incentive for big business to really push it's advent, or even worse lobby against it. and you can't really 'speculate' on the sun. it's kind of an issue of altruism, imo, something we do for the greater good for our future and our kids futures. if big business won't do it, that kinda leaves the central gov't. to fund/encourage it's development and use. once the technology is there tho, there are great benefits to be had both in the aspect of securing more domestic jobs related to the new industry as well as potential for export revenues (not to mention global climate stability) to other countries.

solar: of all the 'clean' technologies currently being researched at institutions like MIT and Cal, the one's i'm most excited by are the nano photovoltaic coatings for windows (imagine office buildings where all the windows were actually solar cells) and nanoantennas (which capture infrared heat waves, not light, so they can continue to capture energy radiating back up from surfaces even once the sun's gone down). combine those with the new technologies being developed for storing the solar power so it can be used when the sun isn't shining and we're sooo close to actually having a viable, long term alternative to fossil fuels. the current administration pledged just $148 million to solar research in 2006 - that's less than half of what it was in the 1970's???

ok, i'm done. i'll happily sit back and read everything everyone else has to say about it now!
lori

[mamicka]

I majored in Economics and Finance so I understand that factor in the market.

I am also well-educated in Economics & Finance & I disagree with you.

[o_mom]

I think that one part that is missing is that even if we had more oil, the refineries are at max capacity. I am not saying that we should drill or not drill, but if the refining capacity isn't changed it isn't going to make a difference. People in my state contiunally rail on about how we should drill in Alaska, but then refuse to allow any refineries to be built here - NIMBY at its finest.

I wish we could get our act together on alternatives, mass transit, etc. Dh took DS1 on the train recently and it was sad, sad, sad the state of Amtrak. Not so much through any fault of their own. A trip that would take 3 hours in a car was 4.5 hours on the train with only two stops. The tracks are in such disrepair that they can't go over 30-40 mph in many sections. I think we need to get over the idea that mass transit should be self-sufficient. Auto and truck travel certainly isn't - we subsidize the road at an astronomical rate and continue to just widen the highways so people can drive by themselves.

No answers here, just some venting. :)

[maestramommy]

My husband has always assured me (and I just ignored him until recently) that directional drilling is so much more precise nowadays. He actually worked on the north slope of Alaska for 6 months and said they have the best, cleanest set ups he's ever seen (and he's drilled in Holland, Venezuela, and Oman). He swears the cost to the environment would be minimal. That's somewhat comforting.

What I really don't understand is why the powers that be in our country are dragging their feet on all the other untapped resources there are. According to DH's family (I haven't verified with other sources) the US has the largest untapped reserves of natural gas in the world. There are enormous pockets of them all over the US. He mentioned areas outside of Austin, Texas, North Dakota and some other places that are ripe with it. And why aren't we using this to fuel our cars like they do in Venezuela and other countries? The technology is already being used in other countries- why don't we borrow it?

I find it so frustrating because so much of this is out there and big businesses are trying to bury it. I had first hand experience with that at my last job. I worked for a start-up company that installed geothermal heat pump systems. It's really a fantastically clean, efficient, and cheap way to heat buildings. They were being installed in schools and apartment buildings. Even George Bush's ranch had a geothermal system installed. But like so many of the other geothermal installers, our company suffered dramatically when Bush took office. He did NOTHING to promote this wonderfully simple energy source. It made me sick because he even had it in his own home!!! Many of these little start up installers needed venture capital (sp) to stay running because they were fighting established construction companies. Many of them have gone under.

Resources like these are at our finger tips. Who is it that is fighting to keep them hidden? Obviously the big oil and gas guys are at it, and I'm sure the car manufacturers are grumbling about change too. It's true change is uncomfortable but the alternative is no longer acceptable. jm2cents


Couple of points here. Lisa, I would've been stunned by your first two paragraphs, except that someone on another (not parenting) forum said the same thing, but in more detail and more vehemently. He even said that the Sierra Club gets money from OPEC to keep ranting against drilling in Alaska. I have no way of verifying this, so if your dh could that would be something significant to me. However, I did talk with a friend who is a contract engineer for Exxon Mobile and is trying to get a job on one of the overseas oil rigs. He is convinced that what oil there is in Alaska would run in in less than 10 years. At our present rate of consumption, that is.

As for geothermal, at the moment it's not cost effective for the average consumer to implement it in their home. You still have to have some way of heating all that water, and that takes fuel. Now if there were some widespread movement to make it truly more energy efficient, with less of a carbon footprint, we'd been interested. But you're right, it's extremely frustrating that we, as a nation that has historically led the way in innovation, are dragging our feet in an area where we could really shine.

Over the summer we read a copy of the New Yorker, and there was a long article that started out talking about a tiny island farm town in Sweden that became totally green over the course of a few years. It went on from there to talk about whole companies that are housed in green buildings, families that are living in such a way as to reduce their watt usage. Quite amazing really. Of course, there's no way this could happen in the U.S with the present infrastructure. Our lifestyle is so spread out. Very few metro areas have public transit that works for almost everybody. You're reduced to biking, or driving as little as possible.

I'll try to find that article. It really was an eye-opener.

[psophia17]

Who is it that is fighting to keep them hidden? Obviously the big oil and gas guys are at it, and I'm sure the car manufacturers are grumbling about change too. It's true change is uncomfortable but the alternative is no longer acceptable. jm2cents

This is the crux of what I find infuriating about the cost of oil/gas/etc. It is crippling many, many familes, and there is nothing we can do about it because that's just how it is. Our home has an oil furnace, and it takes almost $1600 to fill the tank. That oil lasts 4-6 weeks, depending on how cold it is. Yet the house remains cold, even with the furnace running 24/7, drinking up the home heating oil. Sure, we need new windows and some insulation, but we rent - investing that kind of money in a home we'll eventually have to move out of is silly. Last year we used up the oil, and then we used space heaters in the rooms we wanted to be livable, and wore lots of sweaters.

So from your post, Lisa, I see that GWB has geothermal heat in his home. I guess it must save him some money. And that is an attitude that galls me - he gets to save money but people who can't afford to upgrade to a better, more efficient and cost effective system, are SOL. I'm sure there are plenty of others just like him.

What that tells me is that there needs to be a system to make change cost-effective for everyone.

About the oil in Alaska (and elsewhere) - it's going to run out. There may be a lot of it now, but it's going to run out. Soon. End of story. Before that happens, we need to have a way to live without it. Oil and petroleum products are *everywhere,* and if the economy is bad now, it will completely collapse when we run out of oil. The way out of it isn't to spend millions drilling elsewhere, it's to come up with a plan that doesn't use crude oil.

[kijip]

I am also well-educated in Economics & Finance & I disagree with you.

That's great. I did not mention that to say anything about you, just to point out that when I said it takes time for domestic drilling to impact prices, I know full well that it is not just a matter of how long it takes to bring the oil to market as refined gasoline. Frankly, we will just have to agree to disagree. I don't see how the immediate future uncertainty of the market is not a bigger factor in pump prices.

[psophia17]

People in my state contiunally rail on about how we should drill in Alaska, but then refuse to allow any refineries to be built here - NIMBY at its finest.

What kind of return on investment would the refineries get, I wonder, given that the oil is being consumed so fast? No one knows for sure, and that is a very large investment, even if people were willing to have new refineries built in their backyards.

[psophia17]

Lisa, could you define geothermal energy for us? How it works and what it takes to install in a home or business? Thank you!

[egoldber]

About the oil in Alaska (and elsewhere) - it's going to run out. There may be a lot of it now, but it's going to run out. Soon. End of story. Before that happens, we need to have a way to live without it. Oil and petroleum products are *everywhere,* and if the economy is bad now, it will completely collapse when we run out of oil. The way out of it isn't to spend millions drilling elsewhere, it's to come up with a plan that doesn't use crude oil.

This is how I feel as well. It isn't even so much (for me) about the environmental impact of the drilling (although I freely admit I do not trust the petrochems to be able to do it impact-free) it's about how do we spend our limited time and money. Do we spend it developing sources for what is still ultimately a finite resource. Or do we spend it on developing new and renewable resources AND the infrastructure to be able to use those new resources.

We have a whole country and way of life built around having cheap gasoline. When that is no longer true (whether it's 10 years from now or 50 years from now) we are going to be in a world of hurt. As a nation I think we need to face that, get over our love for our big cars, our big houses and our suburbs and work on developing real answers to these problems.

[pb&j]

Lisa, could you define geothermal energy for us? How it works and what it takes to install in a home or business? Thank you!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_exchange_heat_pump

In a nutshell, geothermal heat pumps use the relatively stable temp just a few feet under the ground to heat/cool buildings. Rather than heating cold air or cooling warm air like traditional heat pumps, heat exchange is accomplished by routing refrigerant through underground pipes.

To install, you basically need enough ground to have the sq footage to pipe the refrigerant through a big enough loop to provide enough heating/cooling for the building.

I'm not sure about pricing to install, but they are extremely efficient and quiet - no loud compressor. Should we ever find ourselves in a position to do some major "greening" on our house, this is one of the improvements that we'd like to make.

ETA: There are a couple of different ways you can do geothermal, but the gist is that you use the thermal mass of the ground to collect or dissapate heat.

[psophia17]

That sounds a lot like the plate cooler my parents have on their dairy farm. Cold well water is run in the same gadget (a plate cooler) that the warm milk goes through - the milk gets cold, the water gets warm, the warm water is used to wash the cows' udders and then goes into a watertank for the cows to drink, and the milk goes into the bulk tank already cold, so it takes less energy to keep it cold.

Interesting.

Sounds spendy to install, but probably pays for itself in a few years.

Is geothermal something that could be used in many types of grounds? We are on a river delta, and the water table is only a few feet down.

[pb&j]

That sounds a lot like the plate cooler my parents have on their dairy farm. Cold well water is run in the same gadget (a plate cooler) that the warm milk goes through - the milk gets cold, the water gets warm, the warm water is used to wash the cows' udders and then goes into a watertank for the cows to drink, and the milk goes into the bulk tank already cold, so it takes less energy to keep it cold.

Interesting.

Sounds spendy to install, but probably pays for itself in a few years.

Is geothermal something that could be used in many types of grounds? We are on a river delta, and the water table is only a few feet down.

My understanding is pretty limited, but I believe that the depth at which the loops have to be buried varies depending on the depth of the frost line and other issues relating to local geography.

DH has looked briefly into pricing and it is about 4 times the cost of a new conventional HVAC system. But yes, it will cut energy bills drastically.

[maestramommy]

This is the crux of what I find infuriating about the cost of oil/gas/etc. It is crippling many, many familes, and there is nothing we can do about it because that's just how it is. Our home has an oil furnace, and it takes almost $1600 to fill the tank. That oil lasts 4-6 weeks, depending on how cold it is. Yet the house remains cold, even with the furnace running 24/7, drinking up the home heating oil. Sure, we need new windows and some insulation, but we rent - investing that kind of money in a home we'll eventually have to move out of is silly. Last year we used up the oil, and then we used space heaters in the rooms we wanted to be livable, and wore lots of sweaters.

Petra, you're scaring me:) This will be our first winter ever with oil heat, and we are going into it blind. We've decided to keep the thermostat as low as we can take it and layer up. People out here depend a lot on wood to get them through the winter (not exclusively, just as a money saver). Luckily the oil furnace doesn't heat our water, but that means our electricity bill could be pretty high as well. This house was very well built, and it's well insulated, but still, it's a big house.

[gatorsmom]

Lisa, could you define geothermal energy for us? How it works and what it takes to install in a home or business? Thank you!

I would be happy to since it is something that gets me so excited!! It's been 8 years since I talked about this stuff but lets see if I can get the basics clearly articulated.

About 6-10 ft below ground level the earth stays a constant temperature year round. Up here in Minnesota that temperature is 50degrees F. In Houston, Texas it is 70 degrees F. When you install a geothermal heatpump system (Gthps), you bury piping in the ground at that level where the temp remains constant. Those pipes are sometimes filled with a special solution or more often can simply be filled with water so that if there is a leak, it won't polute the earth (gotta like that!). You don't need a lot of ground to dig up to bury the pipes. Based on the amount of space you have in your yard or surrounding area there are different configurations to bury the pipe. For example, if you have a space of 10' by 10' the pipes can be buried running vertically.

The water in the pipes then become the temperature of the ground simply by being in the ground. So, again here in Minnesota the water in the buried pipes would be about 50degrees. The pipes run into the house and through a heat pump system that uses the temperature of the water to change the temperature of the air in your house. I'm not exactly sure of the mechanics of that all. But if your air outside is 95degrees, the 50degree water can bring your home's temperature down to that level without much help from another energy source. In the winter, when it's 15 degrees outside and the 50 degree water can bring your home's temperature up to 50 degrees and then would need help from another energy source to bring it up to 72 degrees. But the gthps does most of the work by bringing the air temperature from 15 degrees up to 50 making it much easier for electricity, oil or natural gas to bring the temp up the remaining 20 degrees you would want for your home to be comfortable.

When I was working for the geothermal company, we mainly sold gthps to be used in new construction, commercial applications. Can you imagine the energy needed to heat a Target, or Home Depot building? But it is true to say that for the average home builder it is tempting to go the traditional route of heating since the installation cost of a traditional system is less expensive (and when you are building a home and trying to manage costs, that is a concern). But with the savings in heating and cooling bills, a gthps in Texas would pay itself off in 7 years. So that initial investment makes sense if you plan to stay in your house for more than 7 years. Obviously a gthps can mean bigger savings in the areas of the country where the extremes in temperature are greater. It would make a bigger difference here in Minnesota where the winter temperatures can stay 10degreesF for a month and then stay at 80degreesF for most of the summer.

As for GWB, yep, he AND Cheney both have geothermal energy because it is so cost efficient. When I first started working for my geothermal company we were in the process of installing it in the mansion of some politician who lived just outside of Houston (I can't remember who it was now). I naively thought at the time that maybe this would be the begining of a big geothermal movement around the country since it had the support of such powerful allies. Silly me. :(

For more info (or to proofread my explanation), here is the website for the International Geothermal Heat Pump Association website: http://www.igshpa.okstate.edu/geothermal/geothermal.htm

[o_mom]

As for geothermal, at the moment it's not cost effective for the average consumer to implement it in their home. You still have to have some way of heating all that water, and that takes fuel.

Actually, it is cost effective if you plan to stay in your house for 7-10 years. Unfortunately, most people don't (see the housing issue thread for that one), so the upfront cost is what deters them (also in the housing thread - see "approved for a mortgage they can't afford"). The water is heated by the ground, so basically free with minimal use of other fuel. Even in the example Lisa gave, many systems use a heat exchanger, so you can draw the heat from that 50 deg water simply by putting it through a heat exchanger. It is the same principle of an electric heat pump, but run as if the outside temp was 50 deg all year around and very efficient.

We looked at this when we were looking at houses. Houses around here are mainly electric or natural gas heat. Electric doesn't work very well in the extreme cold, so most electric systems have a backup of natural gas. There was a house in particular that we liked, but it had electric heat and we discussed that we could put a geothermal in when that system needed replacement. We didn't end up with it for other reasons, but what we looked into was a 7-10 yr payback. The house we ended up with was upgraded to a ultra high-efficiency gas furnace just a year ago, so unfortunately we are not in a position to change it out any time soon.

[maestramommy]

Actually, it is cost effective if you plan to stay in your house for 7-10 years. Unfortunately, most people don't (see the housing issue thread for that one), so the upfront cost is what deters them (also in the housing thread - see "approved for a mortgage they can't afford"). The water is heated by the ground, so basically free with minimal use of other fuel. Even in the example Lisa gave, many systems use a heat exchanger, so you can draw the heat from that 50 deg water simply by putting it through a heat exchanger. It is the same principle of an electric heat pump, but run as if the outside temp was 50 deg all year around and very efficient.


Hmmm! That is something to consider, because we are planning on staying here til retirement/when the kids go off to college, so much longer than 7-10 years. Also, I didnt' know that the system is also used for cooling in summer, I thought it was for heating in winter only. Now what if you had forced air heating, central AC? Could the air ducts be used alongside the geothermal system, or would you have to completely re-retrofit the house?

[o_mom]

Hmmm! That is something to consider, because we are planning on staying here til retirement/when the kids go off to college, so much longer than 7-10 years. Also, I didnt' know that the system is also used for cooling in summer, I thought it was for heating in winter only. Now what if you had forced air heating, central AC? Could the air ducts be used alongside the geothermal system, or would you have to completely re-retrofit the house?

From what I recall, you basically have a blower, a heat exchanger and a pump. The pump circulates the water through the heat exchanger and the blower then circulates the air in the same way as your exisiting forced air system. I'm sure it's a bit more complicated than that, but they should be able to use existing ductwork.

[mommylamb]

Just an FYI, according to the Energy Information Administration (within DOE, so I pretty credible source) the estimate is that if we were to open all of the protected off-shore areas in America to drilling (now this does not include ANWR, just the outer continental shelf), gas prices would decrease by two-tenths of a penny per gallon, and not until 2030. And even in ANWR, the USGS believes that there is extremely limited oil (I think the estimate I saw was somewhere between 5.7 and 16 million barrels, which isn't a whole heck of a lot), and that oil is not concentrated in any one area, which means they would need to build significant road and pipeline infrastructure throughout the entire place.

Also, oil is a global commodity, so it's not like what limited oil that could be found in or near our shores will go only to America. It will be sold to the highest bidder, and with growing thirst of oil throughout the world, the little amount the US is even capable of producing is a drop in the bucket.

That said, I'm actually not entirely opposed to more drilling because I see it as a revenue source for the government, but you can drill drill drill, and not be in a different situation than we are right now. I think we need to focus significant resources-- both money and political will-- on improving the infrastructure so that we can move renewable energy (for example wind and solar) from the areas where those sources are plentiful to the areas where people need the energy. We also need to deal with the Yucca mountain issue, and the general storage and transportation safety issues associated with spent nuclear fuel. Nuclear needs to be part of the solution because it is clean energy (ok, so this one is much easier said than done, I know, and will probably piss off anyone who doesn't like nuclear as an energy source).

Anyway, just my two cents.

Jennifer

[shilo]

but here's the thing with nuclear. much like your very valid citations on what little impact actually drilling the outer shelf or even ANWR will have, nuclear is fraught with problems as well. while i think the plants that are already up and running should be maximized for efficiency for now since that infrastructure is already in place, it is clear that there is one heck of a mess involved in dealing with the spent fuel.

but as far as the assertion that nuclear is a viable long term solution, let alone 'clean' solution, here's the problem: it's got a whole heap of environmental concerns with bringing a new plant online (CO2 emissions from just the concrete shielding required alone have been estimated to have a decade plus lag to get to carbon neutral if i understand the studies concerning their engineering correctly). couple that with the fuel costs of mining, enriching and transporting the uranium, not to mention the tax funded cleanup for the mining sites and waste storage (spent rod) issues. then there is the ever sticky debate over where to put them because of the non-zero risk of a meltdown. NIMBY pretty much guarantee's there won't be any new nuclear power plants on US soil anytime soon. even if all of these other issues were somehow overcome, it would take 35+ years (if we continue to increase our energy requirements by current rates globally) to build enough plants (8000 of them compared with the 350 that exist today) to switch from coal plants to nuclear. that's 1 plant every 1.6 days for 38 years. where are we going to put them all? and if it's not on american soil, is being beholden to foreign nuclear (how scary is that) really any better than foreign oil?

just my thoughts, take 'em as you will ;)
lori

[psophia17]

Let's talk about wind, solar, and hydroelectric power, and how those options could be implemented. I don't think any is feasible for powering our vehicles, but all three are good options for powering our lives, and heating our homes.

[mommylamb]

Let's talk about wind, solar, and hydroelectric power, and how those options could be implemented. I don't think any is feasible for powering our vehicles, but all three are good options for powering our lives, and heating our homes.

Wind, solar and hydro can all be used to create electricity, which can be used to power vehicles if they are electric vehicles. However, there needs to be more R&D on batteries that last for that to be really practical. However, natural gas can be compressed and used as a fuel, and biodiesel can be made from a number of sources (vegetable oil for example). Then there's ethanol, which has its own set of issues if it is derived from corn, which is not the most efficient source at all, but that's where the lobbies have been and where the money is (think those ADM ads). But ethanol can also be produced from other sources such as sugarcane (this is what Brazil does) and switch grass, which is a great source because it's not also food, so it doesn't impact food prices. However, celulosic ethanol (the type made from switch grass) is harder to make and the technology is only in the beginning stages.

[mommylamb]

but here's the thing with nuclear. much like your very valid citations on what little impact actually drilling the outer shelf or even ANWR will have, nuclear is fraught with problems as well. while i think the plants that are already up and running should be maximized for efficiency for now since that infrastructure is already in place, it is clear that there is one heck of a mess involved in dealing with the spent fuel.

but as far as the assertion that nuclear is a viable long term solution, let alone 'clean' solution, here's the problem: it's got a whole heap of environmental concerns with bringing a new plant online (CO2 emissions from just the concrete shielding required alone have been estimated to have a decade plus lag to get to carbon neutral if i understand the studies concerning their engineering correctly). couple that with the fuel costs of mining, enriching and transporting the uranium, not to mention the tax funded cleanup for the mining sites and waste storage (spent rod) issues. then there is the ever sticky debate over where to put them because of the non-zero risk of a meltdown. NIMBY pretty much guarantee's there won't be any new nuclear power plants on US soil anytime soon. even if all of these other issues were somehow overcome, it would take 35+ years (if we continue to increase our energy requirements by current rates globally) to build enough plants (8000 of them compared with the 350 that exist today) to switch from coal plants to nuclear. that's 1 plant every 1.6 days for 38 years. where are we going to put them all? and if it's not on american soil, is being beholden to foreign nuclear (how scary is that) really any better than foreign oil?

just my thoughts, take 'em as you will ;)
lori


Those are all really good points on the nuclear front, but I still think that based on our growing energy needs we can't just leave it out. I don't think we'll ever be able to switch from coal to nuclear entirely. And even with coal, there are some clean coal technologies that in another decade could make coal at least a less dirty source. I strongly believe in using renewables, but I just don't think we'll ever get enough energy from wind, solar, and hydro to meet the need. All of which will also require major investment in infrastructure. For example, there's a great potential for wind in places like Oklahoma and Texas, and no way to move that energy to East coast cities at the moment.

I guess I see this as a problem with three different and competing goals 1. energy independence from foreign countries and their oil for national security reasons, 2. Greenhouse gas reduction, and 3. keeping energy affordable. All three of these have to be addressed, and it's a balancing act if you're going to be realistic No one in any of the camps will ever be entirely satisfied.

And in regards to nuclear, what we can't do is allow for the current state of affairs to continue with nuclear waste being stored at nuclear facilities meant to be temporary in nature. This is both unsafe and is costing the government money because the utilities were promised that the waste would be stored elsewhere and it hasn't happened yet so the govt. is paying them a lot of money to keep it there.

[kijip]

but here's the thing with nuclear. much like your very valid citations on what little impact actually drilling the outer shelf or even ANWR will have, nuclear is fraught with problems as well. while i think the plants that are already up and running should be maximized for efficiency for now since that infrastructure is already in place, it is clear that there is one heck of a mess involved in dealing with the spent fuel.

but as far as the assertion that nuclear is a viable long term solution, let alone 'clean' solution, here's the problem: it's got a whole heap of environmental concerns with bringing a new plant online (CO2 emissions from just the concrete shielding required alone have been estimated to have a decade plus lag to get to carbon neutral if i understand the studies concerning their engineering correctly). couple that with the fuel costs of mining, enriching and transporting the uranium, not to mention the tax funded cleanup for the mining sites and waste storage (spent rod) issues. then there is the ever sticky debate over where to put them because of the non-zero risk of a meltdown. NIMBY pretty much guarantee's there won't be any new nuclear power plants on US soil anytime soon. even if all of these other issues were somehow overcome, it would take 35+ years (if we continue to increase our energy requirements by current rates globally) to build enough plants (8000 of them compared with the 350 that exist today) to switch from coal plants to nuclear. that's 1 plant every 1.6 days for 38 years. where are we going to put them all? and if it's not on american soil, is being beholden to foreign nuclear (how scary is that) really any better than foreign oil?

just my thoughts, take 'em as you will ;)
lori
:yeahthat: I don't see most people wanting to sign on to have this in their area. We have a no longer used production site here (in the state, not even in the immediate area) and holy moly, does that site get people (from all political backgrounds) worked up. They want it gone, gone, gone. I think many will have a hard time separating the concerns over existing waste from the Cold War era with the different issue of new plants for power. That makes it politically very hard to accomplish, even if it were feasible to build a lot of new plants.

[Ceepa]

:yeahthat: I don't see most people wanting to sign on to have this in their area. We have a no longer used production site here (in the state, not even in the immediate area) and holy moly, does that site get people (from all political backgrounds) worked up. They want it gone, gone, gone. I think many will have a hard time separating the concerns over existing waste from the Cold War era with the different issue of new plants for power. That makes it politically very hard to accomplish, even if it were feasible to build a lot of new plants.

We have a nuclear plant in my county. We have no problem with it. Neither do all the people who live in the area.

[Georgia]

In trying to get a better grasp of the economics behind this issue over the last month or so I came across this editorial that appeared in the San Diego Union-Tribune in July.

http://www2.bren.ucsb.edu/~kotchen/links/anwroped.pdf

(The first editorial on the page.) The message really resonates with me. Drilling in ANWR will not either significantly lower the cost of oil or offer us anything close to energy independence. However, the tax revenue generated by drilling, if used properly and thoughtfully, could go a long way in helping us to develop renewable energy sources for the long term.

I'm afraid though that the "Drill, baby, drill!" chants don't inspire me to think that this revenue will be used very thoughtfully. At the same time I don't have the same knee-jerk anti-drilling stance that I did before looking into the issue in more depth.

[Georgia]

Here's a wonky economic paper on drilling in ANWR

http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~burger/publications/anwr09202007.pdf

It doesn't end up being either pro or con but helped me get a grasp of what we're really talking about as far as the financial trade-offs. It's based on 2007 prices so here's a rehash of the article with more current prices in mind.

http://benmuse.typepad.com/arctic_economics/2008/05/does-it-make-sense-to-drill-for-oil-in-anwr.html

[mommylamb]

The message really resonates with me. Drilling in ANWR will not either significantly lower the cost of oil or offer us anything close to energy independence. However, the tax revenue generated by drilling, if used properly and thoughtfully, could go a long way in helping us to develop renewable energy sources for the long term.

I'm afraid though that the "Drill, baby, drill!" chants don't inspire me to think that this revenue will be used very thoughtfully. At the same time I don't have the same knee-jerk anti-drilling stance that I did before looking into the issue in more depth.


To be honest, I feel a lot more comfortable with off-shore drilling than I do with drilling in ANWR. I'm not sure I have a good reason for this, but the thought of all those pipes and roads taking over the whole reserve makes me really unhappy. However, using the revenue generated from OCS drilling for renewable energy technology and infrastructure makes a lot of sense to me.

As for the "Drill Baby Drill" chants, it's clear that there are those who either think this will solve all the problems, or just have no problem using this as a political wedge issue (my money is on the latter). Fortunately, those folks will not be in charge of Congress next year.

[Rainbows&Roses]

:yeahthat: I don't see most people wanting to sign on to have this in their area. We have a no longer used production site here (in the state, not even in the immediate area) and holy moly, does that site get people (from all political backgrounds) worked up. They want it gone, gone, gone. I think many will have a hard time separating the concerns over existing waste from the Cold War era with the different issue of new plants for power. That makes it politically very hard to accomplish, even if it were feasible to build a lot of new plants.

Exactly. Nuclear fission is NOT the answer. We have a few within 100 miles of here, but I guarantee you could never place another in our urban area. And until we find some permanent, long-term solution for the waste which is another NIMBY issue since Yucca doesn't seem to be getting anywhere, nuclear fission isn't something we should be even wasting our breath talking about. Should nuclear fusion ever become possible to sustain, that is another story.

IMO localized energy production is a key to the energy independence. Carter put in place great tax incentives for people putting solar technology to work for them at home and even put solar panels on the White House. Reagan promptly took the panels off and killed the tax cuts and decimated the thriving solar industry. IMO, the government needs to put those cuts back in place and subsidize solar. Even in areas with cold winters, solar energy is still feasible. Wind energy is also something that can be part of localizing energy production, mostly in areas where there are large tracts of land, but in areas with a decent amount of winds, they can also be individualized. The number of jobs created in developing, implementing and maintaining these technologies would be significant.

If we throw large amounts of money into alternative energy technologies, progress will be made. It has not been the focus which I don't understand since way back in the late 80's, my college profs were speaking about the cheap oil party coming to an end. We actually have had the technology to make cars with much higher gas mileage for a very long time. Further drilling on our coast or destroying one of the few remaining pristine areas we have in this country are just pure nonsense when you look at how little of our oil appetite they would actually satisfy. Reserve oil for the highest quality uses (e.g. airplane fuel) and stop producing non-hybrid cars. Start the infrastructure change necessary to support hydrogen cars. Stop using oil for plastics. We have other alternatives.

We have been living in "lala" land in regards to energy issues for decades now. I guess $5/gallon gas and huge heating/cooling bills are enough to keep this issue at the forefront finally.

[shilo]

Let's talk about wind, solar, and hydroelectric power, and how those options could be implemented. I don't think any is feasible for powering our vehicles, but all three are good options for powering our lives, and heating our homes.

i already posted about the recent breakthru's in nano photovoltaic cells (solar) and nanoantennas (infrared 'solar' if you will) in my essay below so you can go read there if it interests you ;). but to add to that, when solar technologies can be on the roof of every car, officebuilding, home, window and door in a relatively small amount of time with the right funding and research, i honestly think this is our best bang for the buck! and the thing is, if we find ways to up our efficiency with current technologies as well as introducing new sustainable, renewable technologies thru funding, incentives and R&D it CAN be feasible to power our vehicles _as well as_ our lives, homes, etc.

pp are right. 'we' already have technologies that get drastically better mpg's using conventional gasoline combustion engine technologies, we just don't use them b/c of our thirst for power (horsepower and torque). after the gasoline 'crisis' in the 70's, think about all of the geo metros and civic hatchbacks that got 40+ something mpg - and then they all disappeared from the manf. and the roads when we started buying big, powerful, heavy, gas guzzling SUV's. and i'm not throwing stones, i drive a small SUV myself. oh how i wish i had more practical, functional, efficient options. in some ways, as a mom tho, i totally 'get it'. it's not really safe to be getting on the highway in some uber-small, lightweight compact that accelerates like a gerbal when you're up against the fire breathing suburban riding your a$$. but if we can combine these efficient conventional technologies with hybrid and plug-in electric technologies as well as our huge advances in roll cage/safety design/engineering, suddenly many of those 'problems' have viable, sellable, safe solutions.

"i want my minivan" you say: how come we can't get things like the honda freed (39 mpg minivan based on the honda fit platform being sold in japan) or the toyota estima (35-47 mpg hybrid minivan sold in japan _since 2001_ - it's now in its second model having already undergone an upgrade in 2006) here in the states? can we say lobby's? it sure as heck isn't because the manufacturer thinks there isn't interest. green websites and bloggers racked up over 20,000 signatures of interested buyers between earth day and memorial day last year (april/may, 2007) and delivered them to toyota. and i believe they had well over 10,000 signatures in 2005 and 2006. now imagine if that hybrid technology could be combined with plug-in and battery technology fed by efficient power grids and solar technologies. we could be driving 80+ mpg minivans in a decade. but ONLY if we as a nation make these things a national priority. small business tax cuts and deregulation ain't gonna cut it, not even close.

anyway, i hope people go read up on some of the nano-solar technologies and see how close we really are.

lori