As much as I like the theory of alternate energy sources, if from nothing other than a "Isn't that neat" standpoint, I have to revert back to economics. That is a free market provides the most efficent allocation of scarce capitol. People may talk about the "Big Oil Conspiracy", directed research, and the wave of the future, however I believe that as the need for energy grows and conventional sources of energy decline, the Exxom-Mobil types will there to invest the tens of billions of profits in the best research available. That time may be near but not just yet. We are at a point where the alt-energy industry is starting to take shape. When there is a clearer picture what that will be, then expect industry to be there to fund the best technology. Just don't expect to see high orbit solar power stations next year.

We don't do energy conspiracy theories here at Winds - though we do note the connections between the farm lobby and ethanol subsidies, and have also noted that the overall process usually sucks more energy than it produces when all is said and done.

Still, there may be important alcohol-based energy options in our future. Nothing dispositive, of course, because nothing is or will be. Personally, I think the author has some good ideas that point to some important levers at our disposal, but needs to run the same kind of numbers on his own ideas as he does on others.

In the end, there will be no one solution to our energy problems. Instead, here will be a swarm of solutions, with citizens sorting through them and figuring out what works well enough that they'll want to pay for. Which is why my preferred approach is to pump up the basic research, look to remove key bottlenecks that are actively getting in the way of progress, and let free markets and millions of individual evaluations and buying decisions sort out the best answers.

Joe,

It was about five or six years into his presidency that I made my peace with the Clinton administration, too.

I liked this speech more than any of the others, but I know why: it focused more on foreign policy, where I largely agreed with the Administration strategy (as I understand it) and less on domestic policy. There was scant little of the social-conservative stuff that tends to make my skin crawl. It was there, but it was muted.

Also, I was pleased and surprised to hear about the fibrous plant to ethanol route, and more pleased to hear some commitment dates. It struck a chord because it was only a few weeks ago that I recall reading an article (probably on Eurekalert, possibly here) about how fibrous-to-ethanol was much more economically promising than the processes we have now, assuming we can work out a few more technical innovations along that road.

(And then most of my friends mocked it, saying, "Switchgrass? What the hell is that idiot talking about?" I despair, sometimes.)

What this planet needs is a continued supply of cheap energy. Cheap energy makes the task of lifting billions out of poverty into a decent life possible. I'd say that's a good thing.

"Addicted to oil?" I think that's a dumb Amory Lovins type phrase. Of course we need cheap energy. It doesn't much matter where it comes from and how it's produced as long as it's cheap and supply is certain.

A post about why, despite 35 years of stagnation and false starts, this time, we are finally on the brink of a rapid leap in energy innovation.

http://futurist.typepad.com/

GK,

The live URL guidelines will get more people reading you, and use permaklinks because these posts stay around for a while and the way your front page looks now doesn't. Folks, he presents Why $70/ barrell oil is good for America

Joe,

Thanks. I'll remember that. I didn't read the instructions about how to make URLs hyperlinked on this page.

The oil companies are reporting record profits because they sell oil at a certain percentage above what they buy it at. Their fixed costs are realatively stable so if the price of oil at the well goes up, then x% mark up on a barrell of more expensive oil is greater than x% mark up on a barrell of less expensive oil. Why do oil companies calculate their prices this way? Some industries don't. PC manufactures can't pass on all cost increases because there is so much competition. In fact gasoline retailers that have to face competition don't make the same kind of profits that the oil companies make. Why don't the big oil companies have to face competition? There are two possible reasons. 1) They all price oil the same way because it is convenient for them to avoid competing. 2) The demand for oil is high relative to the supply so that if the price of oil is higher there are always customers in need who will pay the higher price. Does this mean it is ethical to make hugh profits while customers are struggling to pay their heating bills in the northern states, and low wage earners have to tighten their belt to pay for gas to get to work? Well, that's capitalism. Just like when there is a natual disaster generators, batteries, and bottled water all go up in price five or ten times. That's capitalism too. Is that ethical? If one oil company experienced an epiphany and lowered their prices their stock price would go down and they would be quickly bought by another oil company. So if this is a problem in need of a solution, the oil companies can't solve it.

Never underestimate the power of two guys working in their garage to change the world.

Here are two up-and-coming technologies:

Cellulose ethanol: http://www.iogen.ca/

Biodiesel from algae:

http://www.greenfuelonline.com/

Both have the potential to efficiently produce vast amounts of liquid fuel. From soybeans, for instance, you get about 50 gallons per acre of oil. Algae can produce 15,000 gallons. Green Fuel's tech uses flue gasses from powerplants to accelerate growth.

I'm a huge fan of algae.

JonBuck,

I agree, algae is awesome.

I believe that the slow progress over the 80s and 90s was due solely to low oil prices removing incentives for innovation, and a lack of funding for govt. basic research.

Now, neither is true any more. Plus, the rate at which basic research results in innovations to reach the marketplace is shortening.

There will be a couple of big jumps in technology in this area, in the next 10 years.

USA Today reported on thermal depolymerization (TDP)on 1/23/2004 which is a process for the reduction of complex organic materials (usually waste products of various sorts, often known as biomass) into light crude oil. It mimics the natural geological processes thought to be involved in the production of fossil fuels. It sounds like another cold fusion junk science story, but if it isn't, it will be one heck of a breakthrough.

Winds covered thermal deploymerization back in May 2003: Bulls--t Into Oil?

No, it's not BS, but it does have limits re: scale given efficiency, feedstcks, etc. One more useful arrow in the quiver.