Government Report Examines Alternative Energy Research

coondoggie points us to a NetworkWorld story about the Government Accountability Office's report on the state of advanced energy technology. The report notes that despite continued funding [PDF], U.S. reliance on oil has only dropped from 93% to 85% since 1973. It goes on to evaluate how the most prominent fields of research have developed in that time period, and where they are likely to go in the future.

Comments

85% of a growing amount

[BadAnalogyGuy]

A baby drinks more milk as a percentage of its meals than a grown bodybuilder does. However the bodybuilder drinks a far greater volume of milk than the baby ever would.

While the relative reliance on oil may have dropped 7 percentage points in that time, the total amount of oil consumed has grown by leaps and bounds. So while we have surely benefitted from the difference of what would have been and what actually is, it would be a mistake to assume that we are anywhere near weaned from oil. You could argue that based on the total volume of oil consumed that we are actually far more dependent on oil than we ever were.

It is a good trend, however, and I hope that in the next 25 years that we can reduce that number by another 10%.

Re:85% of a growing amount

[epine]

The consumption of oil has grown by "leaps and bounds" because oil was severely underpriced.

http://www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/cleancars/cafe/briefing_book.pdf

This document shows that American fleet-average fuel economy peaked in 1987 and has declined about ten percent since, despite improvements in fuel consumption technology.

Seriously, with a correct oil price, America should presently have a 24 MPG fleet-average, a 10% improvement over two decades, not something hovering around 20 MPG after a 10% decline.

The difference would offset the 20% of the fuel supply we are now frantically replacing with ethanol, without having to actually make any ethanol.

I think the answer was pretty simple: allow the price of oil to slowly creep upward until the fleet-average fuel economy was tracking a 1 MPG/decade improvement curve. At some price, people will think twice about buying that SUV they don't really need. In my mind, that price would have been a good price, as it would have corresponded with sensible consumption choices.

The whole thing could have been rather slow, steady, and painless, but no, apparently catastrophism is the American way.

Fossil fuels != oil

[sodul]

Come on the US energy consumption is not 85% oil it is not even half of that. Note that the article correctly state fossil fuel, the summary translated to 'oil' incorrectly. I guess 'oil' makes a better headline.

Wikipedia numbers for 2005:

in 2005, it was estimated that 40% of the nation's energy came from petroleum, 23% from coal, and 23% from natural gas. The remaining 14% was supplied by nuclear power, hydroelectric dams, and miscellaneous renewable energy sources.

Re:Fossil fuels != oil

[BadAnalogyGuy]

However, if you look at the graph showing the growth of energy production, you'll notice that non-renewable fossil fuel-based production is growing at a more rapid rate than the other sources put together. The only other source that could be considered growing is nuclear, and it's outpaced by fossil fuel production by quite a bit.

While there are certainly positive geo-political ramifications of reducing our reliance on oil, there is also a significant benefit in reducing fossil fuel usage on the whole. The environmental damage done due to fossil fuel extraction and combustion can be decreased. Likewise, since fossil fuels are a non-renewable resource (in our lifetimes, at least), we cannot continue to see that line grow forever. We must be focused on becoming more reliant on renewable energy sources.

Like any monopoly, having one source of energy as our primary source means that we lose flexibility if and when we are forced to consider other options. It is better to take the hit early (like Iceland) and reap the benefits down the road than to wait until the last minute and energy prices have climbed to astronomical levels.

Re:Fossil fuels != oil

[techpawn]

Lewis Blacks Rules of Enragement: He's talking about Cheney's $31 million goodbye present from Haliburton, and how it was wrong of Cheney to keep the money when he left Haliburton to become the VP. Black says "And at that point I said 'Uh, Vice President Cheney, I think you should return the money,' and he said 'Uh, Lewis, I think you should go fuck yourself.'"

Re:Fossil fuels != oil

[Rei]

What gets me is the graph in the report. They show "renewables" climbing by only one percent. They neglect to mention, however, that most of that "renewables" section is hydroelectricity, which has fallen as a percent of our electricity as it is no longer seen as a very "green" option at all. Generation by non-hydro renewables have expanded by several orders of magnitude since the 1970s.

If I have a way to generate electricity cleanly and it costs $1/kWh, while coal is $0.08/kWh, almost nobody will adopt.
If I double the cost effectiveness and it's $0.50/kWh, more will adopt, but still very, very few will.
If I double it again and it's $0.25/kWh, still more will adopt, but it'll still be a small percent.
If I double it again and it's $0.12/kWh, more will adopt, and you'll have a small dent in the market.
If I double it again to $0.06/kWh, the market will be swept.
If I double it again to $0.03/kWh, coal use for power generation will be consigned to the history books.

Rather than looking at the total share of our generation, they need to look at the growth rate of these alternative sources and how their cost effectiveness has changed. And it's been dramatic, with no signs of slowing. Wind costs a fraction of what it did in the 70s, while solar is an order of magnitude lower. Economies of scale and more advanced turbines may halve wind costs (wind already being competitive with coal in some places), while CIGS solar cells are on their way to providing yet *another* order of magnitude cost reduction, making solar cheaper than coal even in Alaska, let alone in the desert southwest. Then there's EGS (enhanced geothermal -- no need for a wet, near-surface heat source), solar thermal, wave, tidal, high altitude wind, and so on.

Let's look at the numbers. They report that the US has spent $57.5B on renewables, fossil, and nuclear in the past 30 years. Let's be kind and say that renewables got a whole third of that (I doubt it) -- $19B. We spend that in *two months* of the war in Iraq. The US consumes 1 billion tons of coal, ~7B barrels of oil, and 22 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Coal costs ~$70/ton, oil in the past year averaged something like $80/barrel, and naturl gas was ~$15/1000 cubic feet, so that means we annually spend about ($70B + $560B + $330B) around a trillion dollars on fossil energy. This doesn't count the externalities of fossil fuel usage -- environmental destruction, increased healthcare costs, increased use of the military, etc. Contrast this with half a billion to a billion dollars on renewables research annually. 3-4 orders magnitude less spending, and yet consumption of techs like solar are growing at almost 40% per year and seem almost certain to overtake the price point of coal in the next decade. How, exactly, is this a bad investment? And all of this ignores some of the idiotic things they've been spending money on, like corn ethanol and hydrogen fuel cells.

You can copy, but you can't.

[Futurepower(R)]

I read the linked .PDF document. It is a request for money. It contains almost no useful information about what is being done with the money.

Here is an example of how corrupt the U.S. government can be. It is a quote from the end of the document: "This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately."

So, you can freely copy the document, but you can't freely copy the document, because it "may contain" copyrighted material.

The overall impression I get is that whoever wrote the document doesn't want the taxpayers to know exactly how the money is being spent.

Re:You can copy, but you can't.

[MozeeToby]

The document can be copied if it is copied as a whole, but you cannot copy individual pictures/graphs out of it. They have the owner's permission for the first, but not for the second.

Re:You can copy, but you can't.

[WindBourne]

The only request for money, that I can see, is if you want printed copies. That is it. In addition, you are FREE to copy the ENTIRE document, just not portions. They are trying to prevent this from being used in incorrectly.

I am fine with what they have.

don't tell anyone

[sgt scrub]

For better or worse the GAO said the DOE's recent R&D focus in renewable energy has been in biomass-derived ethanol; hydrogen-powered fuel cells; wind technologies; and solar technologies.

But Willie Nelson had the biggest effect by making biodiesel popular http://www.biowillieusa.com/

The screw-up is the priorities

[WindBourne]

Wind has MORE than enough ppl doing the research. The tax credits will help keep pushing it. The research for it can stop. Solar is of the same situation. Hydrogen is a total joke, but some funding should be done for it. The place that absolutely needs funding is geo-thermal. Disregard the MIT study. Instead, look at the fact that it is the ONLY form of AE that can serve as base load. All others are intermitant. But shallow geo-thermal, has many ways to be developed. For example using old oil wells, can heat water to about 70C. Then during the day time, solar can push it to 100C or better. During the night time, we can use Natural Gas to push it. Of course, the other choice is to change the medium according to the time. During the night (cool temps), the steam can be ammonia which boils at much lower temp, while during the day time, water is used (hotter outside temps).
And of course, deep geo-thermal has the potential to account for about 20-40% of all of America's energy. Combine with solar, wind, water, and nukes, and we can kick all the carbon out. All within 10 years.

Mis LABELED AGAIN

[WindBourne]

This budget is NOT about alternative energy research. It is about Advanced energy research. Alternative is just a SMALL portion of it. In fact, about 1/2 of the research goes to Fossil fuel research. another quarter goes to nukes. Of the remainder, the bulk goes to hydrogen and ethanol. IOW, damn little research is done on true alternative energy.