Below are a few letters received at EnergyBiz Insider on topics that appeared in the past few weeks. They capture the essence of how many readers say they feel.
________________________________________
Nuclear's New Path - June 18, 2010
EnergyBiz Insider's articles on the growing nuclear electricity industry -- including its role as a source of mostly carbon-free energy -- are good. I write now to revisit a question I have been posing for several years and to which I have not yet been able to find a reply:
How many megawatts of nuclear power could be produced from the fissile material in the 26,000 or so nuclear weapons in existence (in 2009)? How many of the 438 civilian nuclear power reactors operating in 33 countries could operate, for how long, on that fissile material? Has the IAEA estimated this number?
Nuclear electricity potentially offers part of the solution to the problems of both carboniferous base-power production and nuclear weapon proliferation. But this crucial data-point I have sought, one or more estimates of which must exist, would tell us how much.
Maybe herein lies the topic of an EnergyBiz Insider column?
Gregory Wright
The Corporate Green Room - June 28, 2010
I've never understood why elimination of the Capital Gains tax has not been the first priority of clean energy advocates. The issue of the Capital Gains tax never even seems to enter the clean energy investment discussion.
The tax is basically a penalty for moving capital out of one corporation and freeing it up for investment in another corporation.
It ought to be made as easy as possible to move investment funds out of, for example, a major oil company, and over to companies that manufacture thin-film solar panels, electric drive trains, natural gas vehicles, among thousands of other alternative energy products.
Free flowing capital is a significant force for change.
Mike Sultan
Letters from Readers - July 01, 2010
While I appreciate the illuminating comments of those far more qualified in the engineering questions being debated, we first must make sure we have identified the problem. In fact we have not done that. The problem is politics and political expediency.
If we notice the programs being discussed now are calling for ever increasing grants, incentives and the growth of government and the intrusion of same into the lives of Americans whether the citizens like it or not. Yes, theories on global warming are recast into climate control or soon to be said, "weather control". Is that possible? Engineering problems eventually can be resolved, but political issues?
Michael Edwards
Belyea Company Inc.
Ethanol or Electricity? - July 07, 2010
The question of the future will not be Ethanol or Electricity, but Hydrogen or Electricity. Here it depends upon how the hydrogen as an energy carrier is produced. We actually do not really need electricity, when we really think about it.
With best regards from Germany,
Arno A. Evers
FAIR-PR
That's all we need, more corn being consumed to produce ethanol and another horrific increase in food prices. The use of the corn to produce ethanol should be outlawed. The cost of milk and meat skyrocketed the last time we were inane enough to permit its use for fuel production. Hopefully this nation has learned its lesson.
Joseph Langenberg
The various energy industries have been putting a lot of effort into becoming the fuel of choice for U.S. transportation going forward. In a truly open market, the solution that met the majority of the consumers needs would be awarded with the lion's share of the market. That is not what is happening in the fuel market today because the consumer has no idea as to the actual costs of the alternatives. Oil concerns indicate that alternative fuels are not viable without government subsidies and yet they, according to a July 3rd article in the New York Times by David Kocieniewski, continue to receive billions in outdated tax incentives. Your article mentions that ethanol receives billions in tax breaks which has created a skewed marketplace that affects farmer's crop choices. I don't mean to leave out alternative energy solutions like solar and wind but I don't have figures handy to talk about their emissions or inefficiency when looking at their Return on Energy Input.
If the consumer were presented with the cost per mile of all options they might be surprised and might demand that their representatives push for the adoption of the most logical choice. If you just look at tax incentives and don't touch environmental and homeland security costs (Assuming they would be less with a North American based solution.) how do the options line up? The article will raise eyebrows and all sorts of response but I think that is what the discussion needs today. Otherwise the consumer will go where they are pointed and that direction will be dictated by lobbyists and big business whose concern for the consumer has been shown to be lacking and inefficient of late.
Jim Friedl
The payment of subsidies for the production of ethanol from corn for use as a motor fuel is a blatant political and economic blunder. The process of growing and harvesting corn, its conversion into ethanol and distribution to gasoline blending facilities consumes more energy and generates more greenhouse gases and other air emissions then it saves. The economics make no sense and have had deleterious effects on the price of corn and the price of foodstuffs.
After all, the primary energy source for growing corn is the sun. So why use sunlight to grow corn, convert it to ethanol and then burn it up in a motor vehicle?
Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles can be designed to use methane, methanol, gasoline or diesel; all of which are cheaper than corn-based ethanol. Moreover, motor vehicles are now available which can get more than 50 MPG (and with plug-in features and solar panels on roof, hood and trunk achieve close to 100 MPG). At these levels, air emissions and fossil fuel use are dramatically reduced.
I would rather eliminate the subsidy to the corn-based ethanol industry and apply it directly to other thermodynamically and economically sound alternatives.
The BP oil spill is a wake up call for the U.S. to establish an energy policy which reduces the consumption of and the importation of petroleum. Continuation of our current practices is unsustainable.
Arthur Nislick
Prior to my BP Oil Spill CBS TV live interview Sunday 6/27/10, producer wanted me to discuss abandoning deepwater drilling and alternates e.g. electric cars, etc. My reply was that when the Boston Tunnel collapsed and the Minnesota bridge failed, we did not stop building bridges and tunnels but found out what went wrong [root cause] to ensure failure would not occur again. Similarly, looking for alternates to deep drilling [ethanol or electric powered cars] and abandoning more than 25,000 rigs operating in the Gulf is an overreaction.
During the interview, I advised to bring in the experienced engineers and contractors and have BP and their subcontractors release all the files and operating data to determine the root causes of the accident to prevent reoccurrence.
Ethanol and electric powered cars, trucks, etc. should be evaluated on their commercial and economic merits not supported/funded because of a tragic accident.
Dr. Richard W. Goodwin, P.E.
Environmental Engineering
Consultant
That corn ethanol is energy-negative is a lie. That it causes food shortages or significantly raises prices is another myth. That it is a transition fuel we need to replace with cellulosic biomass ethanol is true.
Electric vehicles can be great, but not if the electricity comes from coal, which in the U.S., on the average most does. Electricity is largely fungible through the grid, but if you can assure recharging using mostly dedicated, off-grid renewable electricity, then we can talk. As long as I am building new renewable, or at least low-carbon, capacity for EVs, and not playing a kind of shell game.
Ronald F. Cascone
Manager Biofuels Development, Energy & Chemicals Consulting
Nexant Inc
Speaking to many owners of flex-fueled vehicles, ethanol burns at twice the rate of gasoline and costs 1/3rd more than gasoline itself. As this article also states, it also strains the food chain as well.
One other point is ethanol production consumes slightly more energy to produce than refining oil. I don't see the savings or advantages to ethanol in any use. What it will do is help our political parties pad their pockets by interest groups pushing the case for boosting ethanol production.
Let's try propane, natural gas or electricity and leave the corn for the use it was intended for.
Matt Kangas
Respond to the editor.
