Can alternative energy survive in a free market?

[awake]

Good question. Lets get the government out of the way a see what happens.

 

[JohnLVT]

Alternative energy? Meaning what? Not oil?

If oil and auto companies stop pulling the strings of governments then laws are made to create people friendly cities to reduce transport on the private car and increase the building codes to crate superinsulated homes, then we are onto a good start in releasing us from oil dependence. People will migrate to well balanced, attractive urban environments. Build them and they will go. DO NOT force people to go anywhere. We essentially do that. If they want to live in the sticks then that is their choice and it should not be denied.

We have no short term option but to go nuclear for enviro reasons -to save the planet..

[video=youtube;cJ-J91SwP8w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=cJ-J91SwP8w[/video]

You may find in 30-40 years all will be nuclear. Look at James Lovelock who advocates all nuclear, as well as solar. The goverment(s) is going his way.

[video=youtube;qoPlWwPmNHw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=qoPlWwPmNHw[/video]

[video=youtube;29Vip-PbuZQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=29Vip-PbuZQ[/video]

Lots on the web and Youtube about Lovelock. He discovered the atmosphere of Mars for NASA and then looked at the Earth forming the Gaia theory. The earth is all one system that makes it unique. The oceasn, land and and air all interact and create a self controlling system. That is severely being damaged.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

Lovelock rightly says there is nothing wrong with nuclear. Radiation is a part of our makeup. He says the earth is a full system where the sea, atmosphere and land all combines to form a self controlling atmosphere which makes the earth different to all other planets. It is being destroyed by fossil fuel burning.

He points out Chernobyl has an off limits area to humans, but animals are flurishing in the radioactive area and flora and fauna is booming. Radiation helps growth with some plants twice to three times as big as before. He said there are far more animals - OK they may live 10% less because of higher than normal radiation levels but there are far, far more of them. Because of this he advocates using the rainforests as a place to store spent nuclear fuel. Humans are away and the forests boom reinstating the earth's lungs and wildlife as well. Two birds killed with one stone.

Lovelock points out that air travel is safe because of international regulations and inspection of plane construction, maintenance and procedures. That can be done with nuclear power stations. Chernobyl failed because of human error and other aspects were not that bright in the design. International regulations would prevent this from occurring.

The newer Japanese nuclear plant in the earthquake, had outer shells - an explosion was contained. We know more now since the Windscale and Chernobyl disasters. All nuclear power stations should be under an international ruling and international inspectors to ensure procedures and construction and maintenance is up to standards - like bridges are periodically surveyed. New regulations would have prevented a nuclear plant from being built in an tidal-wave zone.

We have no other choice over using fossil fuel as wind, solar etc cannot cope with all demand. Cars, buses, trains, domestic heating, small planes etc, will be electric. Nuclear is the short to mid term answer until we come up with a better way of harnessing energy. China is opening a power station per week - all coal burning. It is that serious. Only international cooperation will save us from our own greed and stupidity.

All will be clean electric. We have no choice.

 

[ILUVRP]

i have been following algae for fuel for years , to me it is the only long term solution for energy needs.



Given the right conditions, algae can double its volume overnight. Unlike other biofuel feedstocks, such as soy or corn, it can be harvested day after day. Up to 50 percent of an alga's body weight is comprised of oil, whereas oil-palm trees—currently the largest producer of oil to make biofuels—yield just about 20 percent of their weight in oil. Across the board, yields are already impressive: Soy produces some 50 gallons of oil per acre per year; canola, 150 gallons; and palm, 650 gallons. But algae is expected to produce 10,000 gallons per acre per year, and eventually even more.

"If we were to replace all of the diesel that we use in the United States" with an algae derivative, says Solix CEO Douglas Henston, "we could do it on an area of land that's about one-half of 1 percent of the current farm land that we use now."



Read more: Pond-Powered Biofuels: Turning Algae into America's New Energy - Popular Mechanics

 

[JohnLVT]

i have been following algae for fuel for years , to me it is the only long term solution for energy needs.

Lovelock is screaming that we must act now. Emissions are the problem. Nuclear has none.

 

[ILUVRP]

Lovelock is screaming that we must act now. Emissions are the problem. Nuclear has none.

i agree with nuclear power , i guess the big thing is getting rid of the waste . algae has very little emissions.

 

[revned]

I'm scared shit-less of nuclear energy.

We still to this day have yet to find a way to properly dispose of depleted uranium and a lot of the ideas for containing it are just asking for future problems. Nuclear energy is just as degrading to our health and environment as coal and oil in my opinion. We don't need another Fukushima to happen or anything like that and there is no stopping it from happening if it begins to. I would actively protest any plans to build a nuclear power-plant anywhere near me, but I also understand that federal involvement should not be relied upon. We humans have a lot to learn about how every single thing we do impacts our environment and thus impacts us.

However, I feel that a truly free market would even weed out nuclear energy because there are plenty of alternatives that can be improved upon, such as wind, solar, geothermal, and hydroelectric energies. The only reason I think these sources of energy aren't more efficient in the modern day is the fact that oil and coal run the energy industry and that is where most of the money is spent to improve upon the currently established energy sources. Coal and oil have had 100 years or more to improve upon their technologies along with the help of many key billionaire investors; solar and wind energy on the other hand, have had much less invested in them and less people involved. If we spent just as much time and money improving upon these energy sources as we do with coal and oil, then these energy sources would be much more efficient and much more popular.

Of course, it's highly unlikely that the rich are going to invest in improving technology that would make us less dependent upon them.

 

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

Because of government intervention, we are 100 years behind. The problem with "alternative" energy right now is that government incentives are trying to shoehorn intermittant and dispersed generation into an instant access system. Before REA forced a regulated grid on rural america, there was an affordable, off-grid tech boom. As soon as cheap subsidized energy was available, virtually all off-grid innovation stopped.

The central generation, instant access system that we have now is a product of government interference and would never have even developed in a free market. Instead, a dispersed generation, efficient, and generally cleaner system would have developed with smaller regional and micro utilities and many, many off-grid homes. Once in awhile, you can find an old-timer packrat that collects antique "alternative" energy equipment, but other than that, the history has pretty much been erased.

 

[JohnLVT]

i agree with nuclear power , i guess the big thing is getting rid of the waste . algae has very little emissions.

Bur algae does have emissions. Read above for Loveklock's idea of nuclear waste. Quite brilliant in its simplicity.

 

[JohnLVT]

However, I feel that a truly free market would even weed out nuclear energy because there are plenty of alternatives that can be improved upon, such as wind, solar, geothermal, and hydroelectric energies.

But greedy corporations, who care not a jot about the environment, pull the strings of governments. WE do not have a free-market in energy or autos. Search on John Perkins, as ex US economic hit man.

 

[tfurrh]

anything where the benefit outweighs the cost can survive in a free market

 

[gerryb]

Yes.

In fact, that's the only time it does.

Look on youtube for "alcohol as a gas" video series (37 parts)

 

[Barrex]

YES IT CAN.

In Bosnia and Herzegovinia we got solar panels. They repay them selfs in 2-3 years and they NEVER broke (get faulty). On farms people start to produce boigas from waste of farm products and rest is used as fertilizer.

As gas and oil prices go up more and more people will use alternative sources of energy... Why? They will not have any choice. Only reason most people dont use it now is because they dont know.

 

[Dforkus]

I think a better question is what kind of energy can survive in a free market, because oil isn't unsubsidized either.

There are massive price externalities in a petroleum economy, like staging the US 5th fleet in the Strait of Hormuz, that aren't paid by the gallon, but probably should..

 

[buenijo]

YES IT CAN.

In Bosnia and Herzegovinia we got solar panels. They repay them selfs in 2-3 years and they NEVER broke (get faulty). On farms people start to produce boigas from waste of farm products and rest is used as fertilizer.

As gas and oil prices go up more and more people will use alternative sources of energy... Why? They will not have any choice. Only reason most people dont use it now is because they dont know.

Photovoltaic panels are a good option to supplement energy production at a remote site. However, they rarely provide a return on investment unless the solar insolation is extremely high and/or the only other source of electricity is extremely expensive. In other words, photovoltaics are a very bad idea for the vast majority of people. If you're getting pay back in 2-3 years, then the panels are either heavily subsidized or you poor guys are getting raped by the local utility.

 

[klamath]

Because of government intervention, we are 100 years behind. The problem with "alternative" energy right now is that government incentives are trying to shoehorn intermittant and dispersed generation into an instant access system. Before REA forced a regulated grid on rural america, there was an affordable, off-grid tech boom. As soon as cheap subsidized energy was available, virtually all off-grid innovation stopped.

The central generation, instant access system that we have now is a product of government interference and would never have even developed in a free market. Instead, a dispersed generation, efficient, and generally cleaner system would have developed with smaller regional and micro utilities and many, many off-grid homes. Once in awhile, you can find an old-timer packrat that collects antique "alternative" energy equipment, but other than that, the history has pretty much been erased.

Absolute truth. I live in the mountains where micro hydro powerplants were everywhere 90 years ago. There were many many small hydro manufacturers in the US. FDR's rural electrification killed the the entire industry. Sure rural people got cheaper power for a while with the subsidised grid but it destroyed the advancement of localized energy production.

 

[klamath]

Photovoltaic panels are a good option to supplement energy production at a remote site. However, they rarely provide a return on investment unless the solar insolation is extremely high and/or the only other source of electricity is extremely expensive. In other words, photovoltaics are a very bad idea for the vast majority of people. If you're getting pay back in 2-3 years, then the panels are either heavily subsidized or you're getting raped by the local utility.

Read where he is at. The grid system is very old in these countries and I am sure the cost of grid power is very high.

 

[Barrex]

Photovoltaic panels are a good option to supplement energy production at a remote site. However, they rarely provide a return on investment unless the solar insolation is extremely high and/or the only other source of electricity is extremely expensive. In other words, photovoltaics are a very bad idea for the vast majority of people. If you're getting pay back in 2-3 years, then the panels are either heavily subsidized or you poor guys are getting raped by the local utility.

I am from Croatia/BiH. Those panels were not subsidized. In BiH there is a small company that sells solar panels at factory value and only charges installation (2 workers work for 6 hours or 2-3 days). In Croatia/BiH power companies are buying electricity from anyone who offers them. No matter how small amounts.

Question was:Can alternative energy survive in a free market?

Answer:In BiH they do. In Croatia yes but some are subsidized...They are not used in 100% of households but they are "surviving".

It is also important to notice that in my country people dont build houses made of wood. My is made of Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (ytong blocks.. and yes I had to google this fancy term). Maximize use of "Passive Solar Energy Systems" and "Active Solar Energy Systems". My father also has a farm where we converted watermill in mini hydroplant.

Problem is that vast mayority of people has no idea of oportunities that they have at their disposal and are slaves to their enviroment (no one else is doing it so I am not even thinking to do it my self).

 

[Watch]

Loaded question.
You have to assume some things to answer, which is fine, except people on the internet like to nitpick.
Petroleum/Oil was once an alternative energy in a relatively "free" market, and thrived. The Gov eventually stepped in(netting Rockefeller 900 billion) but all things aren't equal to compare, so here we are sitting theorizing.

All things being equal(impossible) yes. The "but..but..but" crowd always forgets the "all things being equal" part.

 

[Godisnowhere]

1) Can alternative energy survive in a free market?

2) If so, how?

Read the book, "Changing Oil into Salt" this is something every single American should do first to rid ignorance of the issue.
The issue with Oil we use is our Road Vehicles - Cars and Trucks. Most home and industrial heating uses coal or natural gas not oil. So the problem is foreign oil imports and the fact that we giving huge money to Islamists who hate us. The Moslems are commanded in their Koran to 1. convert us 2. if we do not acccept kill us. A good Muslim will follow this law as commanded. This is a problem. People say Christians have caused problems but the teachings of Jesus Christ says love your neighbor as yourself and love your enemy. So only those who violate teachings of Jesus Christ and are anti-Christian do those terrible things.

So what about alternatives. Coal can be gasified and the best conversion is natural gas not gasoline. Our cars and trucks can be convered to run on CNG compressed natural gas and simply converting coal into natural gas would eliminate the need for foreign oil. It also provides an immediate competitor. If our government announced a 5 year program serious about this gas would fall quickly. But that is not all. Our cars can easily be converted to ethanol and methanol. The cost is only about $150 a car. Corn ethanol our government pours millions into is a bad thing because it costs way too much and gets into our food scource. But methanol and ethanol can be made from sugar cane as the Brazillians are doing which is very low cost and from seaweed and junk plants. Brazil is far less an enemy than Saudi or Iran yet because of the governement protection on corn ethanol we tax their Sugar Cane ethanol so much they cannot export it to us. This is Congress doing this folks. You vote for them. Yet, if gasoline had a competitor and our cars could run on gasoling, ethanol, methanol using the multi-fuel standard for cars, you and I as a consumer could choose which one. This is the idea of turning Oil into Salt where salt at one time was an exclusive commodity but now is not. Gasoline should be that way. And we can easily do that. If I were running for Congress or President, I would announce a plan for immediate multi-fuel standard on new cars (adds 100 to 150 for each car but allows every car to run on other fuels I mentioned. I would announce my plan to get completely off foreign oil in 5 years. I would immediately stop the corn ethanol subsidies which are a joke and I would take the import tax off the Brazilian Sugar methanol. In fact Brazil and us would become best trading buddies. The other place we can replace oil is with Algae grown on farms. Stands of Algae have 70% content of pure oil for biodiesel. A British professor has a breakthrough discovery to dry and harvest the Algae. Every farm in this country could be growing Algae with a cost of $20,000 capital, 50 cents a gallon total cost of biodiesel, and 20,000 gallons of biodiesel. This can be done easily because to grow the Algae you need 1. A cooling tank with water, fiber optic cables going through the tank for light, some C02 carbon dioxide (easy to do) and some nutrients. Again the yields are enormous. This would create an entire new industry for our farms. My brother in law consumes 50,000 gallons of diesel a year a $4 a gallon now. He could grow his own for 50 cents a gallon and sell another 50,000 gallons to diesel trucks and pay for all of it in the first year with his saving. The key to this is for the government to get the Algae harvesting technology I mentioned out to the farmers. It is now privately owned. The Algae biodiesel burns much cleaner than oil based.

I know this is a long post but I have given the OIL energy solution to anyone smart to investigate. Read the and check it out. Vote for me for Congress (but if I run they will key me for saying all of this and I really mean that). There are evil forces controllings this. But let no one say there is no solution. That is simply wrong.

 

[rockerrockstar]

I have been reading a lot about increased technology in solar panels. I have read about people making their houses run totally by using solar panels. As the price of these solar panels come down more people could get them. Some solar panel homes actually generate enough energy that the power company ends up sending the home owner a check for the extra energy they made.

I think the future could be cars like Volt. Volt is just the first step. Think if more years of perfecting it went into it. Later we could go to full electrics like the Leaf. Sooner or later technology gets cheaper and improves. The batteries are the current thing that needs the most development.

These electric cars in the long run could be a great solution. The question is will the government kill these cars off by letting the oil companies destroy the market for them. Meaning if gas prices stay too low then these would not be feasible. The cost for the cars need to go down to. Should these cars be subsidized to help the American car manufactures get ahead of the foreign manufactures? You know China subsidizes their industry and that is part of the reason companies are moving there.

The great thing about the electric cars is they have less components compared to a gas powered car. Also, you can come up with what ever method of producing the electricity. This means if you improve the power production for the towns power plant you improve it for every car that is charged at home from that source.

Currently I like the gas powered engines, but down the road these electrics could be great cars. They get a lot of low end torque with those electric motors. Down side currently is the life of the batteries and the cost to replace them. These are things that could change with time and improvements in technology.

Once these cars start selling in higher volumes it would be easier to mass produce them and lower costs. New technology is always more expensive. Currently they need to get people to accept the idea of trying out these new type of technology vehicles. The economics need to work. They may need to subsidize these tell they become more popular and volumes increase. Or gas prices get high enough to warrent the extra money spent on the cars.

I don't think Brazil can produce enough Sugar Cane for ethanol for the USA and Brazil. Not sure if we have anywhere we could grow our own Sugar Cane in the USA. Scientists are working on creating an enzyme to break down switch grass to ethanol. If that works our troubles are solved we would not need to use corn no more. The price of corn would go down so people could eat.

CNG compressed natural gas could be a good idea but currently we don't have the infastructure to do this on a large scale and complete switch everyone over. By the way my dad has a work van he has converted to run on propane. I read an article about a converting coal to gas a while back. Interesting. We have a major source of coal in Wyoming where I grew up. It would help out those states with coal. So that could maybe be a good idea. I know in World War II the Germans converted coal to gasoline.