The Wall Street Journal reports that a Rand Corp. study shows that if the the falling costs of ethanol, wind power and other forms of renewable energy continue to fall, as they have historically, such sources could supply as much as 25% of the U.S.'s conventional energy by 2025 at little or no additional expense.
This is certainly good news if costs continue to drop as they forecast, the problem they didn't mention is whether the manufacturing infrastructure can expand that rapidly.
The Rand study concludes that because prices for gasoline, natural gas and coal are likely to remain high, their cost advantage over renewables will erode, furthered by the hope that ethanol from farm wastes will be available by 2020.
I would agree that fossil fuel costs will remain high and that would allow cellulosic ethanol to be, not only competitive, but lower in cost than fossil fuels.
Renewable fuels now produce only 6% of the nation's energy, and about half of that comes from hydroelectric dams. The study assumes renewable-energy costs will keep dropping at the rate of recent years. It says raising the use of renewables to 25% of all U.S. energy consumed would reduce U.S. reliance on oil by about 20% or the equivalent of the imports from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.
The goal of using renewable fuels is three fold 1) to reduce our reliance on imports 2) to hedge against higher prices of fossil fuels and 3) to replace declining supplies of fossil fuels.
Resource: Renewable Fuels May Provide 25% of U.S. Energy by 2025, John Fialka, Wall Street Journal, November 13, 2006
You'll find the RAND study at this address: BELOW
Impacts on U.S. Energy Expenditures of Increasing Renewable Energy Use.
Enjoy the interesting economic analyses...
Posted by: mark c r (chemist) UK | November 15, 2006 at 10:37 AM
There are definitely challenges with infrastructure expansion capacity for energy. However, as I have heard Dr. Willett Kempton remark before, the U.S. infrastructure challenge to rapidly assemble aircraft during World War II was easily met, and could potentially be replicated for the energy challenge. There are surely differences in the situations, but here are the stats:
"From 1939, when fewer than 6,000 planes a year were being produced, the industry doubled production in 1940 and doubled it again in 1941 and 1942. In the first half of 1941, it produced 7,433 aircraft, more than had been produced in all of 1940. From January 1, 1940, until V-J Day on August 14, 1945, more than 300,000 military aircraft were produced for the U.S. military and the Allies—with almost 275,000 after Pearl Harbor. In the peak production month of March 1944, more than 9,000 aircraft came off the assembly lines. By the spring of 1944, more aircraft were being built than could be used and production began to be curtailed."
From: http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Aerospace/WWII_Industry/Aero7.htm
Posted by: Costa | November 15, 2006 at 11:40 AM
It’s great to see good information being shared and also to see fresh, creative ideas that have never been done before.
Posted by: Term paper | February 19, 2010 at 04:23 AM
Good post again.Thank you for sharing, I hope you happy and wish you good luck! this helpful information.
Posted by: kcl | October 18, 2010 at 03:04 AM
Your work has always been a great source of inspiration for me. I refer you blog to many of my friends as well.
Posted by: Potassium Chloride | November 11, 2010 at 03:57 AM
this is a very notice and remarkable work keep it up
Posted by: اليوتيوب | December 04, 2010 at 10:15 AM