Welcome to the Energy Blog

  • The Energy Blog is where all topics relating to The Energy Revolution are presented. Increasingly, expensive oil, coal and global warming are causing an energy revolution by requiring fossil fuels to be supplemented by alternative energy sources and by requiring changes in lifestyle. Please contact me with your comments and questions. Further Information about me can be found HERE.



After Gutenberg

Clean Break

The Oil Drum


Blog powered by Typepad

« No Question Oil has Peaked | Main | BP 2007 Statistical Review of World Energy »

June 18, 2007



yes! Clean coal and nukes take a well desreved hit.

david foster

According to a WSJ article, this bill defined "renewable" to not include hydropower, which seems fairly bizarre.


Yay! Let us hope that this thinking can prevail. I am waiting for the other shoe to drop, Mistah Fraser.


DF: Yes, one might think so given the spin presented by the World Bank in favor of hydro. Can you spell Wolfritz, sure I knew you could?

A little more research and you might find that hydro is less than ideal at an energy source. There is the ecologocial impact; the concrete used in construction, the methane produced downstream, etc. Then, there is the small matter of equity to the people living where you change the eco-system.

david foster

jcwinnie...all energy sources use materials and use energy in the production of those materials. All energy sources also result in some inconvenience to people living near them, and this specifically includes wind power. There are no "ideal" energy sources, and generally things tend to look more ideal the further they are away from large-scale commercial deployment.


Nothing will make everyone happy. If people weren't scared of nuclear, nuclear would probably be the most preferred... but there would still be some people complaining about the amout of waste heat generated.

Hydroelectric dams are just about the best utility scale form of electricity generation there is. They produce gigawatts relatively cleanly, and are dispatchable and have energy storage mechanisms. They also have failure modes worse than the worst possible nuclear power plant accident, but for some reason people are more comfortable with the notion of a hundred thousand people being washed away in a flood than some thousand being killed by invisible demons over several decades.

Kit P

Dezakin, it is hard to fear monger drowning since it is easy to understand. While there is risk from sudden failure of a dam, keep in mind that many dams have flood control, irrigation, and recreation features.

Bill Hannahan

<< for some reason people are more comfortable with the notion of a hundred thousand people being washed away in a flood than some thousand being killed by invisible demons over several decades.>>

That was a reactor with a positive temperature coefficient of reactivity and no containment building.

New plants are being designed to take a full meltdown without a significant release. See page 50 and 51 of this document.


This is what happens when you send a bunch of law school graduates to congress. They delete the two technologies with the greatest potential to resolve our energy problems.


Uh oh, the nuke nuts have found this site!

Kudos to Congress for getting this one right.

Clean coal is a bit like vegetarian beef, and Nuclear while great in theory is just to expensive in practice.


Since when have enviromental champions ever been concerned with the COST of protecting the enviroment? I'm not saying we shouldn't be, just that the people who rally againt nuclear power the strongest think little to nothing of the cost of their alternatives(both monetary and otherwise).

Besides, nuclear too expensive in practice? With 104 reactors running that's a bit too much to swallow. Some people would argue that waste disposal, the Price-Anderson act , and decommisioning are all subsidies that make nuclear economically possible. But, all are funded by the industry. Critics also say that the only reason the plants running today are economical is that the enormous cost of building them was written off. These people are absoulutly......right unfortunatly. But with new designs and procedures I find a repeat of the enormus constructions cost unlikely. Besides, we are talking about the cost of saving the enviroment here.

By the way, I too was dissapointed in Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) legislation. I have to admit I agree with the critics that with clean coal and nuclear added the 15% goal was too easy. But I would have much preferred RAISING THE GOAL to perhaps 30% or more and leaving clean coal and nuclear intact. It could have been a great comprimise between all parties........and with results I could definately live with!


While I am a fan of renewable energy sources, I have my doubts about whether they alone can keep up with increases in demand. If we decide to kick new coal and nuclear plants to the curb, then we better get serious about conservation. The first thing we should do is close the D*mn borders! The U.S. population has increased by roughly 75 million since 1980. Most of that was driven by immigration. If you're trying to put out a fire, does it make sense to keep pouring gasoline on it?


This is a great initiative to develop sustainable energy. Technology buffs will be interested in how these turbines look like regular wind turbines.
With Peak Oil nearly upon us its time we all start working to develop this technology.
1.2 megawatt tidal turbine being built in Ireland’s Strangford Lough:

Bill Hannahan

In the U.S. we spend an average of $3,800 per person per year on energy. The DOE spends only $2 per person per year on R&D for advanced energy sources.

That number should be increased to $200. we should push every option as hard as possible, then let competition determine the ultimate winners.

That would be $60 billion per year. With this level of investment we can push every technology very hard. The best technologies, whatever they are, will emerge as leaders in the shortest possible time.

The new technologies will tend to suppress rising fossil fuel cost. I believe the savings could surpass the annual R&D cost within 15 – 20 years, and save over $1,000 per year per person within 30 years, not to mention a large improvement in environment and quality of life with this approach.

M. Simon

Here is one promising technology that is not getting the backing it needs to make or break it:

Bussard Fusion Reactor
Easy Low Cost No Radiation Fusion

So I have decided to do an end run around the government by designing an open source fusion test reactor.

Any one care to help? You can start here:

IEC Fusion Newsgroup
IEC Fusion Technology blog


Bussard or Lerner,

Either one will do.

Android Tablet PCs

You can discover what Steven Carew "has got" by visiting wholesale the website for Rhino Hydro. There are a few "update" items there, dated 2004.

But, the essence of Steve's invention is described under the "technical" menu selection, as follows:

"This electro generating plant employs magnets and springs to help create a perpetual motion which hiphone drives a generator. Thus giving you the electricity you need."

Get the picture, Jason? Hard to imagine Steve can't get funding . . .2945abc45 0422

The comments to this entry are closed.

. .

Batteries/Hybrid Vehicles