Our legislators continually talk about how we can conserve and how we must develop new sources of energy. These are all valid points but they do not appear to put as much emphasis on conservation. If laws associated with synchronizing traffic lights were even minimally enforced, we could same millions of gallons of gasoline. Just think about the last time you were at a green light and the next light up the street turned red. Stopping and starting just because lights are not synchronized is inexcusable. Promoting high efficiency light bulbs is another sure savings but the only ones promoting these are the manufacturers of the new bulbs. Boosting the building air conditioning set point is also an opportunity to save. How many people do you know that say buildings are kept too cold.

These are simple things that can be done very easily but there is little emphasis on promoting them.

Bill Partanen, P.E.
Belcamp, MD

The argument that consumers do not choose fuel-efficient vehicles is a straw man; the simple fact is that there really is no choice to make. Automakers have resisted offering American consumers the choice that their European and Asian counterparts have enjoyed for years - diesel automobiles. The industry has also moved at a glacial pace towards developing usable plug-in electric vehicles. Political action is a reasonable response to market failure, especially when that failure threatens national security.

Christopher Pflaum
President
Spectrum Economics

In today's article you state that "Oil, of course, is the Dominant fuel source..." (Emphasis added). I'm not exactly sure what the point is that is being made here, but I'd say that coal would likely be a strong candidate for the most dominant, and obviously nuclear is huge as well. Perhaps if you are only considering transportation, then oil is obviously dominant there, but transportation is not by any means our largest energy user.

People don't generally recognize where they use most of their energy. Most is used as electricity and heating/cooling of businesses and homes, and in agriculture. Compared to the sum of these uses, transportation is a small chunk indeed.

It seems to me that an undue emphasis on oil is misplaced, and that replacing the electricity and heating/cooling fuels with alternative, such as renewables, addresses a far larger market, a far larger need, and has far greater potential for energy independence, security, and of course mitigation of global warming.

That oil which is used for electricity generation or heating/cooling loads could then be freed up for transportation use (short term - long term uses alternatives) which would immediately mitigate the transportation fuel supply pinch.

Bottom line - let's pay attention to where we use our energy, and address the largest needs first and appropriately.

Gary P. Hoffman
Applied Thermodynamics

With all due respect, I think the debate needs to be better framed: there is Stationary Power - electricity - and Mobile Power - transportation.

The difference is major. In the US, Oil only represents 2% of the electricity feed. It is of course the main Transportation energy source.

Therefore, Renewables are not a substitute for Oil. They are a substitute for Coal, eventually.

The other thing, Biofuels should not be called Renewable Energy. The word Renewable implies the notion of "free" meaning costless. We have seen the impact of ethanol production on corn and soybean prices. Lester Brown from the Earth Policy Institute will say it much better than I, let me paraphrase. When Food is used for Fuel, I don't believe it deserves the Renewable label.

So, if I may, let me reframe the debate.

Stationary power has an enemy - dirty coal. Whether one believes that CO2 contributes meaningfully to Global Warming is an open debate, at least in the US - I personally side with Reid Bryson, the founder of modern Climatology. He asserts that earth radiations are 80% absorbed by water vapor within the first 30 feet of the atmosphere. Meaning water is a GHG 1000 times more potent than CO2. That being said, the fight against dirty coal should not be abandoned. If Global Warming is not the real issue, Pollution certainly is. I am all in favor of Wind, Geothermal, Hydropower and Nuclear. These are all practical answers to the Pollution problem.

I am not so sure about Solar. Whereas the other sources I just mentioned do not require subsidies, so to speak, Solar does. For one reason: it costs 5 times more. An REPP study shows that the mitigating factor is that it creates more jobs per MW - 15 to cite them, 4 times more than the other sources. I am currently trying to figure out whether spending some $200,000 for each job created in Solar is good or bad for the economy in the long run, but I am skeptical. I wonder if we as a country wouldn't be better off spending part of this money in R&D, which as far as Solar is concerned is the real issue. In other words, should we, over the next ten years, spend $70Bn to produce 23,000 MW of Solar power and create 300,000 jobs - or should we spend a fraction of this to find ways to increase yields from 20% to, say 40%?

Lastly, regarding the political debate, I am at a loss to explain why Nuclear is an issue. Misinformation has to be the culprit, unless I am missing something.

With regard to Mobile Power, as Lester says, corn ethanol is NOT the answer. Granted, from a political standpoint, proponents are going to get Farmland votes. Acres planted for corn in the 2007/2008 season are estimated at 92Mn, versus the historical 80Mn. With a yield of 150 bushels/acre, this equates to some $6Bn in additional income. Hey, I would vote for anybody who puts this kind of money in my pocket.

The problem is, this is not a zero-sum game. What our farmers make, others lose. And as corn ethanol production increases, this worsens. So whereas planting corn seems expandable, the fact is it not.

To sum up, we have solutions for Pollution from Stationary power. However, before we yield to the temptation of jobs created by Solar, let's think twice.

For Mobile power, let's R&D cellulosic ethanol. In the meantime, the low hanging fruit is efficiency and conservation - if Europeans can do it, why can't we?

Franck J. Prissert
C.E.O.
Capital Max, Inc.

Copyright © 1996-2006 by CyberTech, Inc. All rights reserved.