Energy: Can we break the tyranny of oil? Experts say we can
June 24 2008 / by futuretalk
Category: Energy Year: General Rating: 7 Hot
By Dick Pelletier
Energy is the life-blood of America – it affects our economy,
standard of living and national security. Our prime energy source,
oil, is a product we can no longer afford. Four-to-five dollar per
gallon gas prices, air pollution, and global warming has brought us
to the point where we must find a better energy source. 
Experts predict that by 2030, new energy technologies described below could drastically cut our oil consumption, and slash reliance on electricity-producing fossil fuels like coal and natural gas almost entirely. Added to our portfolio of existing nuclear and hydroelectric power, these new energy sources could virtually eliminate our reliance on fossil fuels to run our homes and economy.
Bio-fuels – in the nation’s heartland, scientists are working to turn agricultural waste or ‘biomass’ such as switchgrass, wheat straw, cornstalks and miscanthus into a fuel called cellulosic ethanol that could be produced commercially. Department of Energy (DOE) officials believe that by 2030, bio-fuels could meet 30 percent of our transportation fuel needs.
Hydrogen – this new technology stores energy more effectively than batteries, burns twice as efficiently in a fuel cell as gasoline does in an internal combustion engine and leaves only water. It’s plentiful, clean, and capable of powering cars, homes and factories. The DOE predicts an all-hydrogen vehicle could become price effective by 2020; and by 2030, this renewable non-polluting energy could power ten percent of our cars, homes and factories; by 2050, 50 percent. (cont.)
Artificial photosynthesis – Professor James Barber of London’s Imperial College describes a recent understanding of biological catalysts that allow plants and trees to ‘split’ water to obtain hydrogen and release oxygen. Barber says this provides a blueprint for developing artificial systems to produce hydrogen to be used as fuel. “This will not happen immediately”, he says, “but with concerted effort, a system could emerge in 25 years.”
Hydroelectric, nuclear, fusion – 20% of the world receives electricity from hydropower, but these systems wreak havoc flooding large land areas. Though nuclear reactors are improving, people still remember Three Mile Island and Chernobyl; and these facilities are expensive to operate. Fusion power holds great promise and could become the world’s preferred energy source in the last half of this century. EU, Japan, China, India, South Korea, Russia and U.S. have joined to build the world’s first fusion reactor by 2016 in hopes to prove the merits of this futuristic energy.
Solar, wind – these technologies show great promise, but the sun and wind do not always cooperate, which creates an unreliable energy flow. However, the late Nobel laureate Richard Smalley proposed a solution. He devised a plan that would send energy via satellite to in-home nanotech-built storage units, each holding 48-hours backup power. Smalley imagined that by 2050, some form of space-based solar power systems could distribute uninterrupted, cheap, non-polluting energy to all of North America.
The major roadblock standing in the way of many of these new energy ideas are not technological, they are political; too many government officials favor ‘big oil’. If we can overcome this situation, the payoffs are huge: we’ll reduce trade deficits, enhance national security, and create millions of non-exportable jobs; and America will become more self-sufficient in the process. Go “magical future”.
Comments welcome.
Comment Thread (2 Responses)
-
First off, I agree enthusiastically, as always, with your comments about the power of technology to solve major problems over the next few decades. Our technology is accelerating by many indicators, and it is important to understand that.
However, I really wish you would stop ending each article with “go magical future” or similar. There are a few reasons to stop doing this. It sounds rather silly, and comes across as an emotional reaction. Sure, the future will be exciting and our emotions are important, but by repeating the “magical future” expression like a broken record, you risk losing your audience.
Concentrate on presenting the facts rather than coming across like an over excited young child. Another way in which the audience may misjudge you is by thinking you’re only enthusiastic about the future for selfish reasons. Ray Kurzweil makes this mistake, he’s borderline obsessed with the medical side of things because he’s terrfied of dying. We all fear death, and we all want to live a long time, but he focusses too much on this one aspect because he only thinks about himself.
I always enjoy reading these articles until I reach the last sentence, where it either says “do you think this magical future will become reality” or “go magical future”. The future will be exciting because it will have great enabling power, freeing us to pursue learning and creativity and expand our horizons. It will not be exciting in the limited sense of being like a computer game where you can do what you wish. That kind of self gratification wears off after a while; on the other hand the bettering of our selves and others, and the opening of our minds to new possibilities, that never gets tiresome.
Posted by: CptSunbeam June 25, 2008
Vote for this comment - Recommend -
Sorry CptSunbeam, the term “magical future” has become kind of a trademark or signature of my articles and this theme is well received by the majority of newspaper readers who read my Future Talk column each week, so it will probably stay with me.
I am not interested in profiting on my web presence. Some of you may have noticed that there are no commercials on my Positive Futurist website. Bloggers who find my posts interesting will keep on reading them; those who don’t won’t.
Comments welcome.
Posted by: futuretalk June 25, 2008
Vote for this comment - Recommend