Brian "Krow" Aker's Idle Thoughts

I was a biofuels enthusiast for quite some time (closed carbon loop!) until I saw the math that demonstrated the impossibility of getting anywhere close to global energy needs. There's room to expand the use of biofuels, in the places where it makes sense --- consider the example of Brazil's use of alcohol from sugar cane --- just as there are places where hydroelectric power makes sense.

Reluctantly, I've come around to nuclear as the best available general solution. Too bad a good solution to fusion just doesn't seem to be in the cards.

I had a student last fall write his research paper on switchgrass as an energy alternative.

I suggest you take a loot at this...

Show media Loading...

if the video doesn't work - http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/258

I've always been a big fan of nuclear energy. Of course the problem with it is being able to do it safely and what to do with the spent fuel after. Nuclear energy is making a comeback in the U.S. after a couple of decades of staleness. There are a number of plants being planned now after about 30 years of none being built. I'm hoping it proves to be the future.

I'd like to find out more about hydrogen based solutions.

My problem with nuclear power has always been the radioactive waste. Yeah, plant designs are safer, and that's a good thing, but no-one has ever explained what to do with the waste that doesn't end up poisoning the planet against us.

We can't keep burying it, and nobody seems sufficiently interested in firing it into the Sun.

I honestly know so very little about them....I think, as has been said, they're one part of the solution. I believe solar power and wind energy can go a long way towards powering homes, particularly if folks in sunnier climes can give back to the grid (perhaps for credits). As for cars, different fuel sources are important, but also different usage patterns. So many people drive when they could carpool, so many people don't have good options, and yet others work in an urban area but don't want the stigma/cost of living in one.

Which problem are we actually interested in solving?

The supply problem? Nuclear is a stop-gap solution in this case. We are replacing one finite resource (fossil fuels) with another (radioactive material). The latter is of course, significantly less abundant than the former, but you can make more energy with less so it evens out. Either way, eventually that will run out too, especially if demand starts ramping way up.

The CO2 problem? I have read but cannot back up at the moment (would have to research again to find the links) that nuclear reduces CO2 output somewhat, but through the entire life cycle of nuclear energy you are still producing a significant amount of CO2, I don't remember the exact ratio but it is not insignificant.

Nuclear also rightly has a lot of safety concerns along with it. Yes, we have better containment systems now than ever before, but complex systems fail in unpredictable ways, and it's impossible to completely eliminate human error, whether it's errors in calculations done by engineers, errors in construction, or errors by operators, things can and will go wrong at some point.

Algae and grass based biofuels have a lot of promise (I'm especially interested in the algae ones myself) but I think we still have a long way to go before we can start using them. I'm also very interested in solar, in the last few years technologies have come out that make solar much more efficient and much less expensive, some of them able to produce energy even when not in direct sunlight, some of them made out of cheap materials, some of them printed. Down here in sunny florida, if we could all put high energy producing solar on our roofs and cheap stuff that deals with ambient light on our siding, I think we could move a long ways towards getting off of coal.

I have had my share of doubts about the wisdom of promoting biofuels for the usual reasons. But, like any other alternative fuel source, the technology and methodologies seem to be advancing and improving in our relentless drive to meet ever-increasing energy demand. According to the recently passed Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) all new biofuels production must meet stringent greenhouse gas reduction targets. Apparently, in many cases, biotechnology to increase yields, no till practices, technologies reducing fossil fuel inputs and more effective land management are having a positive impact in reducing the GHG profile of biofuels. I still prefer the switchgrass and algae options though.