http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2006/07/cryogenic_super.html#comment-19545453

Well Thomas, let them talk nukes all they want.  I just don't think they're cost effective.

 Remote cluster reactors  are  a good  compromise on nukes.  I think we  renewable fans could use this as a negotiating point to get subsidies shifted from fossil and nuclear corporations to tax incentives for homeowners and small businesses for wind, solar, and electric plugin hybrids and pure EVs.  They get a second chance, we get a fair playing field.

Put the new nuclear reactors  in remote areas where contamination already exists like Yucca mountain or Hanford, the power can be moved easily compared to the waste later on.  Let the industry prove itself on cost, safety, and waste.

But as far as the real winners?  Well I'm glad this article brings up superconduction.   Because instead of thousands of miles of superconducting cables with liquid hydrogen pipes surrounding it, smaller rings of this  material with safe liquid nitrogen supercooling could store all the wind, solar, and wave power needed in a regional grid. It's like a zero loss flywheel where the electricity does the spinning.

Even the  negative assessment on the capacity of wind and capacity factor leaves the government admitting solar can and must fill the gap.

I think much larger wind machines on the planes and on floating platforms offshore that double as wave power stations could power everything alone. There is no reason to insist on that though.

 The better strategy is to agree and admit we only expect  maybe one third of our power from large wind and wave machines.  Then propose distributed power generation and storage from home sized wind and solar roof panels on every roof that is suitable to provide the next third. 

And going to efficiency gains for the remaining third.   Much more mass transportation, ride sharing, bike trails, and telecommuting for work.  Electric cars,super insulated homes, a new generation of energy efficient appliances, geothermal/solar  heat pump heating, domestic water heating,  and air conditioning.

Also industrial efficiency gains.  Like using wind powered heat pumps and solar for refining ethanol.  Electric plugin tractors and construction equipment. 

I would say the admissions in this report give us the final negotiating position we needed to prove renewables can carry the whole energy supply burden.  Let them try nukes and "clean" coal.  But verify cost effectiveness.

Renewables will win in a fair fight.  Real capitalism minus subsidies would provide that fair market competition. Let the games begin (well they already have).

This is engineering and political strategy now.  Prove the voters will get lower costs with renewables and we win in the end.  Hope it is in time to head off global climate disaster.

http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2006/07/re_the_false_ho.html

More happy fuel farming fanstasy.

This study assumes 10% of transportation fuel coming from biomass by 2020. 

As the study proposes to supply that amount by converting more photosynthetic bio-energy to fuel that is burned, that will exacerbate climate change.  All the land that can be converted to carbon sink, either through more reserve land or returning as much biomass as possible to the soil through organic farming, is needed to  reverse CO 2 climate problems.

Between non-CO 2 emmitting electric renewable power used in PHEVs and EVs and liquid fuel generated with algae in solar systems, the economic and war related problems of importing oil and the even bigger problem of CO 2 climate change can be solved simultaneously.

Trying to use fuel farming to replace oil will only replace a fraction of it and actually degrade the present level of the carbon sink effect of conserrvation reserve land and sustainable farming practices that build soil organically by recyclng biomass.

The illusion that fuel farming actually can solve these problems is a dangerous one.  It makes the release of methane from permafrost practically inevitable as CO 2 levels continue to rise.

That will overwhelm the climate system and cost far more than conversion to renewable electric transportation power and carbon sink sequestration with more conservation reserve land would.

Just the increasing storms and droughts alone will cost many orders of magnitude more than investment in mass production and adoption of renewable electric battery powered vehicles.  In fact the economic boom from  renewable energy will  pay back these investments within a few years..

And how can anyone envision agricultural yields actually increasing (as this study does) with ever increasing weather volatility?  The reverse is true, the water needed for even present ag production levels is rapidly being depleted as aquifers are destroyed with overuse and pollution.

It is interesting that renewable electric transportation advocates are often accused of over optimistic predictions given the very obvious unrealistic assumptions behind fuel farming

The Washinginton Post is onto the scamming.  Which is understandable (though unexpected) given the huge corporate fuel farming subsidies channeled through DC lobbying corruption. 

Farm and environmental votes are being bought with this greenwashing.  and farmers get none of the money doled out that adds to our huge national debt (mainly held by China), it all goes to politically connected agribizz corporations like Archer Daniels Midland.