There is a lot of talk these days about our use of, the supply of (or lack thereof), and our policies regarding energy. Energy will figure prominently in the presidential campaign this year as it relates to jobs and the economy.
If you want to gain a clearer understanding of energy use, supply, and the revelant issues, here are some thoughts and posts well worth reading:
Think we're running out of carbon based fuels, think again-
We are swimming in oil reserves, despite the President's claim about "only 2%" of the world's reserves exist in the US. (He conveniently leaves "proved" out of that sentence each time he uses it.) The GAO recently testified that the Green River Basin holds as much oil as all of the world's proved reserves.
Same-o, same-o with natural gas. The EIA estimates that there are 2,543 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves in the US that are technically recoverable. On the charts at the link, you can see the difference between reserves and proved reserves. The amount of gas out there is staggering. According to the EIA we are forecast to use about 24 trillion cubic feet next year, making these reserves a 100 year supply. Here's a Reuters report on EIA estimates from November 2010, and here's a National Geographic post from February questioning the real amount of shale gas in the Marcellus.
Think bio fuels are a great idea, think again-
MIT says that there is no way the US will meet it's bio fuel mandates as directed by Congress. I wonder why. Congress (and nanny states like my home) seem to think that it will just be so if they legislate it. But you can't legislate science and you can't tell the markets what to do. It's Hayek's "fatal conceit" all over again. Bio fuels work if you want to use all of our corn and farm land for energy production, and also if you don't care how much cellulosic ethanol costs. Legislating idiots won't change that.
What about solar and wind, aren't they "free," think again-
Do the math. The capital cost for the solar plant in this example is approximately $8.3 million per megawatt generated. The gas plant in the same article cost $932 thousand per megawatt of capacity. Using David's load factor and life expectancy for the plants, that capital cost works out to $0.127 per kwh for the solar plant and $0.004 per kwh for the gas plant. That's before any operating or maintenance costs are factored in. Like I said, do the math. David wraps up his post with this conclusion-
"The capex for solar power plants averages between $6- and $7-million per MW of installed capacity. Coal-fired plants generally run less than $2-million per MW and natural gas plants currently run less than $1-million per MW. The average retail residential electricity rate in the U.S. is currently less than 12¢ per kWh. The levelized generation cost for the plants being financed by the Obama administration is more than 20¢ per kWh. His “green” centralized industrial policy will drive the wholesale cost of electricity to nearly double the current retail rate."
According to this report, wind power generated 1.2% of the energy used in the US in 2011, and solar generated 0.1%. This despite the government spending billions of our tax dollars in subsidies for both wind and solar. From the same report-
"In fiscal year 2010, the subsidies were even higher. For solar power, they were $775.64 per megawatt hour, for wind $56.29, for nuclear $3.14, for hydroelectric power $0.82, for coal $0.64, and for natural gas a petroleum liquids $0.64."
And the wind doesn't always blow. And, like solar, wind turbines take up a ton of space. The IER says that "it would take 7700 3.6Mw wind turbines to produce as much energy per year as a high quality gas well." 7700 turbines would cover 1475 square miles. That's a square of land 38 miles on each side.
So let's go nuclear, why not-
Check out this post for a discussion of energy density for various sources. (I am not sure what density mean in terms of solar.) Enriched uranium has 88,305 times the energy density of oil. Seems like a no brainer to me. Let's build lots of nuclear power plants. In fact, let's build so many that we get to the point where they are so small, safe, and powerful that we can have one in our neighborhood, or even basement. Kinda like a Mr. Fusion, or a gas fired furnace, if you think about it. One hundred years ago, how many people thought it was a good idea to have a gas furnace in their basement?
If the greenies were serious about generating clean energy, we would have been doing exactly that for the past 30 years, instead of this.
I love this quote from this post at NRO a few years ago-
"In fact a 110-car “unit train” of coal has more energy in the uranium traces in the coal than in the coal itself."
So what's the solution to this mess that we have ourselves in? Three words, which if taken seriously would create lots of jobs, provide the energy a growing US economy needs, eliminate, or drastically reduce the influence of the bad guys (think Saudi Arabia and other middle east and African dictators), improve the environment (you really think they are cleaner when drilling in Africa than we are in the US?), and generate huge amounts of greenbacks in government fees and taxes. Those three words- DRILL, BABY, DRILL!