Alternative Energy: Where Will The World Turn?

By Christopher Hancock
August 16, 2006

The world consumes about two barrels of oil for every new barrel it finds.

To think this can continue in perpetuity is delusional, a naiveté of convenience, and nothing more. There is no amount of rationalization that can convince a sober mind that one plus one equals three.

The point: Energy security – specifically, the growth potential for alternative fuels – will become more than some obscure, ultra-left wing political platform.

No other commodity on earth grips the scales of a country’s economic welfare like crude oil. In oil, countries find safety and certainty. It’s undeniably the main driver that is shaping policies today.

Make no mistake… the world is fighting for its limited supply.

And when you throw in the consumption potential of India and China (37% of the world’s population), the market for alternative fuels becomes even more profound.

So where do we turn?
Lets consider our options.

Option 1: Nuclear
Nuclear’s “image” problem seems to be waning. Demand for “green” energy sources has put the nuclear option firmly back on the table for many countries.

One ton of nuclear fuel produces energy equivalent of 2 million to 3 million tons of gaseous fossil fuel.
The greatest argument supporting the use of nuclear energy rests on its distinctive attribute of being clean!

Clean I’ll grant you; but safe, I’m not so sure.

Embracing the construction of new nuclear plants also means we’re willing to assume inherent risks such as the exploitation of nuclear material for weapons use, sporadic radiation leaks, the possibility of terrorist attacks, and the unresolved problem of how to properly dispose of radioactive waste.

Aside from all that, one minor accident, even a blip one-tenth the size of Three-Mile Island, is all it would take.
Nuclear energy will always rest on a tipping point.

Nuclear will be an energy supplement, not an energy solution.

Option 2: Solar and Wind Power
Anyone who has actually seen the Enercon model E-66 wind energy converter would fight to their last dying breath to prevent such an eyesore from landing within a country mile of their private property. Just ask the good people of Massachusetts. Many residents living in the vicinity of the proposed Cape Wind project in the Nantucket Sound stand in strict opposition. Even famously liberal Ted Kennedy, the commonwealth’s senior senator, backed a bill that would effectively halt the proposed construction.

Similar sentiments are shared in other states as well.

Speaking of Massachusetts, it would take a plot of land roughly the size of that entire state to support the sheer number of solar panels needed to power our national grid.1

“Solar and wind power, for their part, are wondrously clean but woefully inefficient.”2

Simply put, wind and solar aren’t the long-term solutions.

Option 3: Biomass (Ethanol)
This one I love.

Ethanol can be used as fuel for automobiles either alone in a special engine or, its more common function, as an additive to common gasoline engines.

Ethanol is readily made from corn. It can also be derived from crops such as miscanthus and sugarcane. The Brazilians have been making ethanol successfully from sugarcane for some time now. Many here believe we should follow Brazil’s lead.

At first glance, that seems reasonable. We have abundant land in the Midwestern Corn Belt, an experienced production capacity, and most importantly, federal support. Moreover, Ethanol offers a clean-burning fuel source when compared to conventional unleaded gasoline.

So what’s not to love?

For one, Ethanol’s dependence on water. What happens in the event of a major drought? What are the contingency plans then?

Furthermore, Ethanol, like wind and solar, is substantially insufficient. “In the United States, ethanol yielded only about 10 percent more energy than was required to produce it; in Brazil, where a different process is used, ethanol yielded 3.7 times more energy than was used to produce it.”3

It gets worse. According to Martin Hoffert, physics professor at NYU, we would need more than 10% of the world’s landmass, or the equivalent of all the land currently under cultivation, to grow enough biomass to meet the world’s energy needs. 4

Option 4...
Option 4 is our best bet. It uses a proven technology and an abundant feedstock: Coal. The key to this alternative fuel is known as the Fischer-Tropsch process. German scientists Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch developed the process in the 1920s.

The technology works by first converting coal to gas (carbon monoxide and hydrogen), and then turning those two gasses into diesel, gasoline, heating fuel, plastics, fertilizer or pure hydrogen.

The break-even point with coal-to-liquid fuel (CTL) technology, depending on who you ask, is somewhere between $30 and $40 a barrel. In China, it may be much lower. When the price of oil costs more than that figure, it’s cheaper to make these fuels (diesel, gasoline, heating fuel) from coal.

We’ve reached a tipping point in our need to balance our undying thirst for oil with the safest way to secure it.

Alternative energy will never fully replace the use of oil…It offers a viable supplement, not a substitution.

Don’t expect this issue to change anytime soon. Alternative energy will come to market. It’s only a matter of time.

1 Urstadt, Bryant. “Imagine There’s No Oil” Harper’s August, 2006.
2 Ibid.
3 American Association for the Advancement of Science. “Fuel ethanol cannot alleviate U.S. dependence on ” petroleum, July 1, 2005.
4 Urstadt, Bryant. “Imagine There’s No Oil” Harper’s August, 2006