Robert asks…
Why is the Southern Company and Jeff Sessions so against alternative energy?
Maybe because 99% of their energy plants are from COAL,OIL and NATURAL GAS.
Do they have to use coal? No
Whether you live in the south or the southwest alternative energy is still a viable source of energy.
Solar, Wind, Geothermal and other alternative sources are available to The Southern Company.
They are BIG OIL. Thats why they dont want to change.
Americans are not stupid.
CHANGE OR YOU WILL BE FORCED TO.
THATS GOES FOR DEMOCRAT/REPUBLICAN/LIB/CON/JACKASS/WHATEVER YOUR NAME IS.
The Expert answers:
I say outlaw the use of fossil fuels. We have other ways, don’t deny it (I’m talkin to big oil)
BIG OIL is going to soon be… Small… Then gone.
Sharon asks…
Are the big oil companies really spending enough on developing alternative energy?
Go to BP’s alternative energy website and you’ll notice that they plan on spending 8 billion dollars over the next 10 years on alternative energy R&D. This includes solar, wind, hydrogen and natural gas. Given the fact that we’re in a state of complete disarray with the oil situation in our world with many factors contributing to refinery shortages, crude production, etc., you would think that big-oil would be spending a few more dollars on the alternatives. With that said, is BP, et al just giving us all lip service or are they serious about finding a better way. I know that they want their profits to keep rolling in based upon their current business model, but there will come a time when the old way of doing business costs too much (exploration, hurricanes, wars, etc).
Your thoughts on how we can help push them into embracing these technologies and making them viable alternatives for real world applications.
The Expert answers:
The word “enough” is a relative term. NASA gets $16 billion a year; is that enough? I don’t think so, but I bet you think it is too much. They are spending an amount that they deem necessary to ensure future profits for the company. When their oil wells start to run dry, they will spend more.
Joseph asks…
Is the concentration of ownership of energy companies responsible for the lack of alternative energy sources?
Bill Gates recent announcement of developing a new nuclear reactor, Generation IV, with China, that is safer, cleaner and more efficient , using depleted uranium, is interesting in that he is seeking a partner outside of traditional energy corporations.
If the Generation IV reactor as as promised, why is it that none of the traditional energy producers have attempt to update their designs? Could it be that they are wish to maintain the status quo. That the profits they are making presently are so great that there is no motivation to look at new technologies?
The Expert answers:
Convenience is a big part of the slow adoption. Another is the AGW cronieism on the part of people like Al Gore- Investor in carbon trading boards, and carbon trading credits, as well as part owner of Occidental petroleum.
Nuclear is a disaster just waiting to happen, and a form society outgrew just like you outgrew Dr Dentens. And the inescapable fact no plant can ever be made safer than greed will allow.. The people who run them are quite inept at everything but keeping them events out of the news.
http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html
http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/radscout.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/fatal-blast-hits-nuclear-waste-plant-2353512.html
Nuclear is no alternative. The same family names crop up with nuclear reactor design/construction firms and the old players in gas and oil- they just know how to manipulate the message so you “think” nuclear is innovative and “new” and an alternative energy- it is nothing of the sort. Just because it may be listed as safe in textbooks- there is just that much money behind the industy.
Just because Toshiba builds reactors small enough to fit on a lowboy trailer does not make it safe nor anything I would want to be around.
Let us face facts- the Candu reactors that held promise in 1980 have been plagued with problems. Yet they were touted as more advanced than anything the US had available.
There have been innovations and moves to improve and develop other safer alternatives to nukes- after all a nuke plant has waste that will outlast the sun and be as deadly then as now.
Just be careful what you wish for- you might just get it along with all of the unintended consequences you never heard about because you trusted a crook in a Brooksbrothers suit The same people who gave you the economic collapse of 2008.
Daniel asks…
Why do we subsidize the alternative energy industry?
The oil industry has been subsidized for decades. It’s a constant political hot button issue. If it’s such a bad thing to do, why is the current administration subsidizing “alternative energy” companies with taxpayer dollars? Will this not just enrich a different group of people, effectively doing the same thing that was done for big oil? So far four alternative energy companies are belly up, likely more to follow, where’s the outcry? If I’m not mistaken part of the “excuses” for those that have failed so far is due to foreign, “cheap labor”.
The Expert answers:
Because they are too expensive to stand up in the open market, because of manufacturing costs and they are unreliable and unpredictable.
Solar electric is about $0.36/KWH to produce electricity, and if batteries are added to have lights at night, solar costs upward ot $0.50/KWH (not including transmission costs)
Wind turbines are about $2.40/KWH (not including transmission costs)
Coal generation is about $0.02/KWH and natural gas is about $0.03/KWH (not including transmission costs)
Corn for methanol needs about 8 units of energy to produce 10 units of energy. Switch grass would only need about 4 or 5 units of energy to produce 10 units of energy, but switch grass can not be taxed or regulated for hidden taxes and revenue to politicians and those that are subsidized by using corn as a source for making methanol.
Wind and solar generation has not been cost effective since they were first tried, and will not be cost effective. They are an option in remote areas where no transmission lines are available. Most remote areas that need moderate amounts of electricity generally use diesel engines to power generators, or natural gas to run gasoline type engines to generate electricity.
Bottom line, subsidies are only for laundering tax dollars and/or to buy votes. I would expect more alternative energy companies will go belly up in the near future.
Electric and hybred vehicles are also not cost effective. Electric vehicles were tried in the early 1900’s and failed for the same reason they failed today and will fail in the future. To get any amount of distance, a large truck or tractor trailer is needed to haul all the batteries needed to get a hundred miles or more distance before needing to recharge, and it would take two or more days to recharge all those batteries, or a charging station way too expensive to be practical.
Conventional generating plants need to be on low efficient standby to power up in a moments notice for when there are random clouds or gusting winds, which actually emits more CO2 than if they were on full power operation, so there is actually more CO2 emitted by using wind and solar than simply using the coal or gas powered plants. This is a dirty little secret few know about. In Scotland, Germany, and other countries, wind farms are being paid to shut down from time to time because they are so sporadic, which punches gaping holes in the whole “Free electricity” theory.
Cheap labor is only a small factor for the US not being as competitive globally. It is the taxes and the regulations that companies have to meet that costs so much and causes the US to not be as competitive globally. The excuse for being cheap labor is a distraction for us to know that the over regulation and compliance to safeguard against the trial lawyers is what costs the most for businesses.
Thomas asks…
What should my major be if I want to help with alternative energy sources?
I want to be involved in alternative fuels/energy sources and help with climate change. I want to work for companies that do major projects in that area, but I’m not sure what major that could be. I’m under the assumption that I’m looking at is a career in Environmental Engineering. Is that my major or is it something else? Also what California schools have good programs in the field I’m looking for?
The Expert answers:
Environmental engineering is something different. It’s more about pollution control and waste management and is a sub-field of civil engineering. If you want to work with alternative fuels, chemical engineering would be a good choice. Materials engineering (solar cells, superconductors), mechanical engineering (wind energy, improving engine efficiency), electrical engineering (smart grid), and nuclear engineering (next-gen fission reactors, fusion) could also be good choices.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers