Current USA Energy Sources and Goals

[GHook93]

Below is our current energy sources and what I think our goals should be. Yes we are still a majority coal burning country, but if you look at pockets of the country, like ID (is nearly 90% renewable not fossil fuel - 84% Hydro and 5.6 Wind, Solar and Biomass), CA (35% renewable - 22.3% Hydro and 12.4% W, S & B) or OR - nearly 75% renewable (71.2 Hydro and 3.5 W, S & B). So its not all cut and dry on what the country uses. Some parts of the country are better for Hydro, some for Solar, some for Wind and all for Biomass (Waste), some more than others though. I personally am skeptical on global warming, but I do buy in greatly that energy demands will go with the electric car replacing gas cars over the next 2 decades and the ever growing population.

Keep Our Fuel Mix Diverse: The U.S. Fuel Mix
The Nations Energy Sources (not including cars):
Coal - 48%
Natural Gas - 21.3%
Nuclear - 19.6%
Hydro - 5.9%
Wind/Solar/Biomass - 3.5
Oil - 1.1% (Mostly HI)

There are huge innitatives in many states to push Wind, Solar and Biomass. In IL they start building Wind turbines on private farms (giving royalities th the all to happy to ablige farmers). IL goal is to be 25% Wind state by 2025. After one year we got up to 3%. In 2010 they say its now 5%. At the current rate 25% is more than attainable. I think we should promote Wind, Solar and Hydro in parts of the country where it makes sense. Hydro in the mountainous parts that have flowing water. Wind in the Fall lands of the Midwest and Solar in the year round highly sunny south. Biomass should be promoted in all stated for no other reason but to make something out of our waste.

Here should be the nations goals by 2025:
Wind - 20% (yes it will require a lot of construction and possibly better technology, but I am a believer because of what IL has accomplished in should a short time)
Solar - 15% (This is a huge stretch, because technology MUST get better, but I think it could be possible it plants are built in the right parts of the country/
Hydro -15% (There are alot of under tapped stated like VT, ME, NH, CO, UT that could start to develop Hydro energy, but efficiency would also have to increase also)
Biomass - 5% (Make the nations waste turn into something beneficial other than waste)
That's 55% renewable green sources!
Nuclear - 25% (It makes no sense why its been decades since we expanded our nuclear products or why no nuclear plants have been built in the last few decades)
Coal and Natural Gas - 15% (Call me a hippie, but I prefer the others above over these 2).

Fuel For Cars:
Currently most cars in America are fuel by oil. Most gas is now 10% ethanol. Some cars power solely on ethanol and a very few on electricity. In 2010 (more like 2011) the first generation of electric cars are coming out and they are starting out successful.
(1) GM Volt is already over-booked on preorders, putting 10K into the market in 2011
(2) Nissan the Leaf (over booked in in 35 days), 10K cars in 2011 with 20K preorders.
(3)Tesla via Roadster and Model S exceed 1000 orders
(4) Toyota's Prius Plug in hits the road in 2011 and they will build off of their prius hyprid 1 million cars sold success.
(5) Ford (with 3 electric cars), Mitsubshi (their electric car is a best seller in Japan), Honda and Chysler (Dodge Ram NICE) all roll out their electric cars in 2012
(6) Fisker $90K car in 2010 and more affordable sedan in 2012
(7) Think - Great seller in Europe in 2011
(8) BYD and CODA (new to US markets) in 2011

I think we will see the birth of the move away from foreign oil in 2011. 125 million cars on the road in 2010. Hopefully by 2015 2.5% will be electric (2.5 mil), 2020 16% (20 mil) and 60% by 2025 75 mil. Obviously numbers don't take into account increase in population and number of drivers.

WikiAnswers - How many cars are currently on the road in the US

Top 10 Electric Cars for 2010 and 2011 including Nissan Leaf, Prius Plug-in, Chevy Volt, Ford Focus EV | Clean Fleet Report

 

[GHook93]

Energy Independence is bipartisan thing. Republican want off of foreign oil and Democrats want green energy and everyone wants plentiful cheap energy. Solar, Wind and Hydro are the only true renewable sources that don't require a mined and extracted fuel. The problem is the technology at the moment is not the most efficient and it will take a lot to crack the numbers greenies want.

Cars! Everyone wants our cars off of oil. Gas fluctuation can hurt the economy. We are depend on foreigners who don't like us. And we all know that Peak oil is coming the first have of this century. Therefore the only option really is to go electric. This revolution is starting NOW!!! However, going electric means we will need to produce more from our stationary sources.

I think the stages should be:
Stage One: Keep Coal and Natural Gas (both sources we have plenty of domestically) as our backbone, while investing a lot in Hydro, Solar, Wind and Biomass sources. And start building more nuclear plants and trying to get nuclear fusion.

Stage Two: Keep the Coal and NG backbone going and start shifting more towards the others.

Stage Three: Dial down the Coal the NG. Reliance.

 

[JiggsCasey]

Peak oil is here now. It arrived in 2007, and the coming few years will increasingly bare that out.

Nuclear expansion is not undertaken because the world can not currently meet but 57% of global uranium demand as it is.

 

[GHook93]

Peak oil is here now. It arrived in 2007, and the coming few years will increasingly bare that out.

Nuclear expansion is not undertaken because the world can not currently meet but 57% of global uranium demand as it is.

Uranium is supposed to be a rather abundant resource and they are developing ways to recycle the spent uranium. I know France does it.

I don't think we are at peak oil. Peak oil is at least a a decade or 2 away.

 

[martybegan]

Peak oil is here now. It arrived in 2007, and the coming few years will increasingly bare that out.

Nuclear expansion is not undertaken because the world can not currently meet but 57% of global uranium demand as it is.

Uranium is supposed to be a rather abundant resource and they are developing ways to recycle the spent uranium. I know France does it.

I don't think we are at peak oil. Peak oil is at least a a decade or 2 away.

One has to remember also that once the price per barrel reaches a higher, consistent price then oil shale becomes a viable source.

 

[JiggsCasey]

One has to remember also that once the price per barrel reaches a higher, consistent price then oil shale becomes a viable source.

this has been covered throughout this forum... it's about net energy.... you can not maintain needed growth with an energy source that only yields 2 barrels for every barrel you have to spend to get to it. ... that is the case for shale.... and that EROEI doesn't even factor the environmental nightmare that is strip mining, which is what shale essentially requires.

shale will never save us. it is thick, heavy, gummy, dirty stuff that is very expensive to refine.

 

[Charles_Main]

One has to remember also that once the price per barrel reaches a higher, consistent price then oil shale becomes a viable source.

this has been covered throughout this forum... it's about net energy.... you can not maintain needed growth with an energy source that only yields 2 barrels for every barrel you have to spend to get to it. ... that is the case for shale.... and that EROEI doesn't even factor the environmental nightmare that is strip mining, which is what shale essentially requires.

shale will never save us. it is thick, heavy, gummy, dirty stuff that is very expensive to refine.

Emerging Technology will get the cost down to about half a barrel per 2 Barrels. Which is plenty low enough to be useful.

Also new Technologies can make it cleaner to mine and refine.

 

[Mr. H.]

From the E.I.A.

EIA - AEO2010 - Energy Demand

It appears that coal, natural gas, and petroleum liquids will be the dominant source of our energy needs to 2035.

 

[JiggsCasey]

Emerging Technology will get the cost down to about half a barrel per 2 Barrels. Which is plenty low enough to be useful.

Think about what you just said here... So 4:1? zzz ... Link please,

Regardless, not much better, and certainly not "plenty... to be useful."

 

[Charles_Main]

Emerging Technology will get the cost down to about half a barrel per 2 Barrels. Which is plenty low enough to be useful.

Think about what you just said here... So 4:1? zzz ... Link please,

Regardless, not much better, and certainly not "plenty... to be useful."

If you do not think gaining 4 barrels for every 1 you spend is a plus. You do not get Economics my friend.

 

[Mr. H.]

GHook those are admirable goals, and it does appear that progress has been made in areas of wind, solar, etc. I do agree that they should be pursued, but not at the cost of domestic production of hydrocarbon energy sources. By this I mean taxing the domestic oil, gas, and coal industries in order to fund alternative/renewable energy generation. This is the goal of the Obama administration.

I'll keep my head above the sand and refer to the graph I posted above.

If we want to reduce our use of hydrocarbons, let's start by restricting imports and promoting domestic production, all the while increasing wind, sloar and other alternatives.

 

[konradv]

If we're talking goals, why no mention of fusion power? When that comes to fruition, it will swamp all other sources. The goal I envision is a national push, a la The Space Race, to make it a reality.

For more info: ITER - the way to new energy OR

Department of Energy - Fusion

 

[JiggsCasey]

If you do not think gaining 4 barrels for every 1 you spend is a plus. You do not get Economics my friend.

Quite the contrary... .I recognize the economics of it quite fluently. We are an empire built on 200:1 down to 25:1 EROEI. ... That's what has maintained growth, and made us the most powerful country in the history of the world. ... 4:1 ain't shit, and will never sustain our great ponzi scheme. Sorry. Nevermind that 4:1 isn't even what shale returns at all yet. More like 2.5:1 or 3:1.

 

[Old Rocks]

Wind is growing by the giga-watts throughout this nation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/business/energy-environment/26wind.html?_r=1

Despite a crippling recession and tight credit markets, the American wind power industry grew at a blistering pace in 2009, adding 39 percent more capacity. The country is close to the point where 2 percent of its electricity will come from wind turbines.

Skip to next paragraph
Related
Times Topics: Wind Power

The New York Times


A blog about energy, the environment and the bottom line.

Go to Blog » While that is still a small share, it is up from virtually nothing a few years ago. Continued growth at such a fast pace could help the nation lower its emissions of the gases that cause global warming.

The American Wind Energy Association, in its annual report to be released on Tuesday, said the amount of capacity added last year, 9,900 megawatts, was the largest on record, and was 18 percent above the capacity added in 2008, also a banner year

 

[Old Rocks]

Now wouldn't you like to have a bank account that grew at annual rates like this? And how long, at this rate of growth will it take wind to achieve 20% or even 25% of the total power for the US?