PV Gap

Kay Said:

Please Help, where can i find>?

We Answered:

Nine Critical Questions to Ask About Alternative Energy

© Copyright 2003, From The Wilderness Publications, www.fromthewilderness.com. All Rights Reserved. This story may NOT be posted on any Internet web site without express written permission. Contact admin@copvcia.com. May be circulated, distributed or transmitted for non-profit purposes only.

May 27, 2003, 1400 PDT (FTW) -- Before we instantly accept alternative energy lifeboats that will let us keep our current lifestyles, don't you think it wise to see if they float?

Here are nine questions that you must ask of yourself, and anyone who claims that they have found a perfect alternative to oil. After answering these questions, you may have a better idea about whether you want to jump (or throw your family) into something that might sink in short order.

Deluding yourself that the energy problem has been solved only guarantees that the crisis will hit you and the planet much harder in the end.

The end of the Age of Oil is a life and death game. Can you afford to be cavalier about it? Do not think of prudent, but ultimately temporary, steps that should be taken to soften the blow as solutions.

These questions have been arranged by order of importance and by the order in which they will enable you to quickly evaluate an alternative energy source. If you can't get the right answer to the first one, you need not go any further.

After answering all nine questions, you will see - from a scientific place, rather than an emotional one - that there is no effective replacement for what hydrocarbon energy provides today.

1. How Much Energy is Returned for the Energy Invested (EROEI)?

Have all energy costs been taken into account? This is where too many alternative energy sources fall flat after the simplest examination.

Commercial hydrogen offers one clear example of how it takes more energy to produce the fuel than can be obtained from burning it. The current feedstock from which hydrogen is produced is natural gas. The natural gas is then treated with steam. Steam is water that is boiled using more natural gas, oil, or coal, either in the form of direct fuel or to generate electricity which is used to boil the water. Common sense dictates that this cannot be a solution because it still relies on fossil fuels.

Converting water to hydrogen is done through electrolysis. Scientist David Pimentel has established that it takes 1.3 billion kWh (Kilowatt hours) of electricity to produce the equivalent of 1 billion kWh of hydrogen. (BioScience, Vol. 44, No. 8, September 1994.)

Even a small positive EROEI, if obtainable, is not a solution because fossil fuels on the whole return many times the energy invested, not just a fraction. That's why we use them.

Ethanol is another case in point. Some research has shown a negative EROEI for ethanol. Newer research from Oregon shows a slightly positive return. Ethanol is, at best, a slightly beneficial temporary alternative - not a substitute.

Claims that cars can run on vegetable oil never take into account the amount of energy necessary to generate the vegetable oil (farming, vegetable transport, extraction, etc.).

Devices that recycle plastic into oil don't mention the fact that plastic is oil, and that a great deal of energy was used to make it into plastic in the first place.

Similarly, the new technology of thermal depolymerization is not a legitimate alternative energy source. This process transforms carbon-based wastes back into hydrocarbon fuel. This technology is useful, and may help us on the downside of the Hubbert curve, but it will never replace fossil fuels. Why? Because the wastes were produced by the use of fossil fuels.

Even using turkey offal, one must account for 1) the feed, 2) what fertilized the feed (natural gas), 3) how the feed was planted, 4) harvested, 5) irrigated (oil and gas), and 5) how the turkey got to market (oil). Thermal depolymerization should be more properly viewed as a form of recycling. But this process will never have the net energy of the original fossil fuels. As fossil fuels dwindle, so will the source material.

Any alternative energy source claiming to be a solution to the coming oil and gas shortages must have documented ?open book? EROEI policies. If it doesn't, then it has something to hide.

2. Have the claims been verified by an independent third party?

In real life, it is called ?the proof is in the pudding.? In scientific circles, it is called peer review, and it usually involves having your research published in a peer-reviewed journal. It is an often-frustrating process, but peer-reviewed articles ensure the validity of science.

When assessing the validity of an alternative energy source, look for articles published in peer- reviewed scientific journals, or critiques authored by scientists or engineers trained in the field of study. Ultimately, this is the only way to validate claims.

An inventor may insist that he/she has been shunned by the scientific community, or state that there is a conspiracy within the scientific community against his/her ideas. That is just too bad. Don't succumb out of sympathy or wishful thinking.

FTW's research has been suppressed but all we have ever asked for is a fair and open review of the evidence. This is the first test of credibility.

The ultimate proof is in a working demonstration, outside of the control of the person selling the idea, so that the results can be verified by a person or body with no financial interest in the outcome.

3. Can I see the alternative energy being used?

Be very careful here. Seeing is not always believing. There are many cases of con men with engines that only appear to run on alternative energy. There are also more than a few legitimate inventors who think they are running a legitimate experiment.

Even if the inventor does produce an engine that runs on alternative energy, don't sign on until the next question is answered very clearly.

4. Can you trace it back to the original energy source?

There are only four original sources of energy on this planet: the sun, gravitational forces, earth's interior, or nuclear power. All energy derived from organic sources can be traced back to sunlight. It is the same for renewable energy sources like solar and wind. Gravitational forces generate hydroelectric power and tidal power. Geothermal power is generated from the earth's interior. The earth's interior is hot due to the residual heat generated from the accretion of the planet and the heat of trace radioactive minerals. This internal heat powers all of the earth's tectonic processes. Nuclear energy is generated from either the breakdown of unstable elements (in the case of fission) or the fusing of two elements into one (in the case of fusion).

If an inventor claims an original source of energy other than these four, or if no original source of energy is apparent, treat the invention with skepticism. He or she may be the next Galileo giving us scalar energy, and upsetting the known laws of the universe, but the invention must still be proven, demonstrated, checked, and most importantly, made available.

One cannot eat a picture of a hamburger. One can only eat the hamburger itself.

5. Does the invention defy the Laws of Thermodynamics?

Most of the other questions in this list can be tied up into this one question: does the invention defy the Laws of Thermodynamics? If the answer is yes, then something is wrong.

What are the Laws of Thermodynamics?

* 1st Law?Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy in the universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another.
* 2nd Law?In all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state. This is also known as the law of entropy.
* 3rd Law?It is impossible to cool a body to absolute zero by any finite process. This is actually more of a postulate than a law. In any case, it has little application to our discussion and is presented here merely for thoroughness.

Scientist and author C.P. Snow developed a very simple and memorable way to remember the three laws:

* You cannot win (that is, you cannot get something for nothing, because matter and energy are conserved).
* You cannot break even (you cannot return to the same energy state, because there is always an increase in disorder; entropy always increases).
* You cannot get out of the game (because absolute zero is unattainable).

6. Does the inventor make extravagant claims?

Does the inventor claim that his/her invention will generate, for instance, more energy in one liter than a barrel of oil? Will this invention run on anything? Did ?extra-terrestrials? give the promoter the plan for this invention? Will this invention ?replace all other energy sources currently utilized by human civilization??

Claims like these are signals that the invention should be treated with great skepticism.

7. Does the inventor claim zero pollution?

There is no method of generating energy from a source that does not produce some form of waste (pollution). Even wind and solar create waste as a result of the construction of wind turbines and solar cells (albeit comparatively little waste generated in the initial construction phase). Hydrogen fuel cells create waste when the hydrogen is generated, though it is commonly claimed that they produce nothing but water. The waste is simply moved out of sight to a hydrogen generating plant. Hydrogen fuel cells depend on fossil fuels to generate the free hydrogen, so they create all the pollutants of burning hydrocarbons; they simply move them away from the vehicles to a centralized generating plant. Likewise, horses also pr

Peter Said:

Does the shrinking atmosphere & recent lowlevels of solar radiation help explain the mini iceage & maunder min?

We Answered:

You know, this kind of report makes me wish that warmists are right and solar output has very little effect on climate compared to CO2. Otherwise, heading into a cooling period will definitely cause hardship for many of us. And it would really suck if we added in some unnecessary man-made hardship on top of that.

Peggy Said:

What does this new NCAR study say about sunspots, solar output and AGW?

We Answered:

Don't confuse ions (solar-wind particles) with radiation (visible light, infra-red, ultra-violet, etc). The particles of a solar wind provide auroral light shows and a berrillium shower, but provide only a fraction of the energy in comparison with the radiation spectrum. Solar output is not related directly to the number of sunspots. Sunspot number is one indicator of increased solar output, but not exclusively. The sun can have higher output without a increase of sunspots, and as illustrated in this study, the sun can have an increase of solar wind without an increase of sunspots.

Michael Said:

Where can i find?

We Answered:

One idea, I don't know about peer reviewed.
http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/jona…
http://www.thrasherswheat.org/2005/01/on…

Gladys Said:

PLEASE HELP! Where can i find>?

We Answered:

First of all, I'm not going to be sarcastic.
You just might have to visit the library. It's Saturday now, so you've got two days to get the info you need and write the paper. It can be done.
Hopefully it's just a short paper. Otherwise, you just might be kinda screwed. It looks like your weekend is shot :(
Good luck!

Harold Said:

Does Prof. Steven E. Jones, the oft cited BYU conspiracy theory guru, have any credibility whatsoever?

We Answered:

GODS we need more posts like this!
Facts, the names of opposing views (Professor Jones), sources for the facts, etc.

Except for those desperate to believe their own propaganda (we have a few that even answer themselves in enthusiastically positive ways, just to feed their self-image), why would anyone post anything but this or direct questions where one doesn't have a possible answer?

At present, I hypothesize that he has little credibility IN THAT FIELD. I withhold judgment until I can gather more information and make an informed decision.

Would that more people did that as well.

I'm amazed that people behave as if the U.S. government is "guilty" and they have to PROVE their innocence. It's a sad example of the loss of American values amongst those who are unwilling to actively participate in government (the government being anyone but them, the MAN, or whatever they do to disown their own responsibility in a democratic representative republic (I believe there is one more aspect to our government, but I'm close enough).

I'm also confused as it seemed as if one of the people disagreeing (in a fairly agreeable way, I might add) thought that D. Allan Firmage's credentials were your own (or am I mistaken?).

Thank you for the amazingly well-designed post.