Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Energy and Global Warming

I favor reducing our dependence on oil, especially foreign oil -- not because of global warming, but rather for national security. I think wind energy and solar energy, etc., are just fine if people want to invest in them, but I don't hold much hope for any meaningful contribution from these energy sources for several years, possibly decades, and I don't think we ought to be subsidizing their development and use with taxpayer money.

I think we should be doing more drilling for oil and gas, not less. We should be drilling more in Alaska and more off all three coasts, not just, or mainly, off the Gulf coast. We should be producing gasoline and gas from coal and shale, both of which we have in abundance, and we know how to do that. In fact, we have known how for a long time. To wit, a coal liquefaction plant was built in South Africa in the 1950’s, and in America coal gas was used extensively in the late 19th and early 20th centuries for lighting, cooking and heating. I think we should be building coal gasification plants and coal liquefaction plants. I think we should be tapping the huge shale gas formations in the U.S. However, I think we would be fooling ourselves if we thought doing all these things would be enough to solve all our energy problems.

I wish Americans would embrace the nuclear option. It seems to me far and away to be the most proven and economical energy technology, and we have plenty of uranium for nuclear fuel. Nuclear power generation doesn’t make carbon dioxide, in case that's what people are worried about. Americans like to make fun of the French, perhaps rightly so in some instances, but one thing I'll give them credit for, and that is that they have the energy thing down. They generate something like 70 to 80% of their power from nuclear plants, and they have had nary an accident. My understanding is that dramatic improvements have been made in safe design and safe operations since the Three Mile Island incident. With respect to disposal of the waste, why not bury it in lead containers within salt domes?

I think making ethanol fuel from corn is about the dumbest idea to come down the pike in several generations. (In sharp contradistinction, I think making ethanol for whiskey from corn has always been a great idea, but that is beside the point.)

As for global warming, I think it may be happening. However, I don’t think we have enough information to gauge how significant mankind’s contribution is, relative to that caused by the earth’s natural heating and cooling cycles. Moreover, I am doubtful as to how much we could do to stop it anyway, if it’s happening. After all, no other country would be required to adhere to any carbon cap-and trade law that America might enact, and it is my understanding that within a few years China alone is expected to be generating more carbon dioxide than the rest of the world combined. Finally, I think that if global warming is real, its effect will be gradual, giving people time to adapt, migrate to other climes, etc. Also, I think it would have some positive effects as well as some negative ones – for example, if some coastal lands were lost due to rising sea levels, then other coastal lands would naturally take their place, and land areas farther north would become more arable and habitable as a result of getting warmer.

7 comments:

The 73rd Virgin said...

Welcome blogger. We now expect no less than 5 paragraphs per week - come hell or high water. For your trouble, you may expect disjointed and abusive comments.

I'm familiar with the usual complaints about ethanol fuel from corn grain. Do you see any future in less input intensive crops going to ethanol, such as forage sorghum, which I think Brazil used with some success? Or perhaps cellulosic biomass such as here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol

An in-law in the ethanol business claims the API spent 53 million on research undercutting corn ethanol. Some (not me) are willing to believe the energy sector fought the global warming movement with bought science. Might they be buying science to fight the ethanol movement as well?

IMO, regardless of where we get ethanol fuel, the use of 10% gasohol won't be going away as long as there is the perceived benefit of lower CO emissions.

Philip Whitman said...

Jeff,

I don't know much about sorghum, but however good or bad it might be as an energy alternative, I still think we should be drilling like hell and building nuclear plants out the kazoo.

Jim Marsalis said...

I'm certain that somebody else must have mentioned what you call the positive effects, but you are the first person i've heard talk about them, Phil, and I've actually found myself quoting you to students. That's scary.

In the unlikeley event that I would be around, I would certainly be saddened by the second destruction of New Orleans by flooding, but there is some solace to be taken in humanity's ability to adapt to new climatic conditions.

Since we have not been too effective in gaining control of the environment, adaptation my be the way to go.

Looking forward to reading more of your out-of-the-box ideas.

Philip Whitman said...

You're right about me not being the first to mention positive effects. In fact, my son Glen has several postings about global warming on his blog "Agoraphilia", and I know that he talked about positive effects in some of them. For example, he wrote an article on March 12, 2007, titled "Global Warming: A Taxonomy of Querstions" wherein he mentions positive effects and states that we should be considering the net of both positive and negative effects. I expect his article probably influenced my opinion. As I recall, he provided links to some other people who had made that same point.

Glen Whitman said...

When you say "we" should be drilling for more oil and gas, and that "we" should build more nuclear plants, I'm wondering who you have in mind. One answer is that "we" means the private sector. Another is that "we" means the taxpayers, via public subsidies. This is suddenly relevant because Obama just announced federal support for a nuclear power plant in Georgia -- one that had failed to attract private investment.

Yet a third answer is that "we" means the private sector, but with government cooperating by removing the regulatory barriers to both oil drilling and nuclear-plant building.

My instinct is that government shouldn't be subsidizing these activities; the rising price of oil should be sufficient to incentivize activity in the private sector. However, if we take it as given that the government is subsidizing something (currently, it subsidizes solar/wind and ethanol), then there's a reasonable argument for evening the playing field.

Molly A. said...

Hey, this is off-topic, but I am a student of Mr. Marsalis and I was wondering how you taught him to "smell money" and if you would tell me without informing James himself.

Philip Whitman said...

That’s a good question. The ability to smell money is believed to be due to a little known recessive gene that can be carried in either the X or the Y chromosome. In order for the trait to be manifested “overtly” (if that’s the right word), the gene must be present in both of a person’s chromosomes. For example, using X’ and Y’ to represent chromosomes with the gene, and X and Y to represent chromosomes without the gene, an X’X’ girl and an X’Y’ boy would both “overtly” display the trait. By that, I mean that early on in their lives, it would become apparent to this girl and boy that they could smell money, just as obvious to them as their ability to smell, say, shrimp gumbo. Either of them would be what we might call a smelling guru. I happen to be an X’Y’ smelling guru, and as a result, smelling money has always been as easy to me as smelling Bar-B-Que sauce.

In the case of an X’X or XX’ girl or an X’Y or XY’ boy, the trait would not be overt. These girls and boys would have what might be described as a “latent” talent for smelling money, but they would not notice it, unless and until that talent had been “awakened” due to something happening to bring it to their attention. Once these people do know that they have the latent ability, they can become proficient at smelling money through long practice under the tutelage of a smelling guru. My friend Jim Marsalis is either an X’Y guy or an XY’ guy, and he didn’t realize that he could smell money until I myself realized it and apprised him of the fact. Then, over the course of our time together in engineering school at Tulane, he and I held many practice sessions, and Jim eventually became as adept at smelling money as I have ever been.