The Distribution of Monies for the Department of Energy - Essay Example

Allocation of Funds to the DOE: Recommendations based upon the expertise of Paul Roberts The purpose of this paper is to determine the distribution of monies for the Department of Energy for 2012. In order to assess which areas merit more money, we need to determine criteria for viable sources of energy. Viable sources of energy as they are described in this document shall meet the following criteria: Energy source should not destroy or negatively impact the environment Energy source should be economically feasible Energy source should either function as a transition from, or replacement for, fossil fuels It has come to our attention that funds in 2011 were misallocated per these criteria, for reasons that are political rather than environmental. This document will show the reasons for the re-allocation of the monies toward viable sources of energy, and will also outline the importance of energy conservation as a tool in adjusting from hydrocarbon fuel sources to the alternative energy source formats. Current Distribution of Funds, in millions, for 2011 Projected Distribution of Funds, in millions, for 2012 $100M Nuclear Energy $100M Nuclear Energy $145M Fossil Fuels $45M Fossil Fuels, until projected phase-out $75M Alternative Energy Sources ($40M for Hydrogen and Fuel Cells) ($90M for Hydrogen and Fuel Cells) ($15M for Solar Energy) ($10M for Wind) ($25M for Wind) ($10M for Biomass) ($0 for Water Power) ($40M for Water Power) $30M Energy Conservation and Weatherization $50M Energy Conservation and Weatherization Our planet is in crisis. We are technologically more advanced than ever, but our advancement comes at a price. We need to face the reality that our energy consumption is far exceeding the fuel resources we are using to sustain our lifestyle. Wood, coal, petroleum - each resource we have employed since we discovered how to turn energy into power has become a part of the global problem which it is now too late to solve: how do we save our planet from ourselves? In reviewing the alternatives for energy sources and the technologies currently exploring those alternatives it is my recommendation, based upon the book The End of Oil by Paul Roberts, that the following areas merit the bulk of the available funds: Energy Conservation and Weatherization, Nuclear Energy, and of the alternative energy sources that have been explored, Hydrogen and Fuel Cells. The abundance of a given resource is a deciding factor in determining which technologies merit funding. The question is which resource will carry us the farthest, making it the most worthy of investment? Let us consider the merits of the various resources, starting with coal, which falls under the category of fossil fuels. Coal was literally the cornerstone of the Industrial Revolution at the turn of the last century. (27, Roberts) However, in the twenty-first century, with a century of pollution having adulterated our environment, Roberts points out that we have no choice but to consider cleaner sources of energy. Coal did, however, replace wood as an energy source, and it was able to achieve a technological leap previously impossible with wood: “Newcomen’s engine took the process one step further, by converting the heat energy from combustion into the physical, or mechanical, energy of work.” (28) Still, as a renewable energy source, it is found lacking. Coal and other fossil fuels are finite resources, making them unworthy of further financial investment. The Department of Energy is hereby charged with managing the re-allocation of funds to renewable sources of energy. The Department of Energy must also utilize the re-allocated funds in the Energy Conservation category to maximum advantage, for the following reason: “Changing our energy sources has historically been a highly disruptive process.” (15, author) This is to say that whenever people have negotiated the transition from one energy source to another, the change is slow to take effect because the existing technology works best with the resources currently fueling it. The DOE will now make it a priority 1) to ease the transition to renewable sources of energy, 2) to develop a marketing strategy which sells these renewable sources as preferable, and 3) to include as a part of that strategy, a compensation package which offers tangible benefits to those who not only utilize renewable energy sources, but who conserve existing energy resources by converting to renewable sources in lieu of those sources which are currently being depleted. Speaking of renewable energy sources, it will take a mere $20 million to support the technology which renders the alga C. reinhardtii able to produce pure hydrogen photosynthetically in farms. (190) This will be a boon in terms of clean energy, and all it takes is a redistribution of funds from fossil fuels, which we have already decided to de-prioritize. We need to switch from our current “hydrocarbon-based energy system,” and according to Roberts, “gas holds out the hope of a transitional fuel, a bridge, between the current system and whatever is coming next.” (190) So C. reinhardtii may not be the ultimate solution, but it may solve the transitional fuel issue. We do not yet know what our ultimate fuel sources will be, but we need an energy source which meets the aforementioned qualifications. With adequate funding, scientists can resume the task of producing photosynthetic hydrogen, thus aiding us in our transition away from fossil fuels, and leading us solidly in the direction of producing “carbon-free technologies.” (190) Roberts seems pessimistic in terms of hydrogen technology, but if the funds are re-allocated, it may be possible to accelerate the results from this technology exponentially. We won’t know unless we fund it. The requisite adjustments in the budget are now in place to accommodate this research. In terms of renewable energy sources, however, some possess their limitations. (192) Solar energy was once a popular concept, but what about the places which don’t see very much sunshine during a typical year? And what about the fact that solar-powered items simply don’t have as much power as their electricity or gas-powered counterparts? There is much work to be done in refining this technology, but we are still limited by geography and meteorology. There is no solar energy where the sun doesn’t shine. German scientists such as Joachim Luther would have us believe that “sunlight is everywhere” but solar energy does cost five times as much as the energy from coal (191-192) and it doesn’t work as well. In the end, it does come down to cost: “Solar energy technology is still too expensive by a factor of four to compete with nuclear and by a factor of three to compete with natural gas.” (195) Solar power is more expensive, and less powerful, than the energy coal provides. Its limitlessness, however, supersedes the utility of biomass, which “is limited by the amount of land needed to grow fuel crops.” (194) Wind power, on the other hand, must be seriously considered, because unlike solar technology, “no insurmountable technological barriers remain to be crossed.” (198) When wind is more widely used as an energy source, contends Roberts, the cost of using wind power will decrease: “Wind…has no fuel costs: its upfront costs – manufacturing, installation, real estate and financing – are its main costs.” (198) Wind technology, therefore, meets the criteria for receiving re-allocated funds. “Wind is the essence of modular energy production: a wind turbine will function just as well by itself as in a cluster or farm, and that factor gives utilities an amazing degree of flexibility.” (198) The initial costs of producing a wind farm are also significantly lower than producing nuclear power plants. Wind turbines are also easy to produce, and they are emission-free. Therefore, more funding must go toward wind power. There are even “wind lobbyists” who are finally in a position to oppose those who represent fossil fuels. (200) Roberts would have us believe that renewable sources of energy, or “renewables”, can be adversely affected by the same forces which currently control fossil fuels, such as plummeting petroleum prices which would in turn make renewable fuel prices less attractive. Would that this were the case! Petroleum prices, by virtue of the fact that petroleum is a diminishing resource, can only go up. Diminishing versus renewable – there is no contest. One resource will run out, and the other will not. Roberts mentions also the problem of “intermittency” with renewable resources; the fact “they are not available twenty-four hours a day, nor do they always deliver their maximum power.”(200) It is at this point that we must refresh the discussion about energy conservation. If we devote more money to using less, the intermittency of the renewable resources will not be as problematic and desperate as it seems. We simply must use less. Once again, Roberts returns to the issue of hydrogen, and it is here where his key point is made: “Specifically, by using electricity from solar arrays and wind farms to make hydrogen, we could effectively neutralize intermittency.” (204) Is it too simplistic to say, “Problem solved!”? Roberts concedes that the effort required to mobilize this vision is enormous and daunting in scale, but, really, what choice do we have? As he pointed out in Chapter 1, the situation is rapidly turning into something over which we no longer have control. Roberts cites as another major issue the “size of the existing fossil fuel infrastructure.” (207) As a counter-argument, if absolutely no effort is made to seriously topple that infrastructure, it will continue to seem impenetrable. It seems that the real challenge is getting the right people to invest psychologically in the technology. Yes, it will take time to transition, and there will be a period where the same type of raw power is just not available, which means people will have to do without some of the items which we have come to associate with comfortable 21st century living. There is no doubt either, that the United States must be the country to implement this as fully as possible, mostly because we are the largest consumers of energy. Roberts implies that former Vice President Cheney tried to take the burden off of American consumers: “Conservation might be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for…a(n) energy policy. The Bush energy plan…will recognize that the present crisis does not represent a failing of the American people.” (213) While the energy crisis does not necessarily represent a “failing of the American people,” this does not mean that we are not responsible for it, or that we should not grab the reins and begin to assume responsibility for it. We absolutely should be conserving energy. The California energy crisis was solved through conservation, notes Roberts. (214) “It wasn’t because the new power plants had come on line. It was that consumers immediately cut their power usage by 10 percent as soon as a crisis was declared,” says director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, Dan Kammen. (214) The evidence suggests that consumers can actually have a considerable effect upon the global energy crisis, so energy conservation is viable and must be implemented immediately. So, the combination of what needs to happen is: 1) In order to compensate for the inevitable decrease in power as funding for fossil fuels is reduced, the general population will need to conserve and use much less energy than they are accustomed to consuming. 2) During this period of conservation, we will develop an infrastructure for hydrogen, wind and solar power to transition from hydrocarbon-based energy to clean renewable energy. The mistake we have made in the past is to assume that any one of the above renewable energies is in and of itself sufficient. They must be used in concert in order to save our world. Once we build the infrastructure, millions of people would be able to use the technology, making it that much cheaper. Basically, we would have an initial outlay of millions of dollars that would then provide us with extremely cheap, renewable energy forever. We look forward to implementing these budgetary adjustments and, in due course, reaping the benefits of these decisions. Thank you. Source Consulted Roberts, Paul. “The End of Oil.” New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. Read More