Comments on: Investment in Biodiesel, Ethanol, Solar & Wind Up 60% http://domesticfuel.com/2008/07/02/investment-in-biodiesel-ethanol-solar-wind-up-60/ Alternative Fuel News Sat, 20 Mar 2010 22:00:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Wise Golden http://domesticfuel.com/2008/07/02/investment-in-biodiesel-ethanol-solar-wind-up-60/comment-page-1/#comment-88002 Wise Golden Mon, 07 Jul 2008 19:14:23 +0000 http://domesticfuel.com/?p=5140#comment-88002 It’s obviously good that this type of alternative energy investment is increasing and I hope that it continues to increase, but I feel compelled to offer a criticism of the article which points out that in The United States, only 2.7% of our energy is from clean sources, excluding hydroelectric. The most obvious questions, to me, is why would they exclude hydroelectric when calculating clean energy sources? The reality is that most hydroelectric sources are in place to capture wasted energy on water control projects. The hydroelectric dams were not built to produce electricity, but rather, to control water and would have been built under any circumstance. Therefore, the power generated from the movement of the water is entirely clean, and needs to be viewed as a clean fuel source. To do otherwise suggest a political motivation on the part of the articles author – or a lack of understanding. I would suggest political bias as the author feels compelled to point out US coal usage, but not European coal usage, which is higher than in the US, and utilizes higher polluting, higher sulfur coal sources, many of which are imported from the US because it can not be used here. The article fails to recognize nuclear as a clean fuel source which is contrary to the most recent of environmental thought. Additionally, the Author fails to recognize both geothermal and tidal (or non-conventional hydro) energy both of which are under development in the United States. Nuclear, while still controversial, deserves to be recognized for what it is – a near zero greenhouse gas emitting power source. Hydroelectricity supplies 7.1% of America’s electricity and only a small fraction of existing water control dams are used in this effort. The potential for generating electricity is dramatically higher without adding additional dams. Nuclear supplies 20% of America’s electricity. Geothermal derived electrical production accounts for 0.4% of America’s electrical generation, but geothermal equipment and processes which utilize heat from the Earth are estimated to reduce the US electrical load by approximately 1%. Viewed together (energy not used is the same as energy produced,) geothermal would provide 1.4%. I wish that the politics could be removed from the discussion of how our society should segway to a new power future – I think that it would make the path to where we want to get much clearer and the time frame much shorter. It’s obviously good that this type of alternative energy investment is increasing and I hope that it continues to increase, but I feel compelled to offer a criticism of the article which points out that in The United States, only 2.7% of our energy is from clean sources, excluding hydroelectric. The most obvious questions, to me, is why would they exclude hydroelectric when calculating clean energy sources? The reality is that most hydroelectric sources are in place to capture wasted energy on water control projects. The hydroelectric dams were not built to produce electricity, but rather, to control water and would have been built under any circumstance. Therefore, the power generated from the movement of the water is entirely clean, and needs to be viewed as a clean fuel source. To do otherwise suggest a political motivation on the part of the articles author – or a lack of understanding.

I would suggest political bias as the author feels compelled to point out US coal usage, but not European coal usage, which is higher than in the US, and utilizes higher polluting, higher sulfur coal sources, many of which are imported from the US because it can not be used here.

The article fails to recognize nuclear as a clean fuel source which is contrary to the most recent of environmental thought. Additionally, the Author fails to recognize both geothermal and tidal (or non-conventional hydro) energy both of which are under development in the United States. Nuclear, while still controversial, deserves to be recognized for what it is – a near zero greenhouse gas emitting power source.

Hydroelectricity supplies 7.1% of America’s electricity and only a small fraction of existing water control dams are used in this effort. The potential for generating electricity is dramatically higher without adding additional dams. Nuclear supplies 20% of America’s electricity. Geothermal derived electrical production accounts for 0.4% of America’s electrical generation, but geothermal equipment and processes which utilize heat from the Earth are estimated to reduce the US electrical load by approximately 1%. Viewed together (energy not used is the same as energy produced,) geothermal would provide 1.4%.

I wish that the politics could be removed from the discussion of how our society should segway to a new power future – I think that it would make the path to where we want to get much clearer and the time frame much shorter.

]]>