A free-market energy blog
Random header image... Refresh for more!

Energy Density is Key (Richard Fulmer gets back to the basics)

“While incremental improvements can be expected with biomass, wind and solar, what is needed for them to become viable is an order of magnitude increase in productivity…. As significant future energy sources these technologies are dead ends, which is why the government, and not the private sector, is funding them.”

When it comes to power, density is the key. Energy density. The reason that solar power, wind power, and ethanol are so expensive is that they are derived from very diffuse energy sources. It takes a lot of energy collectors such as solar cells, wind turbines, or corn stalks covering many square miles of land to produce the same amount of power that traditional coal, natural gas, or nuclear plants can on just a few acres.

Each of these alternative energy sources is based on mature technology. Agriculture and fermentation have their roots in prehistory, windmills date back at least to 65 B.C., the photovoltaic effect was discovered in 1839. Yet nowhere in the world are these technologies serving as primary energy sources without significant government subsidies.

Solar and Wind

While incremental improvements can be expected with biomass, wind and solar, what is needed for them to become viable is an order of magnitude increase in productivity. As old and as well-researched as solar power, wind power, and other renewable energies are, such improvements are possible but unlikely. As significant future energy sources these technologies are dead ends, which is why the government, and not the private sector, is funding them.

Industry is more than willing to risk research dollars on technologies that show real promise, but it is not willing to flush shareholder money down a rat hole. Politicians, however, operate from different incentives. When a crisis, real or imagined, makes headlines, they want voters to see them doing “something” about it, and they must move quickly because election cycles and constituent attention spans are short.

Funding long-term research in promising technologies is not sufficient to meet politicians’ needs. Solar panels, wind turbines, and ethanol refineries are all current technology, and can be erected quickly with fanfare and photo-ops. By the time these alternative power sources prove to be financial and, possibly, environmental busts, the politicians will have been reelected and voters’ attention will have shifted to the next crisis.

Another benefit of subsidizing “shovel ready” solutions is that existing technologies have existing supporters who can provide campaign funds. Such supporters, however, constitute a well-financed “status quo” that will make government funding, once started, difficult to end.

For example, even though corn-based ethanol has driven up food and fuel prices, increased auto emissions, raised atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations (by causing additional acreage to be tilled), and possibly resulted in net energy losses, the government is still subsidizing the industry and still requiring that the fuel be added to gasoline.

Wind energy, for its part, has been “just a few years away” from being economically competitive with conventional power for at least the last 25 years, and this will not change any time soon. The Energy Information Agency predicts that in 2017 wind power will still be 50 percent more expensive than electricity from natural gas.

Furthermore, because wind turbines work only when the wind blows, wind farms cannot replace conventional plants. Backup power from conventional sources, usually gas turbines, must be ready to come on line the moment the wind fails. Despite these fundamental problems, subsidies continue to flow thanks to an entrenched lobby.

Biofuels from Algae: More Density

By contrast, consider the significant oil industry investments in researching biofuels made from algae. Unlike ethanol, biofuels are chemically similar to fuel made from petroleum and, like petroleum-based fuels, have a significantly higher energy content than does ethanol. Biofuels can also be handled by current fuel distribution systems and can be burned in today’s vehicles.

Algae can be grown in brackish water on desert land and, with today’s technology, can produce over 2,000 gallons of fuel per acre each year. This compares favorably with the approximately 250 gallons of ethanol that can be produced from an acre of corn – a ratio of 8 to 1. Accounting for the differences in BTU content, the ratio jumps to over 12 to 1. It may even be possible to boost productivity to 100,000 gallons per acre per year, raising algae’s potential to over 600 times that of corn-based ethanol!

Biofuels are carbon neutral because the carbon dioxide released when they are burned is first extracted from the atmosphere by the algae. Unlike burning petroleum-based fuels, then, burning biofuels will not result in a net increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.

With algae’s vast potential, it is easy to understand why private industry is interested, and why no government subsidies are needed to encourage investment. Moreover, if algae-based fuels do not prove viable, the companies now researching them will have no “status quo” problems with ending their investments and shifting scarce resources to more promising technologies – where “promise” is measured in density.

Conclusion

The market, a collection of buyers and sellers acting on local knowledge and with their own dollars at stake, is many times “smarter” than are outside observers. The burden of proof is on those who, ignoring a long history of government failure, claim that market failure creates great opportunities for social gain via government coercion.

In the case of energy, ‘buyer beware’ applies to the pro-energy transformationists who claim, time and again, decades apart, that harnessing intermittent, dilute energy merits the public dollar.

History shows otherwise. And it all gets back to basic physics.

——————–

Richard Fulmer is coauthor of Energy: The Master Resource (Kendall-Hunt: 2004) and numerous articles on free market economics. This piece is an updated version of his essay that originally appeared in The Freeman (January/February 2010).

For other posts at MasterResource on the crucial concept of energy density, see here.

7 comments

1 ttanton { 10.16.12 at 7:09 am }

Minor point, but EIA’s ‘forecast’ of comparative electricity costs for wind being 50% higher? EIA (correctly) went to great pains to note that non-dispatchable technologies like wind should not be directly compared to traditional technologies on a levelized cost analysis. Truth be told, wind is at least 2x the cost, when corrected for factors the wind developers hide or offload to others.

2 Floccina { 10.16.12 at 1:28 pm }

So why so little private sector research into nuclear power (thorium)?

3 Greg Rehmke { 10.16.12 at 7:48 pm }

In some places solar is clearly the superior energy source. On Mercury, for example. Or maybe in space where collecting solar power can supplement nuclear power sources. Or perhaps solar panels of the future can provide DC power for the zillion DC vampire bricks in gadget-filled homes.

And water power is pretty high-density, right, with falling water much heavier than wind.

4 Anatase { 10.26.12 at 2:49 pm }

Thorium energy has been researched for 50 years now, appearing at the exact same time than PWR or boiling reactors.
(Look for Oak Ridge National Laboraty ?).

Yet Thorium based reactor (Molten Salt Reactor or MSR) are not ready for commercial purpose. The industry is letting govnts around the world (USA,CHINA,INDIA) investing more in these and thus waiting for the delivrance of ready-to-use technology. It will cost industry less and be obviously more profitable.

5 President Obama’s Inaugural Speech: New Heat on Warming? { 01.23.13 at 8:09 pm }

[...] not self-sustaining. The main reason is that they are inferior to fossil fuels in terms of energy density (bang for buck) and — in the case of wind and solar power – reliability and [...]

6 Re-Revised King James Bible for Green Investors { 11.14.13 at 12:35 pm }

[...] chief reason is the inherent economic and technical drawbacks of high-cost, low-density, intermittent [...]

7 Social Cost of Carbon: How to Make Low-Cost Power Look Unaffordable { 11.22.13 at 10:36 am }

[...] about absurd results! Due to their high-cost, low energy density, intermittency and unreliability, wind and solar power are not up the task of powering a modern [...]

Leave a Comment