We wondered into one of my favorite subjects of alternative energy sources while discussing “Does this new coalition make a stable democracy” in the War on Terrorism Forum so I thought I would present an alternative to imported oil energy that is totally environmentally friendly. I thought the idea was so good I prepared a draft plan and sent it to the Prez Bush for consideration and in about three months I received a suitable for framing parchment letter from Bush with his fountain pen signature fresh off the autograph machine telling me thanks for being interested bla bla bla…

The idea was to capture major river currents to produce exceptionally inexpensive electricity. Rather than build land gobbling hydro damns use a similar system to the one found at the link below X-500 in size and capacity. Have these mini systems built by corrections facility inmates, unemployed workers whose skills support such construction and university engineering lab support for competitive design. Thousands of such un-intrusive to environment energy plants could be built on our major rivers and relieve demand on oil and natural gas for heating in some of the coldest climates. Correction facility inmates could maintain these facilities so energy would be inexpensive. Go to the below link and select 240 vac Direct Drive Hydro http://www.homepower.com/magazine/downloads_hydro_power.cfm

So the question for debate is

What magic can you come up with to alleviate the need for oil import to replace all the Clydesdales needed to provide our energy needs?

Don't need magic, need conservation of our energy sources. We WASTE so much of it everyday, but that has become our lifestyle and we won't want it taken away.
I used to hang heavy items like towels and denim pants on the line, now I am too lazy and use the electric dryer like nearly everyone else.
But I do open the laundry room window and let the dryer suck in our warm, sometimes hot, Arizona air instead of making the dryer suck the 70 degree indoor air that my air conditioner works so hard to produce.
I have commented on alternative energy issues before, and have always said that we don't need alternative sources as much as we need to just find ways to use less of our existing energy supplies. That is the start towards solving our problems, and it can be done NOW and for little cost.

I think that Americans are more than clever enough to come up with viable alternatives to importing oil. You prove that in your recommendation on hydro power. We already have numerous alternatives to fossil fuels available.

The fact of the matter is that the big business doesn't want that to happen. Think about the $$$'s that flow back and forth from the middle east. Do you really believe that anyone in big business or the government (whose pockets are lined by these oil companies) would let that flow of oil and money stop?

Bill a lot can be done to save energy by just applying logic to energy use as you state. I plan every time I use my car to accomplish multiple tasks with least distance traveled. Just a few degrees of change on the AC or the heat can make a tremendous difference on consumption. Automated controls on water heater and home climate controls save bundles of $’s and energy.

Stljoe I’m sure you are 100% correct! Our government is so on the take to business and I’m talking both political parties. President Carter was proof of my point when he tried to wean the US by applying incentives of solar and alternative energy during his administration and even his own party failed to properly support him. Seems it is elephants are go oil and donkeys are go trial lawyers to keep the oil guys from punching holes. No one is like Carter saying, “this will fix the problem.”

There goes the question of what can the citizen who cares for the environment and soldiers who do the deal to protect oil flow do in the constraints of government to change the mess? I’m thinking only a large private movement will make any change. A financial backer that applies a brilliant energy idea and turns profit can only force change in the two party lock up.

Sarge I love your concern here. I share the faith that Americans if properly set on this quest can solve this for the positive good of our environment, our foreign policy, and our economy.

I think that a quest to reduce oil energy dependency could be like Kennedy's call to put a man on the moon.

I could be expensive but the payoffs could be tremendous.

If the only thing it did was to create renown for the rocket scientists of this quest, (Recall any version of "You must be a rocket scientist", he's no rocket scientist" quips and connect that admiration of rocket scientists to the space race) would be to inspire a new generations of AMerican students to specialize in science and math, that might give us value enough.

But if this quest also created the economic engine of the 21st century (to follow behind the railroad of the 19th and the car of the 20th century) we could rest easy with a new force to drive our economy. If the new solutions created cleaner fuel then we will all benefit.

A government focus on fuel efficiency and encouragement of our transportation industry to find better solution could get them out of the mood of defending the status quo and regressing to larger less fuel efficient vehicles then we will all benefit. In this coming century I think we will need the government to lead the way in the economy, if only to shoot for the moon like Kennedy did.

Think of the aspects of our society that are now dependent on technology garnered from the space race! And we might even unite behind such a quest and pull behind something for a while as a nation.

Something that can be done right now is require all gas to be blended with ethanol. That would cut our dependance now, and help our farmers. I would gladly use that gas in my honda insight if i could, but i live in florida where there is no ethanol blended gas.

I think for my two cents worth is bio-diesel. We are paying farmers not to grow crops. Why not allow them to grow soybeans and turn into fuel. Diesel trucks and buses can be converted for under $5 each.

Heck it can be used to power aircraft. Germany came out with diesel engine aircraft in the 1930s and today there is a company called Zorch that is making diesel powered airplane engines.

Let grow our own fuel.

Here is an interesting link relating to ethanol and other man made fuels http://www.energy.state.or.us/biomass/Cost.htm The cost of production is still relatively high.

Thought maybe you may find this link interesting also since you are from Florida http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/busin...10720147.htm?1c Florida sugar companies exploring ethanol as new business.

loreng59 wrote:

You are on the money! Corn uses a lot of fertilizer, which is an energy guzzler in production. Soybeans on the other hand produce nitrogen naturally in the soil so corn will need less fertilizer in the following years plantings. I have an Internet contact in Finland that cooks with bio-diesel and supplements his home heat also. I've read that people are using used cooking oil from restaurant chains to produce bio-diesel for autos.

Sure, but the thing is that converting crops into biodiesel uses a heck of a lot of energy - so you actually use about the same amount producing the biodiesel as you do burning it (and that DOESN'T include the energy that goes in from sunlight).

So currently it requires massive levels of subsidies to be cost-effective. As technology improves, I am sure that this problem will lessen - but assuming that technology will fix everything is a risky assumption to act upon....

Secondly, the land which is used to grow crops for biodiesel needs to be arable farmland. To grow the amounts needed to fuel cars would require giving up land which is currently used to grow food. Go to far in that direction and you have plenty of biodiesel and not enough bread....

You are correct that the technology is new and needs more work. As for arable land, the US has a lot that is not being used because we produce too much food and drive the prices down.

We also have an problem with the disposal of waste water. What could be a better solution, two problems working to solve a third.

As for not enough bread. I think that we have more than enough for the US, maybe we would have to cut out selling to the Arabs that would save a lot of food. Let them eat their oil instead

ol sarge thanks for the info. interesting. My parents live in South Dakota and they see how the ethanol plants help the farmers...on their 40 acres they grew corn this year for that reason. i just see it as a "win win" atleast on the angle of decreasing our oil dependance on the middle east..i like bio diesel also..why not..use whatever it takes to get the middle east out of it..i'm doing my part w/ my 60 to 70 mpg car...

What magic can you come up with to alleviate the need for oil import to replace all the Clydesdales needed to provide our energy needs?

Small hydroelectic generators do have negative effects; they are not the panacea. First, the mechanical "work" of water flowing through the turbine means that water slows down. When the water slows down, it will pool and warm. This can have negative downstream ecological effects (which may or may not be acceptable). Second, you don't get much energy from tapping into the flow of a river or stream. It would probably be fine for small, portable power applications but only in rare instances is it viable.

As some have mentioned, growing crops specifically for fuel ends up taking as much energy to plant/grow/harvest as you get out of the crops itself. It's a none-sum game. However, this is not to say that biodiesel is unworkable. You could take the waste crops (as well as deep-frier oil) and produce fuel. However, it will never make a viable replacement for petroleum.

Comment on renewable energy:

We can get useful energy from gradients in temperature, pressure, volume, radiation, chemistry and gravity. Renewable energy is any energy which we get for "free". We can "intercept" the energy source to use for our needs without significant deleterious effects.

Energy generation:

1. Tidal power generation. Essentially big floats anchored to the ground on hydraulic pistons. When the water rises or falls, the pistons will generate mechanical work. Hook it to a generator...voila.

2. Wave-action power generation. Use wave action to turn a generator. Could be used in conjunction with tidal power generation. However, unlike tidal generation which can be totally enclosed, wave-action generators would suffer from the caustic effects of salt water.

3. Geothermal/hydrothermal power generation. Any time you can get a significant temperature differential, you can get useful energy.

4. Fission. New technologies have made this safe and viable. We need significant re-education about this technology though to overcome the irrational fears.

5. Individual/home solar power. Tax incentives would help seed the market here. The idea is to get more home owners to generate at least some of their power locally. Solar tends to help during peak demand hours (like during the summer months).

Energy distribution/storage:

It isn't good enough to generate power, we need efficient means to distribute and store energy. This is why oil is so useful. Not only is it a powerful fuel but it is easily transportable.

Note that a fuel is not in and of itself creating energy. A fuel is just "potential energy", i.e. it is energy which has been stored in a chemical form to be released at will. While petroleum seems like it is used for energy generation, it technically isn't a "generator" . At some point in the past, energy was consumed in order to produce the petroleum in the first place. We are now just mining this energy source and releasing the stored energy back into the environment.

1. Superconductive power lines. A tremendous amount of power is lost because of resistance in power lines. However, if the power lines were superconductive...

2. Hydrogen fuel. Convert other types of energy into hydrogen fuel. Keep in mind that it takes energy to produce hydrogen fuel. A renewable energy source to create hydrogen is what we want.

3. Personal/home power storage technologies such as flywheels or passive solar water heaters.

4. Finally, anything which improves efficiency -- using less energy for the equivalent amount of work -- is a good thing™.

Future tech:

1. Fusion. If we can get this to work as a viable power source, it will solve the world's energy problems. This is both the promise and frustration of fusion.

2. Orbital/lunar solar factories. You could produce tremendous amounts of electircal power which could be converted into a collimated microwave beam (a maser) and sent to a receiving station on Earth.

3. Quantum-entanglement energy distribution. If you're not familiar with quantum entanglement, it is what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance". Basically, you can "entangle" the states of otherwise two independent particles in such a way that they essentially become one particle no matter the distance between them. The promise in terms of wireless, lossless power distribution is huge. Note that you could also use such a technology to power a spacecraft so it doesn't have carry on-board fuel (but that's another story).

Thanks for your contribution! I agree the largest gain for crop-produced fuel will be in the pockets of and influence of congress people. Yet there are many possibilities for waste products producing energy. I do believe hydro could make a significant impact, not a replacement for major power production but help. Low impact mini power plants as simple as water wheels could do little to affect the flow of water downhill. Work is being done when water flows down hill equal to the work to pump it uphill. Corps of Engineers could capture the work in many locations in levies and use water collection similar to that used in cities collection from reservoirs to create low impact energy reclamation. The simple process of placing water in a pipe at one elevation to a lower elevation creates pressure to produce power. Adequate filtration, like stone and sand traps used in city water purification collection would return the water to the lower elevation without impact. Water under pressure of gravity could run a steam engine in place of steam. To create pressure simply contain the clean water in a pipe to a lower elevation and return it to nature after extracting the energy with no more impact than underground water table.

This is the cutting edge to low technology I can relate to. Basic cave man common sense says you won’t freeze in a cave, nor will you get too hot. Residential heat and cooling energy requirements could be reduced to the difference between ground temperature below frost level and outside temperatures with an effective heat exchange system. The initial cost outlay would be great but if you only had to heat from 66F or cool from 66F instead of the outside temperature little energy need would exist.

Excellent possibilities for energy production, in some tidal basins like the Yellow sea the tide changes some twenty feet.

Available sources are on national parks and trial lawyers are keeping the possibility out of sight.

They have federal law requiring power companies to buy back excess home produced power already. Prez Carter introduced such initiatives and worked until the Iran hostage put people in lines at the gas station and as the door hit him in the butt the solar water collectors panels on troop barracks for the 82nd Airborne Div. were removed and sold for scrap. I use solar hot water and PV panels and battery bank for power outages but the cost of storage batteries and PV panels eliminate consideration as an energy source. BP, British Petroleum of all sources uses solar power for all of their gas stations in Europe and sells the PV systems. Go figure?

I think hydrogen fuel could be economically produced with waste power. Like water flowing down hill we have millions of vehicles hauling millions of tons of cargo traveling down hills. The same energy is wasted in brake HP as is used in going up the hill with the heavy load. Trains and transport trucks could have breaking HP capture energy with generators resistance controlled by a rheostats instead of friction or engine back pressure the “work” of slowing the load would be transferred to the energy grid similar to a cable car to produce energy for hydrogen production. Think Rocky Mountains! Hydrogen production with oil is still almost an equal trade off.

A few thoughts:

The best source of 'free' energy is increases in efficiency: better insulation, more efficient lighting, more efficient transport.

The best way to improve efficiency is to capture some of the external costs of fossil fuel use. A carbon tax is proposed by many as a means to do so. In order not to stifle the economy too much, or to burden low income people (who spend a larger proportion of their income on energy), the majority of the revenue from this tax should be returned, in equal amounts, to each citizen, much like the Alaska Permanent Fund, except on a nationwide basis.

Likewise, steel wheels on rails is a much more energy efficient mode of moving freight than in tractor trailers: trucking beats rail hands down due to the vast network of 'free' highways vs. the limited amount of privately owned railways. The federal government should abandon Amtrak, but create a federal interstate railway system similar to the highway system. Private locomotives could bid on 'rail' time to pay for the system.

I think I read this earlier in this thread, not sure: http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html but according to the University of New Hampshire, our entire use of oil for TRANSPORTATION (planes, trains & automobiles) could be produced by algae ponds using approximately 2% of the land space in the US currently used for pasture or grazing. If such ponds were distributed around the nation, using wastewater effluent to fertilize the algae, transportation (of oil & energy) could be reduced.

Another means to reduce transmission losses is to stop subsidizing marginal users. If utility companies were able to price energy at the margin, where each user pays the cost of providing HIS energy, rather than the average utility price, compact energy grids would be encouraged. This would also have a small effect on reducing sprawl.

The best way to reduce transportation costs is for more people to work, play, & do business near where they live. To do this requires relatively high population densities and mixed use development.

Unfortunately, it's never that simple. Hydroelectric power generation has arguably been the most ecologically disruptive power generation system humans have ever devised. Changing the patterns of rivers & streams and creating artificial lakes & underground aquifers has had a major disruptive influence on local and regional ecologies. Of course, some of these changes may have been beneficial yet they are not without costs. That said, I agree that there are some clever things which could be done with small, point-source hydroelectric generators. It's important though to consider that you don't get something for nothing. Yes, you could hook turbines to waste water run-off but this will slow down the flow rate of that waste water. This may be a problem on both the front-end and back-end of the system. If the flow rate is too slow, it could pool causing all sorts of problems.


Yes, we could be much more clever about managing waste heat. Better & smarter materials which insulate our homes could solve some of these problems "passively". For example, if the house is too warm, then shunt the heat into the ground either conductively (heat sink) or convectively (heat pump).


You don't need active geothermal vents to get good geothermal power. In fact, you want to avoid areas like this because of instability. Instead, dig a really deep hole in a tectonically stable area. Run a hose down. Cycle a "working fluid" though the hose (like air or water). Use cool liquid at the start which flows to the bottom and gets hot; it then "boils" back up. Sort of like the opposite of a refrigerator.

On the other hand, hydrothermal power would work like a refrigerator. Build a platform in the middle of the ocean. Run a hose down really deep. Cycle a working fluid through the hose which would cool at the bottom. This creates a temperature gradient.

It all comes down to: PV = kT. Increase pressure: temperature increases and/or volume decreases. Increase temperature: pressure and/or volume increases.


Yes, the power companies must buy back the power. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be enough incentive for most people to outlay the costs of installation. Tax incentives help smooth this out. Of course, once the market is sufficiently "seeded", then remove the incentives as they will be no longer necessary. Keep in mind, that power companies benefitted from massive government funding in the early and mid-20th century.


Regenerative power is a good thing™, however generating hydrogen from it is probably not the most efficient means of storing that power. It's much easier to store the regenerative power as electrons inside batteries or as mechanical energy inside flywheels. Generally, for transportation related power regeneration you're going to use that energy right away (on the next hill). Not only is hydrogen production is too lossy to make this viable but you'd have to carry water along to generate the hydrogen. That extra weight would make such a system highly inefficient.

Efficiency in transport is counter to the American mindset; we like to ride around in our living room by ourselves with more power the better.

Germany has equal access to petroleum as the US and taxes gas to about $6.00 a gallon, charges 17% sales tax on all shopping, goes into your house and appraises the value of “stuff” you own and taxes that again and they still have no more fuel/energy efficiency than America.

Again Germany has an excellent railway system but much transport of goods are still transported by truck.


I think it is considerably less disruptive than bombing foreign nations and sending soldiers off to die to keep the oil price in control. Your argument is used by all the trial lawyers as “why not” verses arguing, “let’s do it” and do it with least impact. What has more impact on the environment, war or hydro?

If national parks have surface temps that would support safe extraction that is stable enough to be accessable to the public then why not? Set a tube right beside stinky “Old Faithful” and capture the energy. If people find it ugly let them go fight in Iraq to keep oil cheep. Why spend a trillion dollars to punch a hole in the desert where their may be an endangered species?

Well then use breaking HP to capture energy with generators connected to drive trains of vehicles using rheostats to control resistance instead of friction or engine backpressure. Conceal large battery packs under the load hauler that may be quick exchanged at lower levels of elevation once fully charged. Discharge battery bank using inverters into a power grid and then transport back to higher elevation for recharge.

Umm, no, when I said there wouldn't be enough bread, I wasn't exagerrating. It would take a huge amount of land to grow enough crops to replace the ME as a source of energy. Certainly enough land to significantly impact on America's ability to feed itself.

That may well be the case. Biofuels are a start, is it one step cure-all? No I do not believe it is, but we need to start today, someplace. The diesel engine was never designed to use petroleum based fuels in the first place.

I do not believe that you realize the vast areas of arable land that are in the United States, but it is enormous. Is it enough, I do not have sufficient information to date to know that.

If we do not to start to do something along this order and soon, we will be even deeper in trouble than we are. I have read many very good ideas presented here, and feel that each of them could be used to solve a certain percentage of the issue, though none will be enough to solve all of it by themselves.

Yes, I broadly agree. My point about biofuels was not so much that they are a bad idea - in many ways they are a great idea, but that in no way could they support the current need (and projected increases in need) for energy. Every country in the world would like to be self sufficient in a renewable source of energy - but...

I suspect that battery / fuel cell powered vehicles are going to become more popular / cheaper / technologically advanced. The energy in those cases would ultimately come from power stations, which could either be fossil fuel powered (coal/gas/oil) or run on something nuclear or hydroelectricity. If America switched overnight (!!!) to fuel cell vehicles & nuclear power stations then oil dependency could be vastly reduced. Obviously this would require considerable expenditure in developing infrastructure to support fuel cells (they require hydrogen gas) and convert everyone's cars.....

But it is technologically possible....

The only argument I'm making is that hydroelectric power generation is not without costs. I am not making a value judgement of whether or not it is intrinsically good or bad. The just-do-it attitude is why we have regulations in the first place. For example, just-do-it dumping of highly toxic chemicals into the drinking water supply is...well...wrong. As for the "trial lawyer" comment, is this supposed to be some sort of ad hominem attack? Is this your way of shutting down the debate on the costs vs. benefits of a given power generation proposal?


I don't want to get into a debate over the value of national parks nor do I wish to debate your rather specious suggestion that it's either this or oil wars. I will say that it is pretty difficult to create large scale geothermal power generation in areas like Yellowstone. The surface is unstable and constantly changing. The temperature is also not constant making a control difficult. As for punching a hole in the desert, I am sure there are areas like in Nevada where species endangerment is not an issue.


Hmm. Yes, I suppose this could work. I think that all moving vehicles should be hybrids (or, more accurately, regenerative). It's somewhat disgraceful that we're wasting all the energy it takes to speed up the vehicle when we slow down.

What magic can you come up with to alleviate the need for oil import to replace all the Clydesdales needed to provide our energy needs?

I don't think there is, or will ever be, a magic wand that instantly creates limitless energy that will allow the current model of consumption based on fossil fuels to continue unabated.

That's because the current model of consumption involves almost exponential growth in consumption. Intuitively that model cannot continue indefinitely - whatever (conceivable) fuel resource we come up with to replace pertochemicals, it will itself be finite.

I think that the first thing we will have to do, almost before we look at alternate sources of enrgy, is spend a great deal more time and effort looking at increased efficiency in the use of energy that we already use. This true across the planet, but seems particularly true of America.

One small example - European and Japanese automotive engineers can get 500+ horsepower out of two litre engine. By comparison, American engineers seem incapable of doing the same with less than six litres. More particularly, American consumers are less impressed by a smaller-engined car that can display blistering performance than they are by a great big one. Somehow, America needs to develop a consumer market that is less impressed by size and bulk comsumption generally and more attuned to efficiency.

Now in this example, it's true that the bulked-up 2 litre cars have far worse fuel consumption figures than a normal 2 litre. Mostly, though, they still have better figures than any comparable US car. The main difference in mindset is, of course, largely based on the far lower relative levels of tax on gasoline in the US than in most of Europe and the Far East. This is a hard nut to crack, since the US economy has grown the way it has based on low fuel prices in global terms. A sudden increase now would have disastrous effects. However, one can't help but think that a slow strategic rise over two or three decades might help, but that's two or three decades more (at least) of dependence on ME oil reserves, which over that time-frame are likely to become more expensive anyway (simple supply & demand); and also if the tree huggers DO turn out to be right, it's two or three decades we can't afford.

Not just that, though. Why in the heat of summer do most businesses and public buildings have the air conditioning set so that it's actually cold enough inside to require an undershirt or sweater? That steam that rises from the sidewalk vents in winter that so typifies Northern US cities - surely it could be put to some use, rather than just venting aimlessly? No comparable European cities have such plumes, no matter how cold it gets. What are US cities doing that they aren't, and why? Do American refrigerators REALLY need to be twice the size of most European ones? And so on.

This change to the US consumption culture has to be the first step, I think. Without it, alternate technologies and fuels will make less of an impact on oil-dependency. One doesn't have to be a tree-hugger to see that the USA's oil dependence on the Middle East can only go away if it finds a huge supply of oil from somewhere else (and this seems unlikely - you'd have found it already), or uses less. Alternate sources of energy simply are not in a position yet to make much of an impact on thier own.

I apologize, I just get frustrated with America’s reluctance to use resources within our territory and involve our nation in S. America and mid east over oil. Our love for the environment seems to override common sense inasmuch more damage is done to the environment and people than working on solutions at home. I didn’t mean to blame your view of science but watching the news I see so many limitations unreasonable in comparison to the alternative…war over energy. If you read my original post and go back to the link I cited you might understand my frustration.

Well, you are from CA and with power grid outages I’m sure you are well aware of not in my back yard thinking already. Here in PR we had a big battle over Vieques bombing range over the precious eco structure damage and chased off the US Navy. But the Puerto Ricans are the largest consumer of rain forest products because of a local termite that eats all wood that isn’t treated or from the rain forest. So naval bombers miss training and in CA desert training center closed down for endangered species protection. Hey who is looking out for the troops? I’m getting off topic and I’m finished venting.

A friend gave me a 24VDC motor from an aircraft maintenance vehicle and I had it repaired and conducted some tests in my shop on braking power of an old automotive generator (unregulated), a 130 amp ford 12VDC alternator and a 60 amp Nissan 12VDC alternator. I used 4 12 VDC deep cycle trolling motor set up in a series/parallel to develop 24VDC to run the motor. I connected the motor, through a series of mandrills to step up the speed from the high torque motor to a mandrill where I mounted two 60 pound centrifugal weights (looked like a barbell for a very strong midget) and could develop over 5,000 RPM’s and to the same mandrill I connected the alternators & generator in separate test and cheated the battery series connection to feed back in at the 12VDC point to recharge. I didn’t have a rheostat so I stop watched the breaking time and was amazed how fast the unregulated generator could stop the barbell. I finally gave up on the experiment when I warped the plates in a couple of the batteries with too fast of a high charge in amps.

I know a similar system is in use in hybrids and can’t understand why load haulers shouldn’t be required to install and use such a system instead of brakes even on flat land. Place a rheostat under the brake pedal and activate the load on the generators installed on tandem axels. If the batteries filled with charge a simple circuit could burn off excess power with xenon lights or other power grabber.