Comments for Energy, Technology, & Policy

Comment on Are Biofuels Sustainable? by ntozzi

ntozzi — Tue, 07 May 2013 02:13:30 +0000

I agree with your general points, only to say that the argument against biofuels can only be fine-tuned. The energy intensity of ethanol and biodiesel is troubling given that the production of these fuels uses more energy than they produce. Given this fact that has been proven in study after study, I find it very interesting and slightly troubling that production of biofuels continues in the United States. As a government that promotes free markets overseas with policy regimes and institutions proceeding Bretton-Woods, the U.S. is consistent in its muddling in the energy industry; case and point, billion dollar corn subsidies for ethanol. Additionally, as Dr. Webber mentioned in class, our agricultural subsidies at home impact environments elsewhere. Responding to ethanol subsidies, American farmers drop production of other products such as soy to grow corn, raising global prices for soy that subsequently incentivize countries like Brazil to turn environmentally sensitive lands into soy fields. In sum, most of us can agree that working towards a future of less dependence on fossil fuels is good, but the biofuels we are producing today are clearly not the answer.
Sources:
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2005/07/ethanol-biodiesel-corn-and-other-crops-not-worth-energy
Webber, Michael. Bioenergy Lecture at University of Texas, February 5, 2013.

Comment on Using Renewable Energy to Reduce Poverty by umulawan

umulawan — Mon, 06 May 2013 03:36:34 +0000

Renewable energy sources will definitely pave the way for making electricity available wide spread in the future. I am curious as to what the UN goal for the provision of electricity to those 1.3 billion people means, does it mean consuming like the average energy consumption per capita of the world (75 Quads) or that of the USA (350 Quad) or does it mean lesser than both? I think the current goal should be to get electricity to improve their lifestyles with basic things that will make a difference, such as a light bulb, fan, etc. These little little things make all the difference in developing countries. The bigger picture should obviously be the full fledged use of electricity such as in the industrialized nations and cities. Constant research and investments need to be made in the renewable energy sector in order for this goal to become a reality. Secondly, the 38 poor countries that import oil, any idea how much of that oil goes towards electricity? I believe oil is mainly used for transportation, and countries (specially the poor ones) resort to coal to mainly produce their electricity provided they have the resources.

Comment on An Overview of Austin Energy’s New Smart Thermostat Program by imkfc

imkfc — Mon, 06 May 2013 02:23:09 +0000

This is one of the reasons I think Austin’s so cool. They’re willing to roll out rebate programs, composting programs, etc. etc. in order to see what will actually work, and to collect some hard data that will be really beneficial in the near future. There are some things that will be a benefit to us in the end, but there has to be some willingness to try it out first. Personally, I’d really like to be able to access my thermostat from my phone or computer. As an energy conscious consumer, there are still those days that I accidentally forget to turn off my AC or heater before I leave the house, and so being able to program it and manage it remotely would be great. The peak shifting idea is pretty cool too in terms of reducing overall energy use, but I’m curious how bummed out people get when they can’t control their thermostat on those really hot days.

There are a few things I could see that could potentially be negative aspects about this too. The first one is that I could see some people using the remote programming to turn on their heating or cooling systems on their way home, so that their house is at the perfect temperature when they arrive. Would it end up being less efficient because of this? The other thing that always concerns me about management tools like this is opening up the possibility for hacking and that kind of thing. But I haven’t actually read to much in to it, so they may be tackling this already.

Thanks for the article!

Comment on Meeting future water demands of Texas with groundwater desalination by Griselda Blackburn

Griselda Blackburn — Sun, 05 May 2013 22:44:38 +0000

Thank you for the post. Water availability is a particularly important issue in Texas due to continued drought conditions. However, desalination solves one problem by creating another — greater consumption of energy, largely from fossil fuels. Desalination should be a last resort due to the cost of treating saltwater (brackish or saline). Surprisingly, water reuse composes just 10% of the total volume of water from all proposed strategies within the Texas State Water Plan compared with nearly 17% from developing new major reservoirs. Instead of seeking yet more freshwater sources, the state should look to UV treatment of wastewater. It requires less energy than desalination and can be utilized at existing wastewater treatment plants, unlike desalination, which requires the development of new infrastructure. In addition, UV treatment does not produce additional waste like desalination. However, there are some drawbacks to UV treatment. First, it requires that the public become comfortable with drinking potable water that may have come from their toilet. Secondly, UV treatment doesn’t solve the problem of freshwater withdrawals.

Comment on Meeting future water demands of Texas with groundwater desalination by justindukealtman

justindukealtman — Sun, 05 May 2013 20:30:22 +0000

http://ultrapure.com.sg/

Comment on Meeting future water demands of Texas with groundwater desalination by justindukealtman

justindukealtman — Sun, 05 May 2013 20:29:58 +0000

I agree with you that the future of water conservation lies with the desalination of brackish saltwater. However, in comparison to traditional methods of water collection and conservation, desalination is an expensive process. As you mentioned, desalination of brackish water can cost up to $4 per 1,000 gallons of treated water, depending on the composition of the ground water. The high operating costs associated with desalination can be reduced by coupling desalination with the intermittency of wind electricity production. Wind energy produces its peak power at night, when demand for electricity is low. The extra supply of electricity supplied by wind farms could be sold to industrial-scale desalination facilities at a discounted rate to reduce the operating costs of treating brackish groundwater. This could be a viable option, especially in West Texas, where brackish ground water is plentiful and the infrastructure for wind energy already exists.
Alternatively, coupling wind energy and brackish water treatment could also be utilized on a much smaller scale, where a small group of farmers could invest in a small-scale brackish water treatment unit (ultrapure.com, 2013) and a windmill capable of generating electricity. This system would be able to generate the electricity necessary to power the treatment of the water, tapping into a water resource that was previously unusable by farmers. Each group of farmers could use the treated water to water their crops, instead of having to rely on expensive city water.

Comment on There’s NADA Stopping Tesla from Direct Sales by jbeceiro

jbeceiro — Sun, 05 May 2013 06:27:57 +0000

Great post on the auto manufacturer franchise laws. I follow Tesla pretty closely, and I am very interested to see Tesla prevail in this debate. Elon Musk recently spoke at the ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit in Washington DC this past February 2013. He announced during his remarks that sales of the Model S were going so well that Tesla will be able to pay back the $465 million federal loan guarantee in half the time. This is a great story for DOE to be able to tell especially with all of the negative press they received for Solyndra.

On the franchise law issue, I believe that this law needs to go away eventually. We’ve already seen how Texas was able to remove the “middle man” in direct wine sales from wineries to consumers. Allowing for middle men only causes prices that consumers pay to be higher. Plus, Tesla is more than just a auto company. Tesla designs every component within their vehicles and has invested aggressively into proprietary lithium ion battery technology and battery management systems. At the end of the day, Tesla is really a battery technology company. Tesla has already developed a new stationary energy storage product that is targeting the residential and commercial smart grid industry.

In my opinion, Tesla should be allowed to have their own “Apple Stores” or Tesla Stores to showcase all of their cutting edge technologies and products. Tesla is without a doubt on the cutting edge of automotive and energy storage innovation. The State of Texas and other states that have franchise laws should recognize that innovation requires a flexible regulatory environment that allows for tech companies to flourish.

Comment on Why do we fear smart meters but love credit cards? by kbossange

kbossange — Sun, 05 May 2013 04:54:32 +0000

I saw a bumper sticker just the other day that said “Ban Texas smart meters.” I was really confused because my understanding of smart meters is that they provide a consumer with additional information, and isn’t that something we all want when we’re being charged for a service? After a quick google search, I learned that, as you mention, people are citing health and privacy issues. It doesn’t really seem there is much evidence to support those claims though.

Comment on Meeting future water demands of Texas with groundwater desalination by christinebbarrett

christinebbarrett — Thu, 02 May 2013 21:52:02 +0000

This is a very interesting piece. I like that you brought up desalination. Water has obviously been a HUGE theme within this class as it is a necessary component to energy and vice versa. However, we did not talk much about treatment unless it was regarding water being used for energy purposes such as for with hydraulic fracturing. I have done some research on this in Pennsylvania and Ohio. While the water demands for these states are very different from that of Texas the need to treat brackish water is not. I wonder what would happen if the desalination were done by private industry. Other forms of water treatment are done by the private sector if properly regulated, which makes it easier if there only forty six municipal desalination facilities for such a large state (1). This could become a competitive market in terms of getting a contract with Texas’s EPA. Obviously, this could be creating a headache for Texas as well, inviting potential corruption, more regulation etc. Perhaps the Middle East has been doing desalination more cost effectively? Thanks for the interesting post.

(1) http://www.epa.state.oh.us/ddagw/opcert.aspx

Comment on Are Biofuels Sustainable? by alexachally

alexachally — Wed, 01 May 2013 20:47:13 +0000

I agree with you Wayne that there are a variety of costs that probably can’t be measured in a way that is easily comparable. Biofuels continue to be a hot topic with how much production we subsidize. If biofuels, specifically corn ethanol, are sustainable, a lot of research should be done verifying that. Besides the physical aspect, the morality of using corn for fuel instead of food is also difficult to judge. It seems that if hunger and food shortages are already a global issue, this shouldn’t be an option but then again, the countries that make these decisions are not the ones with widespread famine.