That is a complicated question I will not answer here. But it also a stupid and misleading question, and that part of it I comment on, in relation to Minnesota specifically:
In Minnesota, between a third and half of the energy we expend is converted into useless heat or work, mainly owing to that fact that converting the source matter into something that produces usable energy has useless heat as a byproduct.
A large (and at this time not accurately accounted for) amount of energy is used moving or refining fossil fuels. Minnesota refines and moves (through pipelines and on trains) more energy-related matter (oil and coal) than any other state that does not also produce such products. We have no oil or gas wells, and no coal, but we are the crossroads for much of that material. If we did none of that, a pretty good amount of energy would be freed up for use elsewhere.
We use energy at an uneven rate throughout the day. If we mostly used electric vehicles, they would be mostly charged at night when demand is currently low.
People sometimes ask: If we stop burning fuel to make things move, and instead use electricity, where are we going to get all that electricity? (When someone asks you that, usually the answer they have in mind and that they are leading yo to, is “nuclear energy! free and clean!” so watch out for that.)
A huge amount of the energy we use now is used to do nothing. It is either turned into heat or it is used to make more of the stuff that we use to use energy. Simplistic questions like “If all the vehicles are electric, where will the energy come from?” this exist outside the actual reality of energy use. Ignore them and learn about energy use and transmission.
Read books like Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming. See also: 2030 Report: Powering America’s Clean Economy
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
you have depleted and abandoned oil and gas wells all across the states. If proven out – and they already have a working plant in AB, this company’s (eavor.com) technology alone could produce a substantial amount of the power you currently use by making use of those deep holes.
Very interesting idea.
I’ve been watching them ever since they launched. Under the previous AB government (Rachel Notley’s NDP) Eavor started a successful test project to prove their technology. To me this (again assuming it scales) the most interesting things about their tech is that the fluids are completely encased in pipe so no leaking into the watershed and as they are not doing any fracking then no earthquake potential. It’s base load power so no need for batteries. I don’t know the costs but as I like to tell people cost really doesn’t matter when you are saving the planet. If climate change gets out of control, and I suspect it will given human nature and politics, there won’t be any economy to save.
I don’t know if you remember that post I did, somewhat facetiously, on the old blog about taking influential climate change deniers out and stringing them up from the nearest lamp post (boy did that upset a lot of people 🙂 ) but as things have only got much worse over the decade since then I’m beginning to think we need to do something to stop their influence. I look at Manchin who makes $500K/yr from his company investing in coal and what does he get – chair of the very committee, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, that is responsible for greening of the energy industry. That is such a fucked up system and I think it would be naïve to think he won’t do anything to block any legislation that would hurt the coal industry.
Anyway I’m 72 and won’t live to see the worst of what’s coming, so I’m grateful for that. Hope all is well with you and the family.
I remember that.
On cost, it will cost less than nuclear no matter what!
Oh, absolutely. Even if it wasn’t more expensive I’m still opposed to using nuclear reactors , for one thing they take too long to build and we don’t have time for that, secondly Fukushima, 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, and thirdly radioactive waste.
This however, https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/03/world/nuclear-powered-rocket-scn-spc-intl/index.html, is a great use of nuclear energy – with it we might actually be able to do manned missions to the outer planets should we so desire. 🙂
Development of such nuclear rockets would be a good thing, in my opinion. I regret not seeing a NERVA-derived design flying.
Franklin Chang-Diaz’s VASIMR thruster also has potential. It recently completed an 88-hour test without problems. Ideally it would be powered by a nuclear reactor.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2021/07/23/vasimr-vx-200ss-plasma-rocket-completes-record-88-hour-high-power-endurance-test/
Yes, I’ve been following Ad Astra for years now. Mars in 3 months that is incredible.
The people of Huntington Beach would like an alternative to offshore drilling of oil as soon as possible, please. Spills are interfering with their surfing.
A very clever company name: “an endeavor with no end.” As an inveterate punster (and a military “veterate”), I can appreciate it.
I’m not sure about the concept, however. It seems likely that most of those oil/gas wells are not going to yield substantial heat, because they are not deep enough.