Five questions to transform the energy debate

By Dana Blankenhorn | Oct 21, 2009 |

So long as “clean energy” remains a political question it will be controversial. So long as global warming is seen as a problem solutions will be opposed. (Picture from Change.org.)

Fact is clean energy and global warming should be business questions, not political ones. We have a variety of ways to produce energy without carbon.

Each has strengths and weaknesses, but they can’t start competing with each other until the market is organized in a way that gives executives “visibility,” a clear idea of costs and risks.

Almost 80 years ago a man named Robert Woodruff faced a similar problem. Fluctuating prices for sugar meant there were constant fights between his company, which produced soft drink syrup, and the companies bottling the product.

He saved the day by changing the subject. Instead of worrying about the price of sugar and shares of profit, he asked, how do we make certain each Coca-Cola you buy tastes just like every other Coca-Cola, anywhere in the world.

The clean energy debate can be transformed in the same way. We can focus on the opportunities rather than the problems by answering these five questions:

  1. What price can assure clean energy a market?
  2. How do we make clean energy portable?
  3. How do we create a global market for clean energy technology?
  4. How do we pay for all energy externalities?
  5. How do we organize a global market for all energy?

Of these questions the first is the most important. The answer will determine a floor price for energy, which in turn will enable executives to plan and price their investments.

The second question is the key to the three which follow. We know how to transport coal, natural gas and oil. We know what that costs, and thus we know the price these commodities must meet to be profitable.

My personal answer to this question has always been hydrogen. That is, build a global market for hydrogen, and price clean energy based on the cost of converting that energy to hydrogen and back again.

But I’m perfectly happy to see us use another commodity if hydrogen won’t work. How about ammonia, which combines hydrogen with nitrogen into a liquid you can load into a tanker and transport at room temperature?

By focusing on what stands in the way of growing the market, rather than what may happen if we don’t do what global warming activists want, the energy debate can be transformed. It can be taken out of the hands of the politicians and put into the hands of the entrepreneurs.

Once that happens everyone wins.

 
Reply to Story

SmartPlanet TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic

Subscribe to this discussion via RSS

  •  
    1

    dc.martin@...

    10/22/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Five questions to transform the energy debate

    Hydrogen has a very poor energy density, and it does not exist in the atmosphere in its elemental form, which means that it takes energy to "make" hydrogen from other compounds.

    If hydrogen was easy to acquire, you'd probably need a fuel tank the
    size of railroad car to get anywhere in your vehichle.

    But there might be uses other than transportation for which hydrogen is better suited.



  •  
    2

    DanaBlankenhorn

    10/22/09 | Report as spam

    That's why I suggested ammonia

    There are tools available for turning ammonia into the fuel of a fuel cell battery, extracting it from nitrogen. Plus ammonia can be transported in liquid form, so it's much denser.

    Hydrogen can go into the same systems now carrying natural gas.

  •  
    3

    mheartwood

    10/22/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Five questions to transform the energy debate

    Nice blog entry Dana,

    I read an article by David Suzuki where he was explaining to a very successful business man all about the problems associated with global warming. The business man asked him "What is anyone doing about this?" Suzuki replied "Nothing." The business man then responded "I see a business opportunity here". While I don't remember the name of the businessman, apparently he went on to found a successful green business as a result of that conversation.

    When we look at any problem facing the society or the world, if we are able to turn it into a business opportunity, then it will be solved. I think your five questions are a good start in making that move.

  •  
    4

    JTF243@...

    10/22/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Five questions to transform the energy debate

    Dana -
    The problem with ammonia is it is an extreme irritant, the energy necessary to split it is more than the hydrogen could provide, AND in the quantities your theory would require, is at least as toxic to the environment as gasoline and diesel fuel. It's only saving grace is that it is water-soluble and could be flushed off the pavement easily.
    NOW, the use of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), of which we have a great deal, is cleaner-burning than petro-products. The problem is that it is necessary to carry it under pressure, raising the explosion hazard above even gasoline or hydrogen. LNG also does not have the energy density of gasoline, nor does it function as well in the extreme cold that the northern states experience in winter.
    It would be MUCH better to extend the gasoline supplies we have with ethanol, but only if it comes from "non-foodstock" sources! That means we need to get cracking on getting "cellulosic ethanol" into the mainstream and leave the corn in our food!

  •  
    5

    eralexander@...

    11/03/09 | Report as spam

    RE A renewabl energy source seldom considered. Some thoughts on the 5 Q?

    Little has been discussed about the most wide spread energy source;
    electromagnetic fields and currents that exist both above and below
    the earths surface. Over acentury ago it powered some telegraph systems, but due to the linear concept, steady expansion of wire ground to ground, 100s, thousands, and miles needed; it cost too much. Many patents have been filed by inventors attempting to overcome the obstacles. I believe that the linear approach only tapped a minute fraction of the electromagnetic fields.

    Modern technology can extract from 100s, 19999s etc. more from
    your backyard.

    If you are interested in exploering this please respond on this blog.
    ===================================================================
    Thoughts related to distributed renewable energy DRE
    9 ----------------------------------=------------------
    1. What price can assure clean energy a market?
    DRE extracted, sent thru meter to grid. Paid by utility to DGE holder
    Will expand.
    2. How do we make clean energy portable
    Probably indirectly. Will expand.

    3. How do we create a global market for clean energy technology?
    Step by step.. will expand

    4. How do we pay for all energy externalities?
    will expand
    5. How do we organize a global market for all energy?
    will expand







    Of these questions the first is the most important. The answer will determine a floor price for energy, which in turn will enable executives to plan and price their investments.

    The second question is the key to the three which follow. We know how to transport coal, natural gas and oil. We know what that costs, and thus we know the price these commodities must meet to be profitable











    ogy

    1 What price can assure clean energy a market?
    2# How do we make clean energy portable?
    3# How do we create a global market for clean energy technology?
    4# How do we pay for all energy externalities?
    #5 How do we organize a global market for all energy?

  •  
    6

    dixon757@...

    11/08/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Five questions to transform the energy debate

    One thing to realize is that hydrogen is not an energy source, but more of a storage medium. One could almost say that about electricity. Energy must be "harvested" to generate them.
    More attention should be paid to geothermal; unlike solar and wind it is available 24/7 in a cost effective range. Even that is only a partial answer.
    On the near horizon solar is finally approaching real unsubsidized practicality with increasing output and falling cost. Again, it is only a partial answer. Large mechanical systems like wind generators are up against a location/capital cost/maintenance wall.
    Political and emotional arguments aside, clean coal is not just a dream and has a legitimate place at the table along with nuclear. If the political class overruled the chattering class we already have abundant domestic energy.

The following tags are supported in Smartplanet comments:
<b></b> <i></i> <u></u> <pre></pre>

Leave a Reply

  1. Name: You are currently: a Guest |
advertisement

Quick Poll

advertisement

John Dodge

John Dodge has answered the call of journalism for 33 years, most of the time covering technology, engineering and business. While he's run magazines, newsweeklies and web sites, reporting and writing always took up half his time. He has have plied his craft at the WSJ, Boston Globe, PC Week (now eWeek), EDN, Design News, Electronic Business, Bio-IT World, Health-IT World, the Lowell Sun, Haverhill Gazette and Newburyport Daily News. He would have like to have been around when Boston supported seven or more newspapers (1940s) and while steam locomotives still pulled trains, but that era was nearly over by the time he raced into the world. That said, he has been blogging and shooting and editing video, writing for web and other online contents tasks for years now.

He has won numerous journalism awards in the past two years, including two Eddie Golds, one Neal finalist and the IEEE Award for Distinguished Journalism all for his reporting and coverage of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner.

Besides his family and myriad hobbies, reporting and writing is why he gets up in the morning. His personal blog focuses on netbooks and is called The Dodge Retort.

John Dodge

John Dodge prides himself on completely independent journalism. His opinions, observations and reporting are not influenced by any financial holdings. He holds no shares in computer, electronics, software or Internet companies. He also has no business affiliations with organizations except with those for which he creates content as a freelancer.

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for nearly 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the Interactive Age Daily for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age's "NetMarketing" supplement, and dozens of other publications over the years.

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a technology reporter since 1982, a business reporter since 1978, and a writer for as long as he can remember. His Schwab IRA has a few tech stocks in it, most notably some Intel and Applied Materials bought over 10 years ago. But the vast majority of his tiny fortune (emphasis on the word tiny) is invested in mutual funds. He presently writes for no one else but ZDNet, SmartPlanet and himself. But if you've got an opportunity let him know. If he takes the gig he"ll first add it to this disclosure page.
The Thinking Tech blog focuses on technologies such as virtualization, smart electric grids, enterprise 2.0, open source, data center management, green technology and the intersection between the innovation and application of these advancements.