Hold on a second. This work looks like it might derived from scientific works. Stand back people! It'll kill you!

Efficiency is surely a nice thing, but I would suspect that Mr. Stein is a believer, as am I, in Jevons Paradox.

Quantitatively it is hard to argue that we have not made massive leaps in energy efficiency, (Look at the energy usage per dollar of GDP, or per SQ Ft of living space). Nor does it seem that energy efficiency require external direction, for example people are buying smaller cars on their own accord.

Additionally it's hard for environmentalists to support the energy efficiency projects that make the most impact when they relate to industries that are opposed to. (How can you support using the waste heat of an oil refinery to generate energy when you oppose building the refinery in the first place?)

I have continually heard testimonies from individuals who have added solar panels to their property and usually end up with their meters running backwards selling power back to the power companies. One person recently said that he also charges his electric car from the same source. Cost after initial investment? Zero dollars. The power monopolies can't digest this because they keep trying to think of this form of energy on a grid level. It's really an individual thing. If consumers were really serious about the energy crises they would get involved in outfitting all the buildings with solar. Unfortunately, the power monopolies will take a hit and be reduced in size and scope. This comes down to a real power struggle. They are surely not about to give up the glut of profit and will no longer be able to keep the everyday consumer hostage to their greedy profit system. Also there could be solar recharge stops on freeways where one could take the time on longer travel trips to recharge, commune with their fellow citizens and involve themselves in some form of diversion while they are recharging. Hmm...almost free energy, for the home and transportation.

Wait, isn't this the same Ben Stein who believes that science leads directly to gassing Jews? Isn't this the same Ben Stein who believes that evolution is morally equivalent to Imperialism? When he holds such absurd opinions why should we take anything he says seriously?

We see the two biggest energy loss areas are transportation and transmission of electricity. These losses are HUGE, and if reduced could go a long way to reducing fossil fuel dependence. Note that the biomass and renewable sources make up only 3.2% of energy sources rather than the 90% that they could and should be.

A solution to transportation energy losses is to begin using electricity and batteries (BEV).
Losses in transmission are partly due to high standby power, and night power generation. Here new battery technology may also make a difference. Having storage batteries available to store power at night and provide instantaneous standby power could make the grid far more efficient.

He specifically mentioned that oil is finite and will likely peak soon. That's the biggest ground shift in the conservative movement in decades. Be happy.

We see the two biggest energy loss areas are transportation and transmission of electricity. These losses are HUGE, and if reduced could go a long way to reducing fossil fuel dependence. Note that the biomass and renewable sources make up only 3.2% of energy sources rather than the 90% that they could and should be.

A solution to transportation energy losses is to begin using electricity and batteries (BEV).
Losses in transmission are partly due to high standby power, and night power generation. Here new battery technology may also make a difference. Having storage batteries available to store power at night and provide instantaneous standby power could make the grid far more efficient.

I guess the people who are against efficency because of Jevons parodox that we should all be driving SUVs with 500 lb cement blocks in the back of them.

It´s hard to take him serious, really.

Has anyone else visualised a vehicle battery that can accept an instantaneous electrical charge through its gel type storage?

Vehicles could drive up under a solar umbrella to individual slots where a power connector would pop up beneath the vehicle giving the instant charge.

might we suggest that some journalists familiarize themselves with certain principles of thermodynamics as they apply to efficiency. Again: the solutions that will ultimately save us are only made possible by the cumulative achievements of our incredible fossil-fuel based global capitalist economy. Grow up and get over it: The solution = yes, MORE CONVENTIONAL ENERGY+ more alternative energy + more efficiencies. But over time, via technology advancements, capital investment, and market forces, the significance of alternatives will greatly increase, while that of conventional fossil-fuel sources will diminish. Naturally.

@eddy
you sound like someone I know. Were you at the green living show in Vancouver a couple of months back? www.zigloo.ca maybe the link will remind you who I am, if you are in fact the right person.
Geoff@uvic.ca

Look at that amazing graph. Really study it and see what it says. The biggest single energy flow is "lost energy" so of course efficiency is the answer!

The energy value of our entire sea of imported petroleum, which dodos like Stein are willing to drill anywhere to reduce, is smaller than "electrical system energy losses". One post erroneously referred to this as transmission losses, but if you look at the DOE's graph on electricity it's conversion losses -- waste heat. Our power plants throw the heat away (65% of the input energy) because they're too big and too far away from anything that can use it.

One answer is to use that heat . . . talkin' bout c-c-co-generation.

The next biggest energy flow is the lost energy from transportation. Anybody who rides a bike knows how it's possible to move around a lot more efficiently.

Lighter and more aerodynamic cars anyone? Today's racing bikes weigh HALF of what they did 25 years ago, and they're stronger, stiffer, and more aerodynamic. With tech developed in the USA.

I can't imagine why we're still waiting to get the efficiency thing in gear. Markets haven't done it yet, are they waiting for $200 a barrel oil? We need some leadership, we've already got the technology and the examples.

Sounds about right to me. Drill everywhere we can and use Nuc reators for power wherever possible.

Only a numbskull treehugger could argue with this logic. If this is not correct and you object to these facts, I wonder what you are doing spending resources connected to the internet? Oh I forgot.... flying airplanes is only shameful for the regular folks and the wonderful people can do what they want as long as they pretend to care and believe Al gore's crap.
RC

It is virtually impossible to recover much of that wasted energy simply because of the way we use heat; heat engine efficiency is limited to be less than the Carnot efficiency, and most engines can't even approach that. None the less, I am still a big advocate of increasing efficiency, but don't let yourself be fooled into thinking that all of that wasted energy is recoverable; simply by the laws of thermodynamics, some energy cannot be recovered as part of the workings of heat engines that run our cars, coal, nuclear, and other heat based power systems.

Stein's suggestion to turn coal into gasoline, is that a joke or his attempt at science. Oops, I suppose I'm being redundant. Maybe he could have been more convincing holding a beach ball while droning on in monotone. After the Expelled fiasco he has no credibility on scientific matters.

While I agree with most of the opinions offered up thus far on the credibility (or at least objectivity, based on his political history) of Mr. Stein's statements, his comments on coal-to-gas shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who's done the least bit of homework on the subject. The Fischer-Tropsch process for turning coal into diesel has been around since the 1920's. Ersatz fuels powered many of the Axis land and aircraft during the 2nd World War. It is a very real and viable option - especially given recent advances in the process.

However, having spent my younger days growing up in Eastern Kentucky, I am very well aware that you don't have to look very far up the supply chain of any clean coal technologies to see the green start washing away. Is coal-to-gas a realistic option. Sure. Can it reduce dependency on foreign supplies of petroluem. You betcha. Is it the panacea? Not so much.

Stein got an undergrad degree in econ but all his writings show he doesn't have much of a clue about economics. His father was a well-known economist - maybe he thinks we'll confuse the two.

"It is virtually impossible to recover much of that wasted energy . . . "

I hope that's not an engineer speaking. Conventional coal and nuclear power plants are 30% to 45% efficient. They waste heat because they make steam to turn the turbine-powered generators. The steam does the work but needs to be turned back into water for the boilers. But instead of using that heat (to bake bread, dry paint, wash fabric, melt plastic, etc.) it's wasted in cooling towers, river water, or the ocean.

A cogeneration plant's efficiency can be 80% to 90%. Very possible . . . like Carnot meets Kyoto. Don't be fooled into thinking that the gross inefficiencies illustrated by that graph are somehow out of reach or inaddressable!

'If we keep acting as if the landscape were more important than human life, '

love that line- because human life depends on our ability to drive a Hummer,own 3 tv's, a new cel phone every year ,a 2nd home in Palm Springs and $3 latte every morning.

If coal to gas could be done in an efficient somewhat cleaner way ( what i know about 'clean coal' says not right now) then fine- do it, if you build only the newer tech PBR nuclear reactors- fine. But those are only part of the solution. Improved efficiency, wind,solar,tidal= those are no brainers and should have first priority. Drilling everywhere, destroying habitat to then waste it seems rather short sighted.

I wonder how much better the North American energy situation/environment would be if we lived more like our European counterparts. Its not like they're living in a 3rd world, yet they use way less energy than Canadians and Americans. We've just had it too good for too long- our lifestyle isnt sustainable with the ~ 400million inhabitants we have- let alone the billions in other countries who are trying to duplicate it.

If we keep acting as if the landscape were more important than human life . . .

No landscape = no human life. Besides, since when is the extraction of oil synonymous with human life? What a buffoon.

The end.

There are too many people that collectively use natural resources at a non-renewable rate. Using more of those non-renewable resources will only prolong this unsustainable culture. Very few people ever want to talk about the elephant in the room, because it is, globally, a social and cultural taboo. The fact is, there are too many people on the planet, and the population is continuing to grow exponentially. In order to bring human use of resources back to a globally sustainable level we need to stop growing the population, and allow it to decline. That's something that would take a couple of generations, and it's something that unfortunately, we aren't yet collectively smart enough to understand and explore.

Mind you, it isn't just energy use. It's also soil fertility, fresh water, other raw materials, and a stable climate. The planet will go on with or without us. It's really our choice as a species how we want to spend out time here, and how we want to leave it for future generations.

We can have small cars that get 200 mpg, but they will be death traps. I have invented a way to make small cars safer. Please see my website
safersmallcars.com

can we start by drilling in your celebrity backyard, Ben?

The solution to an oil crisis won't be solved by simply pumping more oil. We've been there, done that, and are now dealing with the consequences.

50mpg cars would be a great help in the USA but what we really need are alternatives to driving. We need to redevelop our commuter and heavy rail systems that we have neglected for decades (and we better hurry, the airline industry appears to have its days numbered, at least in terms of the mass ridership we have become used to), and rewrite our building and planning codes to allow walkable/bikable communities. Ultimately driving (even at 50mpg) is hardly an efficient mode of local transportation. Gas prices and energy aside, they consume vast amounts of land and space, and the most drivable places are hardly rewarding places for human occupation.

Let's make more places worth caring about, and therefore worth experiencing at a walkable pace, rather than racing through them as fast as possible to save $4 of a TV from China and the "local" warehouse store.