Electrification is fine, as it goes, but it always seems that those who would promote 'electricity' as a substitute for fossil fuels always seem to forget that that electricity has to be generated somehow, and right now that 'somehow' is still for the most part fossil fuels.

In terms of geopolitical strategy, getting ourselves off of oil is certainly a worthy goal, but in terms of global climate change, unless we seriously start looking at generating our electricity using clean, renewable sources, we're just rearranging deck chairs.

Conservation and other forms of demand reduction will be critical in the near term. President Carter tried to explain this to us, and we didn't want to hear it.

As is the case for all our environmental problems, solutions would be far easier to find if out population stopped growing. There really are just too damned many people on the planet for us all to have a first-world lifestyle.

JK:

* the fossil fuels burned for electrical generation, particularly coal, are still abundant.
* carbon capture and storage is an option for electrical generation, it's not for fossil-fuel powered cars.
* There are known low-carbon alternatives for electricity generation. Nuclear power is one, however much some environmentalists don't like it. Renewables are another, and the nice thing is that car batteries that have some flexibility as to when they're charged can potentially help smooth out the lumpiness of wind and solar. Biofuels and hydrogen are, by comparison, much harder to make work.

What is interesting to me is, the American Transportation and Energy infrastructure is worn out and broken, for the most part.

If government is going to subsidize the US "recovery", then would it not be more efficient to do so via an FDR type New Deal, employing hundreds of thousands rebuilding the US to take advantage of new technologies (solar, wind, high-speed rail) than to rebuild old and inefficient ones (petro-based)?

A short-term plus is that the necessary interstate electricity grid can be started and built quickly, as part of the first stimulus package.

JK,
Electrification is fine, as it goes, but it always seems that those who would promote 'electricity' as a substitute for fossil fuels always seem to forget that that electricity has to be generated somehow, and right now that 'somehow' is still for the most part fossil fuels.

I think you're missing the point here. Electrification is for all of the kit at the consumption end. If you go for, say, ethanol as "the" solution, and then find you have (a) too many starving people to spare the farmland, and (b) a better, late-coming solution, the capital (and environmental) cost of retooling (i.e. scrapping all of the cars in American again and starting over from scratch) is going to be ruinous (again). If the cars are electric, you can change the generation kit at less cost. Modularity. It's a good thing.

Electric generation is very efficient, and so are electric motors. And you don't necessarily need a geared drivetrain. Even if the electricity was generated from oil, it would still make sense.

Leonard's argument that we failed to make the transition to electrification is a false concept, in that we "had" electrified transportation a full century ago---via the interurban systems that crisscrossed a fair portion of the country. By simply rebuilding that system of rails and suspended power lines, and building the massive fleet of electrified locomotives, passenger cars, and self-motorized passenger trams for "intra-urban" commuting---coupled with a now-familiar but sorely under-implemented use of "park-n-ride" practices, we could effectively do away with 100% of our imported oil "addiction."

Electrification has to be a multi-step process; going 100% from the beginning says to everyone owning a "conventional" car, or truck, or whatever else they're driving these days, that they have to absorb the costs of replacing their current vehicle with a new, unfamiliar, exorbitantly-expensive machine that runs on a fuel for which there are no fueling stations. A lot of people commute further on a daily basis that current battery technologies permit and many homes---not to mention the monstrous quantity of apartment buildings, condominiums, and high-rise townhouses---have absolutely no means for recharging the millions of vehicles parked, while their owners are elsewhere.

Total electrification also necessitates the elimination of air transport, requiring massive passenger/freight systems that are ground-based, and fleet upon fleet of new shipping capacity for transoceanic commerce.

Electrification also brings with it the painful reminder that we have ignored, for about a quarter-century now, the need for R&D aimed at new-generation nuclear power. There's been little effort to develop nex-gen fission capacity, and fusion theory is still locked away in a tiny handful of academic laboratories---tiny to the point of being ludicrously pathetic.

But even with all these drawbacks, one thing is historically certain: We did not have high-rise townhouses a century ago; we did not have massed, must-have transatlantic freight commerce and commercial air services to feed our addiction-to-consumption a century ago; we did not have nuclear power a century ago---but we did have the technology and the audacity to move from one point on a map to another point on that map via electrified intra-urban/interurban rail.

And the good news is---we can have it again, if we want it....

"Total" electrification means approximately doubling our installed base of electric generating capacity. (this also assumes serious conservation efforts, without those we would need to triple our generating capacity).

Extensive studies have shown that you really can't have more than about 20% of your capacity come from variable sources like solar and wind. The variability problem is real. Even in the Australian outback, the best solar power environment in the world (I know, I lived there), autonomous ssolar powered systems (for ex, wireless telephone relay stations) need 7-10 days of battery back up, because there are periods that long where the sun does not shine enough.

Since our hydro power potential is largely used already (and big dams have their own issues), this means more base load generation from coal or biomass (burning stuff and emitting CO2 and other things), a serious restart of our nuclear power program, and substantial increases in support (now very limited) for longer term advanced nuclear schemes such 4th generation fission and fusion.

Coal. Capturing CO2 and buryingn it is feasible, but at the cost of efficiency, and is in any case a temporary measure. Ultimately we have to reduce our burning of hydrocarbon fuels.

The Democrats will have to allow serious consideration of nuclear options, or forget about reducing emissions.

This is a serious challenge.

cheers

JHH

Anyone who is seriously interested in this subject should read Tom Friedman's new book. You'll realize just how complicated and urgent the energy problem is and how every one of these plans falls woefully short.

jhh said:
Coal. Capturing CO2 and buryingn it is feasible, but at the cost of efficiency, and is in any case a temporary measure. Ultimately we have to reduce our burning of hydrocarbon fuels.

The Democrats will have to allow serious consideration of nuclear options, or forget about reducing emissions.

Nature already has a method of "carbon sequestration" -- it's called coal and oil. Our goal should be to keep the carbon that nature has already captured in the ground.

I grew up with Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, so I have a gut reaction against nuclear power. Yes, I know nuclear plants are a significant part of the power mix in Europe, but Europe doesn't have America's single-minded fetish of deregulation. And don't doubt for a second that 15 minutes after the credit market looks stabilized, that conservatives won't resume clamoring to cut more "government interference".

If we were to pass some sort of Sarbanes-Oxley act for the nuclear power industry, that required corporate executives to certify that their companies were meeting all regulation, and which imposed mandatory prison sentences for non-compliance, I could go along with expanding nuclear power.

But before we build a bunch of billion-dollar plants, lets first try putting solar panels on every home and building, and windmills in every wind corridor. And lets take a small portion of the billions of dollars we're spending for our military to secure our oil sources and begin a massive R & D program to make photo-voltaic cells more efficient and to make batteries lighter, faster to charge, and with an exponentially larger capacity.

Add to the conservation list, "bicycles" (provided that they are not fueled by pork/beef/lamb), which also take a big bite out of the health problem (if you include diseases of the unfit in your list of risks, exclusively driving a car is 10x more dangerous than biking.)

The advantages are that it is proven technology, safe to others, quiet, and requires no new infrastructure -- a mountain bike with a fat-slick-tire upgrade will go most civilized places, and is resistant to bumps and flats. In particular, no government program is necessary -- you could start today.

Like Brian, I recommend people read Friedman's new book "Hot, Flat and Crowded." In not too many years there will be 9 American style economies world wide. None of them are going to be sustainable. This is our chance to get out front of the coming shift to green energy production and resource utilization. Oil isn't the only resource we are depleting. We need to start building more stuff that doesn't end up in the landfill. If we blow it, we are screwed. If we pull it off we save the world. The change is a big challenge, but America has faced challenges before.

I should add, yes to nukes, yes to regulation. Someone needs to sentence the pro-business yahoos to game theory reeducation camp, so that they understand that without regulation, it's a race to the bottom where the sleazebags win.

What we need to do with wind, solar, and any sort of stored load (whether it is stored electricity in batteries, or stored heat/cold for our homes, businesses, and refrigerators) is get our devices "smarter". We don't need a dead-constant supply of electricity for stored loads -- if the devices can respond to reduced supply with a reduced demand (even temporarily reduced, so that backup supplies can gracefully be ramped up), one "problem" with renewables is pretty much solved.

Two other books: Cradle to Cradle, and Collapse. We've got to quit "mining", whether it is oil, fish, or simply plowing more land to grow food.

dr2chase said:
The advantages are that it is proven technology, safe to others, quiet, and requires no new infrastructure -- a mountain bike with a fat-slick-tire upgrade will go most civilized places, and is resistant to bumps and flats. In particular, no government program is necessary -- you could start today.

I agree with everything but the part about not needing new infrastructure. I live in the D.C. metro area, and there is nowhere around here that I would feel safe traveling to by riding a bike. D.C. has "bike lanes" but they are nothing but lines painted on the street. I'm old enough to recognize my own mortality -- and experienced enough to not risk my life by trusting the dubious skills of the drivers around here.

I think this thread has followed Leonard's ideas too closely. He came up with a one-word solution. To me, this is wrong. There are a lot of good ideas in this thread: conservation; electrification on a large scale, which would mean heavily upgrading the grid; local electricity generation (solar panels and windmills on homes, where appropriate); electrification of mass transit; bicycles; and yes, even nuclear, in selected places.

I would like to put in a good word for conservation. Dick Cheney poo-poohed it, and his buddies in the oil sector would, in fact, lose profits if we went for it. But it could stimulate other parts of the economy, and would solve some of the problem.

But that brings me back to the overall point: conservation alone won't solve our energy problem. Electrification alone won't solve it. We need a comprehensive plan.

Thanks for killing the Electric Car Gm, Ford, Chrysler ad nauseum!

Also thanks to pricky Dick's power plays on the Energy Policy- we're more beholden to the house of Saud.
Wasn't he the one that thought derivatives were a good idea?

Hire artists, landscape architects and engineers to work together to make wind power workable, but not an eco-eyesore.

How much are we willing to invest? Any amount invested in a long term renewable energy program will prove to be cheap in the long run. We have enough wind potential to generate ALL the electricity this country can ever use and that's relying on current technology. Yes, there are drawbacks to wind--sometimes it just doesn't blow, but a first rate redundant grid can take care of a lot of that problem. Wind turbines are cheap compared to nukes--for one nuke we can get thousands of wind turbines without the waste storage problems. Technology to generate electricity using the ocean is also being developed--a potential energy source with a reliable supply, unlike the wind. Instead of this we can't, we can't, we can't BS, we need to develop a long term plan which says we can, we can, we can. Part of that long term plan has to be designing and marketing plug in electric cars NOW. If we the taxpayers are going to have to bail out the auto industry it should come at a cost to them--no money to retool plants to make gas guzzlers cheaper to manufacture. They have to put a big chunk of that money toward designing the next generation of cars; cars that run on electricity and have a range suitable for a family car. In the sixties, we put a man of the moon in less than ten years and did it without a really huge investment. If we set a goal and back it up with brains and money, we can go all electric a lot faster than the experts tell us. The first thing we need is to listen to experts who represent science and technology instead of politics and industry. We have to develop a long term goal and develop a short term plan to make it happen--twenty four hours a day-seven days a week and as much money as it takes to 'get er done'. If we can build an economy based on cheap renewable energy we can remain the world's leading economy for a long time. Obama's plan to invest 150 billion in renewables over ten years is not enough. MCCain's plan to 'drill baby drill' is foolish beyond belief.

Another interesting point I've seen is that if we simply reduce oil usage, it reduces the price for other countries ... for example China will just start using it even more. We've got to make technology that we can export to them.

And I hate to say it, but McCain's plan does include that $300 million prize for a great battery. On the other hand, he doesn't think solar and wind should be subsidized, which I strongly disagree with.

There's a point about conservation that is worth considering. When conservation is mentioned, it tends to come overloaded with an ethos of sacrifice, which is at least in part due to the fact that the environmental movement views sacrifice as an essential moral component of earth-friendly living. This is counterproductive, though it is thankfully being undone by a generation of green entrepreneurs.

Just like proposing taxing the rich BECAUSE they're rich crashes on the shores of people's aspirations of rich (very well put in Liz Phair's song Shitloads of Money), proposing conservation because sacrifice is moral will not work. People will sacrifice mightily once they've bought in to an end, but without a cause to sacrifice for it just spells moving backwards.

As it happens, conservation is already happening. California uses almost the same amount of energy as 30 years ago, despite a vast increase in population. Excepting cars and some electronics, many appliances have become much more energy efficient. These things are easy to fix. Homes are lagging and it would not be very hard to obligate people to properly insulate them (sadly "an insulation in every rafter" is not too catchy), fix their water use, and install automatic light switches and the like. The incredible efficiency gains made in car engines can be traded back from power gains to energy consumption. Electronics can be made not to sit invisibly on to reduce startup time.

So the key is reorienting the meaning of "conservation" away from sacrifice and towards efficiency. If people buy into the goal of really using energy efficiently, and that sounds like progress to them, they can be persuaded to make sacrifices and investments. But no amount of haranguing will persuade a majority of people to trade the advantages of their own lifestyle for some notion of moral sacrifice.

And I hate to say it, but McCain's plan does include that $300 million prize for a great battery.

That's like McCain's OTHER plans: poorly thought out and totally unable to solve the problem. Why? It gives the stimulus at the wrong end, because any technology that far along to capture a prize is going to be able to garner BIG BIG BIG venture capital bucks to bring it to market---that prize is just icing on the cake.

The place where money is REALLY needed is at the beginning, on basic research. And just where has McCain been hitting earmarks for? Basic research...

Every time someone says we need to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil it's like somebody scraping a nail across the blackboard. We need to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels. All of them. No matter where we extract them from. Period. And we need a plan to get us there. And the government just isn't interested. And neither is the private sector. Only T. Boone Pickens seems to take the issue seriously. At least he has a plan, a vision.

The problem is, as with global warming, deep down, we really don't believe there is a looming crisis. We can't see it, can't feel it, hear it, and we are just not made to respond to vague and future threats.

But the answers are really simple. The core of the solution is solar power at one end, and electrical vehicles and machinery at the other end. There is so much solar energy striking the earth every day - and think how much more is whizzing past us, if we could only learn how to harness it - than we could possibly use in any conceivable technological civilization, no matter how busy or advanced. There is enough sunshine in Nevada alone to power all our needs with plenty to spare.

But we just won't do it.

An Apollo-like project over a quarter century would get the job done, and get infrastructure renewal and our economic woes behind us in no time. And put everyone to work who wants a job.

But we just won't do it.

And those electric cars. Wow! Electric motors are so much more efficient than the internal combustion engine, and bulky transmissions aren't necessary.

Sure, we need some technological breakthroughs along the way, but I think the challenges pale in comparison to the goal of getting to the moon as expressed by JFK in 1961, and we did it in eight years.

But we just won't do it.

Somebody explain to me what the hell is wrong with this country. I don't get it.

The fact is that the USA has vast commercially exploitable wind and solar energy resources that are more than sufficient to provide several times as much electricity as we currently use, with today's wind and solar technologies -- enough to meet all current needs and to electrify our ground transportation systems (and produce hydrogen for aircraft fuel).

The offshore wind energy resources of the Northeast alone are sufficient to provide as much electricity as the entire country uses.

The wind energy resources of four midwestern states are sufficient to provide as much electricity as the entire country uses.

The solar energy resources of the southwest are sufficient to provide as much electricity as the entire country uses, with concentrating solar thermal power plants.

The solar energy resources of the entire country, if harvested with distributed solar photovoltaics, are sufficient to provide a majority of the electricity consumed in residential and commercial buildings.

If we were to build out the infrastructure for harvesting wind and solar energy to the maximum feasible extent, we would have more electricity than we'd know what to do with -- and once the infrastructure was built, the "fuel" to produce that electricity is free, forever.

The supposed issues of "intermittency" with wind and solar are vastly overstated. We have plenty of options for storing energy from wind and solar: chemical (batteries), kinetic (flywheels, compressed air) and thermal (molten salts). And several studies both in German and the US have shown that a diversified portfolio of renewable energy sources -- e.g. wind, solar, geothermal and biomass -- can provide reliable baseload power on a regional scale.

There is absolutely no need for nuclear power -- which is the least effective, most expensive, and most toxic and dangerous "solution" for reducing the carbon emissions from electricity generation. Since we don't need nuclear, there is no reason to tolerate the grave dangers of accident or terrorist attacks, or the massive amounts of toxic and radioactive waste, that are inescapable problems with nuclear power.

Obama says he supports "safe nuclear" and "clean coal" -- neither of which exist or are likely to ever exist, even after hundreds of billions of dollars in government subsidies. However, Obama's energy plan places much more emphasis on building up the wind and solar energy infrastructure, while McCain and Palin actively disparage and discourage investment in solar energy. Perhaps it's wishful thinking on my part, but I would hope that an Obama administration would devote most investment to deploying wind and solar to the maximum possible extent, as rapidly as possible, and would not waste much money on dead-end, toxic and dangerous technologies like nuclear and coal.

And I would note that in one of the debates, when Obama was talking about investing in infrastructure, he not only mentioned wind and solar energy, he also mentioned building a new electrical grid. That is absolutely crucial and urgent, and other than Al Gore I think Obama is the only high-profile mainstream politician that I've heard talk about it.

I have one word for Jeffrey Leonard: Solar.

Electrification (electric cars included) will be nice when it no longer requires coal burning plants (which emit CO2) and blowing the tops off of mountains (to date, the promised clean coal technologies don't exist).

With regard to solar, the technology exists, it's source is abundant, and it works. All we need is consensus and will.

Let's prioritize by first replacing our coal fired plants with solar generating plants. Then electrification will be a no-brainer.

Way to go, SecularAnimist. Good arguments.

The most useless noisemaker on energy is (Oilman) T. Boone Pickens. The Oilman title is all anyone really needs to know. You could probably retrofit cars with a battery pack more cheaply than the infrastructure needed for a retrofit for LNG, which also requires new filling station equipment. At best it works for local fleet vehicles: cabs, buses, city vehicles. But it would be a great jobs program if expanded to private passenger cars.

But I really like his initial commercials where he claimed "it is time to stop talking...and act." Right, that is just what we need to do.

He also leaves out the probable increase in heating costs for those using NG, just like ethanol production raised corn and soybean prices.

I agree with everything but the part about not needing new infrastructure. I live in the D.C. metro area, and there is nowhere around here that I would feel safe traveling to by riding a bike.

Your lizard brain is lying to you -- sitting in a car will kill you faster, and you would be better off riding a bike. Infrastructure would still help, because everyone's got a lizard brain that lies to them (how else do Republicans retain political power?), and that keeps people in their cars. The European results suggests that it is not enough to be safe -- people must FEEL safe.

However, the initial infrastructure can be as lightweight as painted stripes on the road. That's easier, cheaper, and faster than renovating our transportation/energy infrastructure, and requires no technical advances.

Project Better Place is well on the way to getting the electric car into mass production. Israel and Denmark have signed on to plans which will eliminate their transportation oil use, Hawaii is thinking about it. If Detroit doesn't get with the program soon, the big 3 (getting smaller by the day) will die.

See more at http://www.betterplace.com/

SecularAnimist, have you ever looked at the cost of those energy storage technologies you refer to? That you even suggest chemical batteries suggests that you haven't.

TES for solar thermal plants might be a goer - as might geothermal plants which don't need it - but all the other options you point to are extremely expensive.

And you're flat wrong on nuclear safety. Sorry, but you're just wrong. Nuclear power, as run by the American nuclear industry, is about as safely-run industry as has ever existed. On the issue of nuclear safety (including the waste disposal issue) you're about as blind to the abundant evidence as the global warming denialists are on that issue.

Sparky writes: We have enough wind potential to generate ALL the electricity this country can ever use and that's relying on current technology.

Hark writes: There is enough sunshine in Nevada alone to power all our needs with plenty to spare. But we just won't do it.

Arguments like this lose none of their worthlessness no matter how many times they're repeated. You want to look at a plan that can actually solve problems instead of pretending? Check out my web site.

Hmm. URL links no longer working? Try this: http://www.prescriptionfortheplanet.com