Energy Independence In Our Lifetime? Hell No! Energy Independence Now!
By David Hinz Posted in Energy — Comments (78) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
This is excerted from a much longer piece by the same name at The Minority Report It occurs to me that this is a good time, with the energy discussion going on today, to bring it over here.
(First of two parts -- Part One Fuel)
From time to time we hear politicians paying lip service to American Energy Independence, and whether it can be achieved in our lifetime. The time has come to put our money where our politician's mouths are, and achieve energy independence NOW!
The lifeblood of the world economy is oil. Politicians will demagogue the situation with such statements as, "The United State is addicted to oil." This is on the same par as saying, "Americans are addicted to food." Take away food, and people will starve. Take away oil and the world economy will starve as well. And, if the world economy starves, so will the peoples of this world. It is a politically charged prElectric Cars and Hydrogen Fuel Cells
While the American public has been inundated with the charms and prospects of electric powered automobiles, and hydrogen fuel cells, the fact remains that either of these solutions are years away from any fruition. The problem with both is infrastructure. While an electric powered vehicle might well provide an answer for short commutes, the necessity of recharging the electric battery after even a short usage makes it prohibitive for anything longer. Hydrogen fuel cells, while promising because of their environmental strength, are decades away from common use. Again, the problem is infrastructure -- an infrastructure that cannot be built overnight.
While there is a gasoline station on every corner throughout the country, there are no hydrogen refueling stations. Entrepeneurs are unlikely to invest in the cost of building such refueling stations until the technology is proven. The technology is unlikely to gain widespread acceptance without the existence of refueling stations. As a result, even though the technology of hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles might well be the long-term answer to our energy needs, it will be decades before such technology is widely available or accepted.oblem, long on rhetoric, that has gone largely ignored when it comes to seeking answers.
The problem is not that the world is addicted to oil; that the world runs on oil; the problem is that the world is in short supply of oil. Whenever demand for a product exceed the supply of that product, the cost is going to go up. And when that supply is tightly controlled, and kept in short supply and high demand, the price will skyrocket. Such is the case with oil.
The time has come to stop with the demagogic rhetoric, and to seek solutions, rather than point fingers and assign blame. Punitive taxes and restrictive leasing will not bring in a single additional barrel of oil. Nor will increased CAFE standards on vehicles or other conservation methods increase the world oil supply. The United States, with a growing economy cannot conserve its way out of shortage. It simply cannot be done. The answer is more complicated than that.
Because the answer to meeting out ever increasing energy needs cannot be summed up in a 10-second sound bite on the evening news, or distilled into a 30-second campaign spot during American Idol, politicians continue to dodge the hard question of just what must be done to meet our energy future.
That energy future lies not with oil alone, nor with ethanol or with Biofuels. The answer is not solar energy, nor is it wind power. All of those are pieces, some large, and some small of a larger more complicated and comprehensive energy picture. Because it is complicated, our politicians refuse to tackle the problem, chosing instead to offer sound-bite fixes, and campaign ad bandaids.
Oil
The sudden and for most Americans, shocking increase in the price of gasoline and diesel at the pump has finally stirred them to action. While their elected leaders have paid lip service to energy for the past four decades, all the while blocking any real increase in American supply, the people of this country have awakened to sticker shock at the pump, and have begun to demand of their government that oil companies be allowed to drill for more supply in this country. Areas put off limits by the Federal Government, including offshore drilling along the Continental Shelf and The Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) are suddenly receiving scrutiny from the public.
No amount of conservation is going to prevent shortages and increased prices as a result of those shortages.
Every American cannot go to their auto dealer and buy a hybrid today. While many major metropolitan centers have mass transit available, the infrastructure does not exist to dramatically increase public transportation in most areas of the country, nor is there a viable way for most Americans to use it. The Utopian dream of Americans commuting to work in their hybrid electric minicar, or riding their bikes to the train station for their daily commute, as is seen in Europe, is not going to happen in any great numbers in this country. Certainly, it is not going to happen in the foreseeable future.
The changes necessary to bring about such change would take decades to accomplish. Such a dream would require the collapse of the suburbs, as American commuters eschew the comfort of suburbia, to return to living in the cities where they work. Housing costs in cities, already inflated, would make this move prohibitively expensive, further eroding an economy that is increasingly in crisis.
Ethanol
If ever there was a case to be made for The Law of Unintended Consequences it is Ethanol. The boon to farmers who grow corn, the massive push by the Federal Government to turn corn into Ethanol for our automobiles, has been the single biggest disaster of the 21st Century.
Ethanol, as a fuel source has a number of disadvantages over other fuels. Ethanol is a particularly poor choice, as it results in at least a 15 percent decrease in mileage due to the lower BTUs availabe for energy. The cost of making Ethanol is greater than the benefit, resulting in the use of additional gasoline in the process. From the American Enterprise Institute:
Pimentel found that one acre of U.S. corn field yields about 7,110 pounds of corn, which in turn produces 328 gallons of ethanol. Setting aside the environmental implications (which are substantial), the financial costs already begin to mount. To plant, grow, and harvest the corn takes about 140 gallons of fossil fuel and costs about $347 per acre. According to Pimentel's analysis, even before the corn is converted to ethanol, the feedstock alone costs $0.69 per gallon of ethanol.
More damning, however, is that converting corn to ethanol requires about 99,119 BTUs to make one gallon, which has 77,000 BTUs of available energy. So about 29 percent more energy is required to produce a gallon of ethanol than is stored in that gallon in the first place. "That helps explain why fossil fuels (not ethanol) are used to produce ethanol," Pimentel says. "The growers and processors can't afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol. U.S. drivers couldn't afford it, either, if it weren't for government subsidies that artificially lower the price." All told, a gallon of ethanol costs $2.24 to produce, compared to $0.63 for a gallon of gasoline.
President Bush, in a recent speech, defended corn Ethanol, making the claim that the cost to the public has only been about 3 percent in rising food costs. Reports by the World Bank, however tell a different story, as estimates show Ethanol has caused food prices to skyrocket by as much as 75 percent worldwide.
Food riots in developing nations around the world punctuate the dismal failure of this policy of turning food into fuel. A national policy that promotes the American public to cause world famine is destined for disaster. The United States spends billions of dollars each year to aid developing nations economically, while this policy starves their people.
Electric Cars and Hydrogen Fuel Cells
While the American public has been inundated with the charms and prospects of electric powered automobiles, and hydrogen fuel cells, the fact remains that either of these solutions are years away from any fruition. The problem with both is infrastructure. While an electric powered vehicle might well provide an answer for short commutes, the necessity of recharging the electric battery after even a short usage makes it prohibitive for anything longer. Hydrogen fuel cells, while promising because of their environmental strength, are decades away from common use. Again, the problem is infrastructure -- an infrastructure that cannot be built overnight.
While there is a gasoline station on every corner throughout the country, there are no hydrogen refueling stations. Entrepeneurs are unlikely to invest in the cost of building such refueling stations until the technology is proven. The technology is unlikely to gain widespread acceptance without the existence of refueling stations. As a result, even though the technology of hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles might well be the long-term answer to our energy needs, it will be decades before such technology is widely available or accepted.
Biofuels
Recent new developments in the production of biofuels, or biodiesel, have paved the way for a transition from current technology to the technologies of the future. Rapid advancements in the production of algae-based biodiesel looks to be the breakthrough necessary to propell the United States forward toward energy independence.
The American public, as a whole, has a prejudice against diesel. Large trucks run on diesel, shooting plumes of dark smoke into the air -- and it smells funny. Biodiesel, the process of creating diesel fuels from renewable based sources, has shown the most promise, even as it was rejected by a disinterested public.
Given the right conditions, algae can double its volume overnight. Unlike other biofuel feedstocks, such as soy or corn, it can be harvested day after day. Up to 50 percent of an alga’s body weight is comprised of oil, whereas oil-palm trees—currently the largest producer of oil to make biofuels—yield just about 20 percent of their weight in oil. Across the board, yields are already impressive: Soy produces some 50 gallons of oil per acre per year; canola, 150 gallons; and palm, 650 gallons. But algae is expected to produce 10,000 gallons per acre per year, and eventually even more.
New technology can now yield 100,000 gallons per acre.
The point is, there is NO SINGLE ANSWER, but an overall strategy to use all of our resources available to us. As I said before, read the entire article with links at The Minority Report
(Part Two - Electrical Power Generation)
To determine how much impact on petroleum could result from electric battery cars, you have to look at the source of the electricity. After all, if you're burning oil at the power station to generate electricity, then your petroleum savings are diminished or perhaps nil (or even negative). If you're burning gas or coal at the power station, you have to then examine how good of a trade-off that constitutes.
Now there may well be net benefits in terms of air pollution, etc. to urban electric cars. But if we don't want to repeat the ethanol travesty, one needs to look at the whole energy cycle, not just the car.
Nor am I happy when I read that the U.S. government is going to take some of my money (via taxes) to subsidize electric cars. I'm already ticked about the ethanol subsidies.
I don't see to much examination of the whole picture in the reports I see touting electric cars.
I'm on the record here as supporting much more nuclear power. I think that a mix of nuclear, wind, and solar could put a huge dent in our production. I'd prefer to avoid coal if at all possible, but as much as this asthmatic would prefer we not burn it, at least we have it here at home.
Transitioning the grid to more sustainable and domestic (yes, I know we would be buying foreign uranium at some point) sources is more attainable than flat out replacing our current infrastructure.
That being said I strongly believe in more mass transit and urban living. As I've written before I'm commuting by bicycle about 80% of the time and loving it. That's obviously not for everyone, but small investments in things like bike lanes help. Look at Portland. 6% of those who commute in Portland do so by bike. It helps.
There are things people have already begun to do. Conservation will be a major part of the solution, but that's only one side of the equation.
As to domestic drilling? Go nuts. It isn't a solution in and of itself, but if we're careful not to damage or destroy the ecologies in those areas I'm open to it. We aren't going to drill our way out of this mess, but it will help in the medium-term.
You've actually been quite fair-minded and thoughtful throughout the discussions we've had here at RedState on energy issues.
The point I was trying to make is that one has to look at the whole energy cycle, not just the part one's trying to change. You've indeed demonstrated in your writings that you recognize this need to consider the whole picture.
I was critiquing the message, not the messenger, because most of the discussions I read about electric cars act like the electricity magically comes from the wall socket; they never examine what is involved in generating that electricity.
Now there are strong arguments that centralizing the energy generation transaction from internal combustion engines to power plants represents a net plus - especially if we're using nuclear to generate the electricity than fossil fuels - and especially since it is much easier to control pollution at a few power plants than for millions of engines.
Nonetheless, such a net plus would be more like +2 rather than the +8 one might predict if one ignores the trade-offs.
Thus one has got to look at the whole picture lest one goes off to the races riding a flawed horse because one only looks at the food going in and not at what is coming out the other end.
It's "Han" not "Hans."
But I take your broader point, and I appreciate your fairness.
and I am sorry -- I was in our local bike shop today and they are doing a bonanza business in low-end cheap bikes right now. People are doing just what you suggest.
BUT IT is NOT an answer. It is NOT a national policy. I can just see the year 2050 -- China clogged with 6 billion minicars, mired in a polluted haze -- the US looking like Shanghai circa 1930 with rickshaws and bicycles clogging the streets.
National policy? Of course not. I can't see much of a federal role here.
A local or state policy? It already is one in some places. It would be a trivial cost to add a chapter on how not to run over cyclists to driver's education classes. It isn't *that* hard to add bike lanes in a lot of areas.
If people want to live locally I think their communities should be responsive to it. I'm not talking top-down here. I'm talking bottom-up. The more people you see riding in a particular city the more likely it is they'll get some infrastructure.
It can work, at least in some places. No reason why we shouldn't facilitate it. And I absolutely agree that we need cyclists to know how the heck to ride safely.
on an organized ride last year. More than 1000 cyclist over four different routes from 48 to 100 miles, Doing the century I come up behind three women [each of whom took up more than one bicycle seat] riding side by side by side chatting along at about 8 miles per hour -- traffic behind.
I come up behind them and they all had "Share the Road" plates on their seats.
In 2006, oil accounted for less than 2% of US electricity production. Not sure what part of the country was using oil for electricity, but in nearly all of the country, replacing gasoline-driven cars with electric cars woudl reduce oil consumption.
Global price of oil is driven by global consumption. Here is a quote from China Daily:
Three coal power plants have been set up in the energy-guzzling Guangdong Province as substitutes of generation facilities driven by oil, Wang told China Daily on the sidelines of the summit.
Oil-fuelled power plants make up much of power generation facilities in Guangdong, but soaring oil prices have put them in the red.
The central government wants to use China's abundant coal resources to replace oil, of which about 40 per cent is imported.
"If they were merely incompetent, then at least SOME of their actions would have been to the benefit of the country."
Most of rural Alaska. Most of Hawaii. Other places here and there that are just too far away or too small to be on the grid. It is hideously expensive, even back when oil was relatively cheap, because in addition to the cost of stand alone diesel generation, you usually have very high transportation and storage costs. In Western and Arctic Alaska, we have to have the storage capacity for a whole year since the villages are dependent on summer only barges to get the diesel for heating and electricity to them. If they run low during the winter when the rivers are frozen, the oil has to be air-freighted in - bring money!
In Vino Veritas
the "Americans For American Energy Act."
Republicans have been talking about the "all of the above approach" for a while. This is the first proposal that actually seems to advocate the development of all our energy resources. I know a lot of energy bills have been introduced in Congress the past few months but I'm not sure why the party hasn't unified around one comprehensive bill. This one seems to be a good candidate for something of that sort....
the MSM are all simpletons who cannot fathom trying to hold the interest the American public for more than 30 seconds. A real discussion of a comprehensive approach doesn't boil down into a 10 second "gotcha" soundbite.
And if a congressman tries... he doesn't make it on the screen...
although countless large comprehensive bills have become law in the past. Proponents of these past efforts seem to have found a way to distill a lot of information into itty bitty soundbites.
For example, couldn't this plan be summarized succinctly by saying something like: "Republicans have rallied around a 12-step plan to end our addiction to foreign energy." Ok, it doesn't flow off the tongue but I'm not a wordsmith. I'm sure at least one Republican office has someone on staff who can break this sort of thing down into catchy bite size talking points that are safe for the average TV host. It can't really be that hard.
Still, with all that said, you are right about the sorry state of public discourse today. It's a sad commentary when it's difficult if not impossible for a substantive message to be conveyed via the MSM on matters of public policy.
Plug-In Hybrid Leads Toyota's Drive Beyond Oil
Wired, June 11, 2008
Toyota Motor plans to produce lithium ion batteries next year for a plug-in hybrid vehicle available in 2010. The company on Wednesday said that the plug-in hybrid will be "geared toward fleet customers in Japan, (the) United States, and Europe."
...Toyota's ambitious "low-carbon" agenda includes cranking out 1 million hybrids a year and eventually offering hybrid versions of every model it sells. In the short-term, Toyota says it will produce more fuel efficient gasoline and diesel engines and push alternative fuels like cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel. It's also pumping big money into lithium-ion batteries. With fuel prices going through the roof and auto sales going through the floor because of it, Toyota president Katsuaki Watanabe says the auto industry has no choice but to move beyond petroleum...
Watanabe's reference to peak oil echoes that of GM CEO Rick Wagoner, who in explaining the company's decision to shut down four truck factories said rising fuel prices and mounting demand for efficient cars are "structural, not cyclical." In other words, the two biggest automakers in the world realize petroleum's days are numbered.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
High Energy Prices Drive Innovation
Rod Hunter, Wall Street Journal Asia, July 8, 2008
...This March, for instance, American entrepreneur Elon Musk started production of his electric sports car, the Tesla. This car isn't just a fancy golf cart -- it accelerates from 0 to 60 miles per hour in four seconds, tops out at 125 mph, and has a range of 220 miles. The $110,000 price tag limits the Tesla to the wealthy, but mass production models are in the works. General Motors has committed itself to rolling out its electronic vehicle, the Volt, by 2010. Toyota plans a successor to its popular Prius hybrid.
Recent cost comparisons by Deutsche Bank's auto analysts suggest electric cars will be cheaper to operate than conventional vehicles. Fuel costs per mile for gasoline-fueled cars are $0.27 in Germany, $0.24 in Britain, $0.17 in Brazil and $0.11 in the U.S., with differences driven by local fuel taxes. For electric vehicles, the cost per mile is a mere $0.02. If one adds in the cost of a battery amortized over the life of the car, the cost is still only $0.10. Batteries will be expensive, at least in early years, but electric cars won't need costly engines or complex transmissions like today's autos. With few moving parts, reliability will increase.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
Maybe this time will be different, but I wouldn't bet the ranch on it. In the meanwhile, the sensible policy maker, like any sound investor, will hedge and diversify - which means that we still need to increase oil supply while we wait for the alternative energy ships to come in.
from Mechanix Illiustrated, 1968
By James R. Berry
Despite the fact that the year 2008 is only 40 years away—as far ahead as 1928 is in the past—it will be a world as strange to us as our time (1968) would be to the pilgrims.
IT’S 8 a.m., Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2008, and you are headed for a business appointment 300 mi. away. You slide into your sleek, two-passenger air-cushion car, press a sequence of buttons and the national traffic computer notes your destination, figures out the current traffic situation and signals your car to slide out of the garage. Hands free, you sit back and begin to read the morning paper—which is flashed on a flat TV screen over the car’s dashboard. Tapping a button changes the page.
The car accelerates to 150 mph in the city’s suburbs, then hits 250 mph in less built-up areas, gliding over the smooth plastic road. You whizz past a string of cities, many of them covered by the new domes that keep them evenly climatized year round. Traffic is heavy, typically, but there’s no need to worry. The traffic computer, which feeds and receives signals to and from all cars in transit between cities, keeps vehicles at least 50 yds. apart. There hasn’t been an accident since the system was inaugurated. ... After you get out, the vehicle parks itself in a convenient municipal garage to await your return. Private cars are banned inside most city cores. Moving sidewalks and electrams carry the public from one location to another.
With the U.S. population having soared to 350 million, 2008 transportation is among the most important factors keeping the economy running smoothly. Giant transportation hubs called modemixers are located anywhere from 15 to 50 mi. outside all major urban centers. Tube trains, pushed through bores by compressed air, make the trip between modemixer and central city in 10 to 15 minutes.
A major feature of most modemixers is the launching pad from which 200-passenger rockets blast off for other continents. For less well-heeled travelers there are SST and hypersonic planes that carry 200 to 300 passengers at speeds up to 4,000 mph. Short trips— between cities less than 1,000 mi. apart—are handled by slower jumbo jets.
[snip]
The single most important item in 2008 households is the computer. These electronic brains govern everything from meal preparation and waking up the household to assembling shopping lists and keeping track of the bank balance. Sensors in kitchen appliances, climatizing units, communicators, power supply and other household utilities warn the computer when the item is likely to fail. A repairman will show up even before any obvious breakdown occurs.
Computers also handle travel reservations, relay telephone messages, keep track of birthdays and anniversaries, compute taxes and even figure the monthly bills for electricity, water, telephone and other utilities. Not every family has its private computer. Many families reserve time on a city or regional computer to serve their needs. The machine tallies up its own services and submits a bill, just as it does with other utilities. [Hey! What about porn?! -- ed.]
[snip]
People have more time for leisure activities in the year 2008. The average work day is about four hours. But the extra time isn’t totally free. The pace of technological advance is such that a certain amount of a jobholder’s spare time is used in keeping up with the new developments—on the average, about two hours of home study a day.
The part that they were most accurate in their predictions was, interestingly enough, agriculture:
While city life in 2008 has changed greatly, the farm has altered even more. Farmers are business executives running operations as automated as factories. TV scanners monitor tractors and other equipment computer programmed to plow, harrow and harvest. Wires imbedded in the ground send control signals to the machines. Computers also keep track of yields-, fertilization, soil composition and other factors influencing crops. At the beginning of each year, a print-out tells the farmer what to plant where, how much to fertilize and how much yield he can expect.
"PsychObama, qu'est-ce que c'est?"
While it was quite optimistic, as most futurist articles are, at least this part was right:
"Computers also handle travel reservations, relay telephone messages, keep track of birthdays and anniversaries, compute taxes and even figure the monthly bills for electricity, water, telephone and other utilities."
Of course we do have instantaneous communication with anyone on Earth who we have met before and have exchanged screen names or numbers with. The article also didn't say anything about motion-sensing realistic, cinematic 3D games on your TV. We may not have the automated super cars they predicted, but we've still done pretty well.
and allow the marketplace sort it out. Your electic plugins are NOT the total answer. EVENTUALLY if you can get the infrastructure build -- and you can get enough nuclear power plants built to provide CHEAP electricity -- they will be a PART of the solution. In the mean time DRILL! Build windmills if you must. Turn algae into biodiesel. Distill all the ethanol you want FROM cellulose -- not FOODSTUFF -- do research into hydrogen fuel cells -- it will take decades to build the ifrastructure for that -- but DON"T ANYONE BELIEVE THAT YOU CAN CONSERVE YOUR WAY TO ENERGY INDEPENDENCE -- unless you are willing to live in an unheated hut and ride a bicycle, and destroy the entire world economy.
Cycling is entirely sustainable and workable in many urban environments. There's no reason we can't have more of it. And no, I'm not for forcing it on anyone, but we could have better infrastructure for it and we could educate new drivers on how not to kill them.
than you cycle in a month -- and it is NOT AN ANSWER! Yeah, yeah yeah, I know "Share The Road!" It is dangerous enough out there cycling now without adding millions of total AMATEURS into mix. I cringe every time I come up on some IDIOT weaving back and forth across the road because he THINKS by getting on the OTHER side of the road from the car coming at him is better than FOLLOWING THE LAW!
Cycling is GREAT if you happen to have a shower at work -- or if you live in Europe and it doesn't matter what you smell like.
You cycle more than 240 miles each day? I am impressed....
Just sayin' I ride 12 miles a day five days a week. That's not much for an actual cyclist, but it's a decent commute just the same.
not practical for MOST people. I live more than 35 miles from work -- most of my coworkers have similar commutes. ONLY a fool :-) would ride that far -- most cannot. Not to mention traffic. Most people get more than a little intimidated at cars rushing past -- three feet away at 50 mph. And don't say build bike paths cause once again we are talking about a VERY LONG time to get THAT done -- and a very poor solution.
A huge percentage of Americans live in urban areas. I suspect more and more will as time goes by. I also expect people to gradually move closer to where they work, or work closer to where they already live.
You're going to see more cycling. It's just going to happen, whether you want it to happen or not. The status of our infrastructure and education (both for cyclists and drivers) is a big risk.
Portland and Chicago, among others, are making it work. The more people you see on the road the more people will give them the proper space and the more people who will consider riding themselves.
If you live within a few miles of work in a temperate climate I think you'll consider it. Lots of people will. A majority? Absolutely not. But I already see more people riding, and that's only going to go up.
This is not the Soviet Union or China, and we're not going to live in 10 story urban apartment buildings with no car and garage. Americans are individuals not collectives.
Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business … frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise.Ronald Reagan
Way to completely caricature what I said. Thanks. If I need to feel like a Communist, do you think I'd come to RedState?
I know more than a few 20-somethings who are moving to places where they can commute via mass transit, on foot, or by cycle. It's already happening. Will it be a majority? Not only do I not think so, but I already said that upthread!
Criminy. Acknowledging a trend I'm already seeing isn't a suggestion that we collectivize in grand arcologies on Trantor! These things always start in the fringes, but you're absolutely off-base if you think that the price at the pump isn't motivating people to change how they live.
Ridership on mass transit is rapidly increasing. Bike shops in Portland can't keep good gear in stock. People seem to be driving less. This isn't the end of the trend - it is the start of it.
And for the record, nothing I've said is a hope or dream of mine. I am soberly describing what I've seen and where I see it going, comrade.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
why a wholesale move back into cities won't occur appeared in, of all places, the LA Times. Great writeup, and makes perfect sense...how such a well-reasoned article managed to show up in the LAT is beyond me...
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
The point about suburban employment clusters is a valid observation, and one I've discussed with friends before. It isn't necessarily that people will move back into existing urban areas, though that will happen to some degree.
People will live more locally than they do. If it is expensive to travel you will see people modify their behavior so they don't have to travel as far or as often. It's only common sense. Exactly how that plays out is hard to guess.
I'm an engineer in the Power business. I support 10 different nuclear stations in 3 different states (only 4 of which I can visit regularly). There is no reason (other than my bosses antiquated ideas)for me to travel to my normal office every day (when I'm not troubleshooting equipment at a plant - and in many cases, I can get data to do that remotely), If we gave American employers tax incentives to encourage them to get employees to telecommute (say a negative mileage allowance, x cents per mile that employees don't commute) we could see major gas savings. We'd also probably see a major productivity boom. I know I get twice as much done at home compared to my office.
I'm all for it. Efficiency is a great thing.
I just find it funny that so many people are shocked that our parents and grandparents made assumptions that may not be true, regarding the availability of cheap and consistent energy. Whether you love the suburbs or not it is a trade-off, and a potentially less attractive one than it used to be.
If nothing else it is interesting to see how the market in general, and individual people for that matter, deal with it.
but a lot about personal lifestyle preferences. I grew up in a rural area and don't generally like crowds. I tolerate city traffic and crowds to attend the theater and concerts (I appreciate many of the arts), but would never want to live in a city (or densely populated suburb). I just like open space. If it costs me more because I can't use public transportation, I'll pay the cost to avoid the crowds. I know my parents and grandparents felt the same way. It has nothing to do with assumptions about cheap energy.
It wasn't a conscious assumption, I don't think. And I'm not implying that nobody will pay what it costs to have that space. I just see that some people are making a different choice in the face of higher energy costs. As those costs go up more people probably will.
Its a human tendency to assume those basic parts of life will go on much as they have. When those things change or stop working, well, that's when we have the most trouble.
esp in big cities and many will move closer to where they work, but if we accept the Obama and the left's desires and become Holland, then we will have ceased to ne the arsenal of Freedom. Holland assures no one's freedom. We make all freedom on this planet possible, and you can count on the fact that there will always be evil tyrants that will enslave their people to fill the power vacuum if we settle for less...
Americans ride horses
http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/story/gamecock/2008/05/31/we_the_pe...
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
It won't take Joe America long to realize that he can personally generate all the electricity he needs to run his car. During the day he'll sell the power collected by the panels on his garage. At night he will buy it back (at a reduced rate) to charge his car. Not only does Joe America power his car, but he also makes a small profit on the price differential. Cha-ching!
With the residual funds, Joe America gets to thinking, "You know, if I put up a few more panels..."
So while you are waiting for 100 nuclear plants to be built, (thin-film) panels will bloom on rooftops by the thousands. Welcome to the Distributed Age.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
First, note this article.
Here's the money quote:
"Also pushing down costs are a highly efficient semiconductor that converts 37% of the sunlight to electricity, more than double the industry average. The unit's compact size allows it to be made at electronics or PC factories, avoiding the need to build new plants."
Then there's this from our friends at IBM.
Again, the money quote:
"The IBM research team developed a system that achieved breakthrough results by coupling a commercial solar cell to an advanced IBM liquid metal thermal cooling system using methods developed for the microprocessor industry."
Then here is a bunch of techno-babble regarding nanotechnology; I couldn't begin to guess what the money quote is, but it seems important.
So no, I wouldn't hold my breath either... but I was contacted by a past associate who now works at SUNRGI and he made me an offer for employment that hinted that they were *very* serious about this.
and clouds and night. Darn that physics. It keeps getting in the way of perfectly wonderful inventions.
I never said it was the perfect solution. I merely pointed these out because they seem to me to propose a solution to a couple of the issues regarding solar power; heat, and inefficiency.
I bring this up to make this humble point:
If engineers give up on a technology because there are huge hurdles engineers still don't know how to overcome, rather than pressing on as far as they can and crossing each bridge when they get to it, problems will never be solved.
It's analogous to the argument against drilling; why bother, we won't see any benefits for years!
Why bother with innovation concerning solar energy; there's still problems we don't know how to solve!
I am a big proponent of an incremental approach; any little bit helps, and as a whole, they may all add up to a solution. If the innovations help to improve solar efficiency when the sun *is* out, then isn't that a step in the right direction?
I'm trying to remain optimistic here, optimistic that our ingenuity will provide the solutions we need.
I have no problem with solar power as a supplemental resource, particularly in the Southeast and Southwest US. However, anyone who thinks that the whole US grid will be powered by distributed solar power sources is misguided, Particularly in the Northern Latitudes.
Just curious...
Mass produced thin film panels just came onto the market in the past year. Most of the print runs have already been sold to Germany, but GM managed to secure enough thin film (from United Solar Ovonic) to cover 2 million sqft of factory rooftop in Zaragoza, Spain.
But thin film manufacturers are quickly mutliplying. Last week Applied Materials announced it was building another fab in Bagalore. Just today Sencera International Corporation, announced it is expanding in Charlotte, NC. The upshot is that thin films will take 28% of PV market by 2012.
So you'll be able to buy the thin film panels when you can buy a plugin hybrid - less than five years for the consumer, less than two years for businesses.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
Estimates of the electricity costs of converting every car on the road to 100% electric fall between 15 and 20% of our current usage. In other words we'd need to produce 120% of what we do now. Twenty percent more is a lot but it's not a staggering amount. It's easy to imagine managing that with some combination of coal/win/nuclear. Your infrastructure arguments are sound with respect to hydrogen, but we're already pretty good at generating electricity.
-exits
I think we should end the sugar tariff policy that we have with Brazil, and allow them to sell us their cane-sugar based ethanol. I realize that this is not a step toward complete energy independence, but we're not going to be completely energy independent for a while.
This move would also be appreciated in Brazil, and keep them in the mood to work with us and Peru and Columbia more than with Bolivia and Venezuela.
Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business … frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise.Ronald Reagan
...natural gas represents and energy bargain compared to crude oil & gasoline.
At $13/mmbtu, a thousand cubic feet of gas delivers the energy equivalent of a barrel of oil for less than $80.
We have trillions of cubic feet of gas in shales and other unconventional sources that we are just beginning to understand. And we have some 40 trillion cubic feet of the stuff waiting on a pipeline in Alaska. (We use about 22 TCF/year.)
And we have proven the ability to ramp up natural gas deliverability. See link.
"PsychObama, qu'est-ce que c'est?"
I exist on the opposite end of the "fringe" mentioned above. I relocate once a year. I typically have 2 weeks notice to find an apartment and sign the minimum lease I can. Which means I spend a lot of time living out of cheap hotels and apartments without garages. I sometimes end up living 30+ miles from work, if that's teh only apartment I can find. Plug-ins do me no good.
I drive ~1,000 miles round trip once/month. I make a different round-trip once/month that totals ~800 miles round-trip. Even a Tesla, if I could afford it, would be worthless to me.
This is not to complain about my situation; I enjoy my job, I do it well, and I like my life as I know it.
This is just to serve as a reminder that just as there are those who choose a career and residence that allows them to use very little gasoline, there are some of us who choose a career and residence that as a side effect relies on a ready source of fuel to provide the flexibility and freedom that we crave.
Absolutely fair and fine. Mobility is a very American expression of our freedoms. Heck, the more of us who elect not to drive the cheaper that gas may become for you. Good to remember that.
I appreciate the sentiment, but my concern is a bit deeper than gas prices (although the cost of gas *does* hurt, it's the price I pay to be content).
I worry that the long-term solutions presented in the form of plug-in/rechargables and suburban "clusters" and redefining how Americans live and work is going to overlook some ways of life, such as mine.
Any long-term solution will have to accomodate the instant mobility and convenience of long-distant travel that most people only notice about during summer vacation and Thanksgiving trips to Grandma's.
I haven't seen that yet. *Maybe* hydrogen fuel cells with the proper infrastructure... but I want something more concrete than a nascent technology.
The misleading title. The key is infrastructure, or as a previous post had it, the maturity of the transportation industry. While I do not expect American "energy independence" in my lifetime, I can hope that my grandchildren will see some progress towards it in theirs.
I will begin to pay attention to the promise of electric or hydrogen cars when I can see them pouring concrete for the first modern 10-reactor nuc powerplant. And then I'll be calculating how long it will take to replace an appreciable fraction of our 100 million + gas and diesel vehicles.
I'll plunk my money down for Algaelene when I can see a one-acre plant actually produce 10,000 gallons, and find something useful to do with the 10,000 gallons of remaining algae mass (and not use up a million gallons of waste water in the process).
Hey, I'm a great believer in technological progress. I'm an engineer, after all. But, in the best of (free market) worlds, it takes TIME. In the real world it takes TIME and PERSISTENCE. IMHO, the most immediate impact on the logistics of the transportation industry is likely to come from the virtual reality/communication world.
do it all! Did you follow the links? That 100,000 gallons per acre IS today.
Kertz said he can produce about 100,000 gallons of algae oil a year per acre, compared to about 30 gallons per acre from corn; 50 gallons from soybeans.
Oh, and the algae sludge leftover? Cattle feed!
You didn't mention plug-in hybrids in your original post, although a few other people did. There is no reason that plug-in hybrids shouldn't become the standard for relatively expensive cars and people that drive a lot for work. If you're already paying $40,000+ or you drive at least 50,000 miles a year why not save perhaps 85% on your gas costs every single year for $4,000?
I'm sure many people who expect to keep their car a long time or care about energy independance (or global warming *shrug*) will choose plug-in hybrids. It's a little more expensive, but it's not outrageous considering the first 20-50 miles is entirely electric depending on the model.
Having said that, I agree that it is much more important to drill for oil! It's insane that we have a shortage and a presidential candidate is saying that producing more of the product that we have a shortage of is "a failed policy of the past". It's absurdity. We need to do everything possible. Investors should give this algea biofuel a shot. If buying a plug-in hybrid is financially reasonable in your situation, do it. These are potentially great solution, and a guaranteed OK solution for the next 10-20 years is drilling for oil offshore, drilling in ANWR, and taking advantage of oil shale.
... and the 'try everything' policy (drill for oil, end silly tax breaks and tariffs, end regulatory hang-ups for nukes and other new power plants and oil refineries) has my enthusiastic support.
But energy independence is a red herring. If the principal supplier of oil to the world (instead of just to us) was Canada, we wouldn't care about enery independence. If someone can do biofuels cost effectively on feedstock that doesn't grow well in the US, that doesn't mean it's a bad plan or useless to us. If Brazil wants to drill for oil, that's good too. Etc.
this is the next move in the envirowhackos war against America:
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/459579.html
As is usually the case here, they are unlikely to succeed in the federal district court, will appeal to a 9th Soviet panel where they will be successful, the State and the leaseholders will take it to the full 9th with an uncertain result but more than likely, the greenies will prevail, and then it will go to the USSC. There goes ten years!
In Vino Veritas
that was the subject of a "report" a few days ago. Just in case anyone was thinking that the times might dictate OCS drilling in warmer climes. Well, now we'll work on getting all the coral on the OCS listed as threatened or endangered.
In Vino Veritas
I believe it is Dubai that is building a chain of islands to mirror the globe.
They have already found coral growing on some of the earlier islands that they've made in this "planet"
It seems coral, though fragile, is also able to adapt and grow.
Of course, that won't stop the enviro-weenies. Polar Bears have increased in numbers, but still found their way on the endangered species list.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: 7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.85
not endangered. The Bush Administration caught Hell for so listing it, but it was probably making the best of a bad situation. Had they refused any listing under the ESA, the greenies would have sued and found some judge who thought it should have been listed as endangered, the most restrictive category. In any event, either listing gives the greenies a hook for years of litigation.
In Vino Veritas
And once again enviro-weenies and leftist judges impede necessary progress.
Of course, there is no danger to the polar bears if we drill on land the size of an airport in an area the size of a state.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: 7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.85
If you think there is the slighted chance that Carbon could somehow alter the temperature of the earth (or if you know it doesn't do much) wait till you see what Hydrogen does.
The bi product of hydrogen is water vapor. Sounds nice doesn't it? In reality that is one of the best absorbers of heat. If there is anything that we could fill our atmosphere with that'd make it hold in heat better, it's water vapor.
My apologies in advance if that was a joke.
I don't think the hydrogen economy is a particularly great idea, but it will not have global warming consequence. Hydrogen is created by cracking water into hydrogen and oxygen, and then later use by burning it to make water again. It's a closed system that does not create new water.
Secondly, water vapor is much more abundant than CO2, so incremental changes from industrial activity would have less impact.
Finally, it is not quite accurate to say that water vapor is more important than CO2. H2O and CO2 block different wavelengths of infrared radiation. So even though there is more water vapor in the atmosphere, the action of CO2 is very leveraged, because it closes off an independant set of escape routes for radiant heat.
My problem with hydrogen cars: Accidents.
Right now, you get in an accident, you just have to worry about damage from the wreck itself. MAYBE, if it is a bad accident, fire.
However, the fire is localized to the accident, generally just the car in question.
Hydrogen? Rather than worrying about a car on fire, you'd have to deal with a crater.
Don't believe me? Fill a baloon (just half way) with hydrogen. Put in ear plugs, then put on 'over the ear' ear protection.
Get a yard stick and attach a candle to the end of it. Light the candle up and, holding the end of the yard stick at arm's length, light the balloon on fire.
Please note, do not do the above if you are near weak windows, or in a residential or commercial area.
We did this in high school. being 30 feet away, the vibrations were painful. Being on the other side of the school, you could still hear a LOUD explosion.
and that was just with a small balloon filled partially with hydrogen.
Now, think of a BUNCH of hydrogen, compressed, in the tank of a car, when another car or truck slams into it. Gas released, sparks fly.
Boom.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: 7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.85
so that in the event of fire, the flame front is impeded and can't propagate rapidly. that is the difference between a fire and an explosion. A long time ago, I saw an article on a gas tank variant called explosafe. It consisted of a standard gas tank with a wire roll similar to chicken wire inside. The wire roll impeded flame propagation and prevented explosions. Something similar would probably be needed for hydrogen tanks in cars. The alternat would be really heavy walled tanks with flame arrestors at the tap locations for the fuel lines.
In an accident, things get broken. Tanks get cracked. Leaks happen.
That's the problem.
Now, if someone wants to make a power plant running on hydrogen rather than oil or coal... that's fine (though I'd still prefer nuclear)
But I really don't like the idea of hydrogen powered cars.
Unless you make the hydrogen elecrically onboard the car, storing water in a tank (but then you have to deal with the physics involved . . . it takes more energy to crack water than you get from burning the hydrogen produced)
You could do it chemically... tank of water, mixed with lye. Add aluminum.
However, then you're not only having to store aluminum in your car (which is kind of reactive stuff if it isn't coated in aluminum oxide), but chemical reactions don't just 'turn off' and when you get to your destination, you're still producing hydrogen... .which means you'd need a tank. Which gets us back to the explosion issue.
I am a fan of electric cars powered by nuclear power plants across the country.
To get the government to sign on, put a separate meter by the plug for the car so that you can 'track' the charges for 'roads and bridges' tax purposes.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: 7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.85
"Now, if someone wants to make a power plant running on hydrogen rather than oil or coal... that's fine (though I'd still prefer nuclear)"
Hydrogen is typically proposed as a form of energy storage, not of energy generation. You need to use electricity to produce the hydrogen (from water), so a power plant running on hydrogen wouldn't work.
(I've never heard the water/lye/aluminum suggestion for large scale hydrogen production. Wouldn't it be cost prohibitive?)
Some of the problems with electric cars also exist with hydrogen-powered cars. You still need to work out where that initial energy will come from.
I prefer electric to hydrogen too, not because of safety but because I think the technology is much closer to fruition. Also batteries are more efficient.
(no, Lance, not that kind of cracker. Hey, I resemble that remark!)
Most fuel cell (hydrogen powered) car concepts use a cracker stage to liberate the hydrogen from a liquid fuel like alcohol or Aqua Velva or from a gaseous fuel like propane or natural gas. The hydrogen is then reacted in the fuel cell to make electron flow. The liquid fuels are safer to handle than compressed hydrogen, so it kinda reduces the dangers posed by the compressed hydrogen tank. However, those designs that don't have the cracker stage and instead rely on hydrogen from the handy filling station can have safety issues with tanks and plumbing which can likely be somewhat ameliorated through good engineering.
What cannot be changed through sound engineering are the natural properties of hydrogen. Of course, it is the littlest of molecules, so it likes to get out of pretty much anything it is put into. It burns really well without much encouragement once it gets out. Hydrogen is also very reactive with most common materials which is the main reason it isn't found just laying around in pools. Probably the most dangerous reactive property is called hydrogen embrittlement. Since it reacts darn well with metals (explosively in some cases), the best thing to herd it around with is stainless steel, but over time exposure to hydrogen causes stainless to lose its youthful elan and become brittle. Then cracks appear, the hydrogen gets out, it reacts...
And since hydrogen can't be easily or comfortably chilled and compressed to a liquid, it is pretty tough and dangerous to handle all the way from 'production' to the filling station.
Last year at Speedweek on the Bonneville salt flats, the Ohio State electric car was running a fuel cell. They kept the car and the hydrogen VERY far away from the rest of the competitors that were carrying around buckets of safe and prosaic fuels like gasoline, methanol, nitrous oxide, nitro methane, propane, etc.
So what's the safest thing to do? Mix in some carbon with that hydrogen and make something that is safer and easier to transport and use. Stir in the right ratios of carbons and you get propane, butane, and so on right up to gasoline and diesel.
Liquid fuels built this country and I really doubt they are going away anytime soon. Even though I would be happy with a plug-in to make my typical 12 mile commute, I will still need liquid fuels to visit my kid in Fort Worth or to get my race car to the salt.
old copies of the New York Times? that would really save the environment.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Check out Wikipedia - Wood gas generator to learn how you can use the Old York Times or even Chinese Tallow trees to run your car. Believe me, this would irritate the eviro-nuts to no end!!!
BTW, when they mention syngas in the article, it is basically carbon monoxide and hydrogen from which you can synthesize all kinds of fun molecules including longer hydrocarbons!
Technologue: First K.I.S.S - Keeping It (our refueling infrastructure) Simple...
Frank Markus, Motor Trend, July 2008What if we could have our hydrogen economy and keep our filling stations and fuel tanks, too? We'd save about a trillion bucks in infrastructure costs. How can this be done? By taking a couple of hydrogen molecules and sneaking a carbon-monoxide in between them to produce CH3-OH, aka methanol. Liquid at room temperature, it pours, stores, and travels almost as easily as gasoline. Sure, it's corrosive, slightly toxic, and has half the energy density of gasoline, but compared with the challenges of handling the lightest element in the universe, those challenges seem zeptoscopic. And like hydrogen, you can choose to burn methanol or run it through a proton-exchange-membrane fuel cell to produce electricity, water, and CO2...
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
"Oh the humanity!"
Hydrogen can be stored as metal hydrides, which can actually store more hydrogen per volume than liquid hydrogen. It's relatively safe, if it spills out and burns it is more like a sterno fire than the Hindenburg.
That said, hydrogen seems like a bad thing to be spending money and resources on now. It is just an alternative energy transportation scheme, not a way to generate new energy.
The electrical grid loses about 7 percent of power by losses in wires (resistance, etc). But converting electricity into hydrogen loses 30 - 50 percent of energy. It's always bad to convert one form of energy into another unless you really have to.</
Well written. I agree with most of it, though I would tweak one small point. I do think that plug-in hybrids will come to market in the next five years. A greater emphasis on nuclear power and urbanization would allow more and more people to effectively avoid gasoline to fuel their cars.
Most people commute less than 20 miles each way. If GM can make the Volt hit the magic 40 mile/charge mark the Volt could really shake things up.
If we can miracle up the batteries (and we're moving in the right direction) then plug-in hybrids can help ease us off of gas whilst letting use use the infrastructure we already have.