Hey Sherlock - Now There's Near Zero Energy (NZE) Homes
If you're a northeastern US dweller noticing how $2 a gallon oil is impacting your bottom line this winter, it may be time for you to move south. But if you don't want to move that far, you may want to consider a new pad. And I don't mean an igloo.
The Oak Ridge National lab just cranked out it's fourth NZE home this fall for about $100K. A veritiable McMansion of energy efficiency and improved discretionary cash flow. With all the extra money you'll save on heating and electricity bills, you'll be able to afford that second Hummer AEman knows you've had your eyes on for 2005. Happy New Year.
posted by Andy Bochman at 3:39 PM
 
RealClimate.org Added to AE Links
There's so much debate in the media and confusion in the language coming from government on the impact of human activies on the climate. AEman has identified a good source for the science.
Here's how these guys describe themselves:
RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary.
posted by Andy Bochman at 7:45 AM
You Can't Say Nuclear, That Really Scares Me ...
This line, taken from the jibjab.com Bush-Kerry pre-election parody, had Kerry making fun of GWB's inability to articulate the N word in a conventional way. Kerry, though, despite his superior enunciation of many words, didn't win. And his pro AE stance (apart from his hypocritical oppositon to the Cape Wind project) had him framing nuclear power as an evil to be eradicated.
AEman advises y'all to check out this piece by Richard Rhodes, a man who's been up to his neck in new-queue-lar research and history. Written many moons ago in 2000, "The Need for Nuclear Power" beats the crap out of current power gen approaches and also sucker punches solar and other AE methods. Like his point that if oil or coal plants had to sequester all of their waste products the way nukes do, their costs per kwh would skyrocket. Instead, because they can spew their greenhouse gases and other pollution into the atmosphere, they treat our air as their outhouse. That's not nice at all. Or fair. You must play fair, children.
Rhodes makes an interesting case for re-positioning the competition. Check it out.
posted by Andy Bochman at 10:13 PM
US Right to Criticize Kyoto, Wrong to have Head up Ass on AE
If you're into greenhouses, get psyched. You're about to live in one. Coal's low cost, high availability, and lack of middle-eastern-ness is driving a huge coal plant build out in China, India and of course, the US. The CS Monitor's "New Coal Plants Bury Kyoto" says it all. Makes debates on wind turbines and solar seem rather academic, does it not?
posted by Andy Bochman at 3:45 PM
Bending Over Backwards and Beyond
A Boston Globe piece this morning "Yarmouth would get wind farm windfall" shows how far the Cape Wind developers have to go to pay off local townsfolk, while they still get to endure unremitting reamings from local selectmen and others. Once again, we're exploring the outer reaches (or maybe the foul inner core) of NIMBY. Here we see Not In My Back Yard even though:
- It's windpower, not coal/oil
- It's quiet
- It produces the major chunk of electricity needed to power the Cape
- It doesn't pollute water, air, ground or space
- It doesn't hurt fish, birds, bats, bees (give or take a bat* or two)
- It's well offshore and often invisible
- It's new jobs
- It's cheaper electricity
- AND, it's millions and millions of dollars in additonal tax and other revenues
What kind of idiots would oppose something like this? Is AEman missing something, or did Jesus say something critical of wind power? Maybe Satan was once quoted saying something nice about wind turbines. If so, please cite book, chapter, verse and then AEman will check the Greek.
AEman's been tough on wind the last few posts. Even with an enlightened citizenry, expensive oil and global warming-induced sea rising, it's not going to solve too big a part of the problem. It 's a supplementing - not a replacement - technology. If Yarmouth somehow manages to get Cape Wind killed or seriously comprimised, let's make sure they're identified as a prime candidate site for a pebble reactor. And offshore it will not be.
*AEman adores bats, but considers the early demise of one or two a day out of gadjillions an acceptably low rate of attrition
posted by Andy Bochman at 8:33 AM
AE Mainstream
When what to AEman's wondering eyes did appeal but a BusinessWeek article yesterday called "Alternative Energy Gets Real". Far better than gushing enthusiasm, this one strikes a balance.
Around here we sometimes say, "Is light dawning on Marblehead?"
posted by Andy Bochman at 1:46 PM
Lord Howell Sees Windmill Emperor Naked
That's right sports fans, looks like AEman's found himself a new hero, in none other than that folksy little UK brewpub, the House of Lords. Howell, a former energy minister, says that windmills, pretty though they may be, are a dangerous distraction, an ineffectual energy sink for would-be energy pro-activists that won't get us any fucking closer to getting off oil and coal than we are today.
His article today in the International Herald Tribune is called "Energy crunch: Windmills just won't get it done".
After reading it, AEman feels half chastened in his outright enthusiasm for Cape Wind and other wind stuff, and half boosted in his gut-level intuition that nuclear power is the only way to:
- Keep all the lights on
- Produce hydrogen to make cars go clean, and,
- Knock out greenhouse emissions
As 2004 rolls over into 2005, AEman will keep his eyes on all new forms of power. Even if Howell is right about wind turbines inability to solve a significant part of the overall problem, each one that gets built represents a move away from the dispicable status quo. As New Englanders know first hand, it takes a hell of a lot of "energy" to build support for an alternative approach. We'll continue to push for alternatives, but choosing wisely among those alternatives will become increasingly important.
posted by Andy Bochman at 8:59 PM
California goes to School on Deutschland , Sort of
German solar farm 
Germany is moving out on AE. With a mixture of incentives (that make building and using solar and wind power profitable) and fees (that make continuing reliance on gasoline and goal onerous, not to mention oderous), the country is being built out. Today 10% of Germany's power comes from renewables and it appears to be on track to hit 20% within a decade or two.
Twenty years ago California was the place AE workers outta be, but echoing the rest of the US, even the most progressive state has fallen way behind. Germany is now playing the role of California in Europe, and some Calfornians are looking there for lessons learned. Arnold seems sympathetic, but it's going to be tough taking Germany's model to California.
In Germany, it's not all AE roses by any means (see previous post on wind turbine issues). But this interplay between the European country with the biggest economy and the US state with the same, is certain to produce better and better models of how to grow AE up, out in the world and right here at home.
posted by Andy Bochman at 7:10 AM
Meanwhile, a Report from Germany Suggests Wind Blows
AEman readers have to know they'll get the bad news with the good when it comes to new power tech. It ain't all roses, that's for sure, especially when theory meets reality in the wild.
This sobering account, paraphrased from the Solar Austin AE group on Yahoo.
Germany has more wind power installed than any other country; half of Europe's capacity. The report seems to be unusual in making available information wind companies usually don't make public, and in pointing out some of the problems they are encountering. It is not clear how typical their experience is, and whether Germany is an unusual case. The core finding, however, is that when capacity and load factors are considered, the amount of electricity generated by wind and fed into the grid, averaged over a year, was a mere 16% of capacity. For half the year it averaged 11%, meaning that for several months it must have been even lower.
One of the most important implications may be rate at which average windmill capacity factors may fall as we move from the very best sites where mills have been established so far, to less ideal sites. If wind is to be a much larger contributor to the overall power mix then lots of new sites will have to be developed. It is important to ask to what extent using sub-optimal sites will lower the total system's average capacity.
One emerging paradox seems to be that adding wind power to a mixed generation power system can actually increase the need for fossil fuelled plants. This is because 100% reliable power generation is needed to substitute for wind plant when the winds are down.
posted by Andy Bochman at 7:43 PM
You've got that Lovins Feeling ...
NPR just did an hour-long show with Amory Lovins, founder of the AE-promoting Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI). The show was on Energy Independence, and also featured Leon Lederman, 1988 winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics, former director of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory and former President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and Paul Gompers, professor of business administration and director of research at Harvard Business School. It's worth a spin if you haven't heard Lovins yet. He's the main author of the brilliant Winning the Oil Endgame.
posted by Andy Bochman at 6:49 PM
Fly Me to the Moon
AEman, sometimes less than circumspect, says if you don't ready Tom Friedman these days, you've must be living on another fucking planet. Here's his column in the Dec 5 NY Times. My how it warms AEman's cockles. See what it does for yours:
Of all the irresponsible aspects of the 2005 budget bill that the Republican-led Congress just passed, nothing could be more irresponsible than the fact that funding for the National Science Foundation was cut by nearly 2 percent, or $105 million.
Think about this. We are facing a mounting crisis in science and engineering education. The generation of scientists, engineers and mathematicians who were spurred to get advanced degrees by the 1957 Soviet launch of Sputnik and the challenge by President John Kennedy to put a man on the moon is slowly retiring.
But because of the steady erosion of science, math and engineering education in U.S. high schools, our cold war generation of American scientists is not being fully replenished. We traditionally filled the gap with Indian, Chinese and other immigrant brainpower. But post-9/11, many of these foreign engineers are not coming here anymore, and, because the world is now flat and wired, many others can stay home and innovate without having to emigrate.
If we don't do something soon and dramatic to reverse this "erosion," Shirley Ann Jackson, the president of Rensselaer Polytechnic and president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, told me, we are not going to have the scientific foundation to sustain our high standard of living in 15 or 20 years.
Instead of doubling the N.S.F. budget - to support more science
education and research at every level - this Congress decided to cut it! Could anything be more idiotic? If President Bush is looking for a legacy, I have just the one for him - a national science project that would be our generation's moon shot: a crash science initiative for alternative energy and conservation to make America energy-independent in 10 years. Imagine if every American kid, in every school, were galvanized around such a vision. Ah, you say, nice idea, Friedman, but what does it have to do with your subject - foreign policy?
Everything! You give me an America that is energy-independent and I will give you sharply reduced oil revenues for the worst governments in the world. I will give you political reform from Moscow to Riyadh to Tehran. Yes, deprive these regimes of the huge oil windfalls on which they depend and you will force them to reform by having to tap their people instead of oil wells. These regimes won't change when we tell them they should. They will change only when they tell themselves they must.
When did the Soviet Union collapse? When did reform take off in Iran? When did the Oslo peace process begin? When did economic reform become a hot topic in the Arab world? In the late 1980's and early 1990's. And what was also happening then? Oil prices were collapsing. In November 1985, oil was $30 a barrel, recalled the noted oil economist Philip Verleger. By July of 1986, oil had fallen to $10 a barrel, and it did not climb back to $20 until April 1989. "Everyone thinks Ronald Reagan brought down the Soviets," said Mr. Verleger. "That is wrong. It was the collapse of their oil rents." It's no accident that the 1990's was the decade of falling oil prices and falling walls.
If President Bush made energy independence his moon shot, he would dry
up revenue for terrorism; force Iran, Russia, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia to take the path of reform - which they will never do with $45-a-barrel oil - strengthen the dollar; and improve his own standing in Europe, by doing something huge to reduce global warming. He would also create a magnet to inspire young people to contribute to the war on terrorism and America's future by becoming scientists, engineers and mathematicians. "This is not just a win-win," said the Johns Hopkins foreign policy expert Michael Mandelbaum. "This is a win-win-win-win-win."
Or, Mr. Bush can ignore this challenge and spend the next four years in an utterly futile effort to persuade Russia to be restrained, Saudi Arabia to be moderate, Iran to be cautious and Europe to be nice. Sure, it would require some sacrifice. But remember J.F.K.'s words when he summoned us to go to the moon on Sept. 12, 1962: "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because
they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to
win."
Summoning all our energies and skills to produce a 21st-century fuel is
George W. Bush's opportunity to be both Nixon to China and J.F.K. to the moon - in one move.
Holy Shit. Right On. Bulls Eye. Nuff Said.
posted by Andy Bochman at 10:16 AM
MIT Bellows "Cape Wind!"
AEman attended two hours-worth of last night's Army Corps of Engineers public hearing on the Cape Wind offshore wind turbine project. Many bulging brains were present and during their 2-minute presentations all ... and I do mean all ... voiced support for the project. It was splendid spectacle from an AE point of view, though the muckraker bastard in AEman nearly threw out an objection just to break up the love-fest flow a bit.
Many of the speakers were great, but in the interest of brevity, here's a note on one of them:
- A man from the DC-based African American Environmentalist Association (AAEA) pointed out, with no small amount of humor, that since the dawn of time, many pollution spewing power plants have been built smack dab in the middle of minority neigborhoods. Families raise their kids in the toxic clouds that envelop them, yet obviously, the communities don't have the financial or political clout to stop this phenomenon. Here comes a proposal to build a wind farm for the quiet, oderless, nearly invisible, pollution-free production of essential energy and guess what: a few (very) well heeled part-time residents have spent their asses off trying to block it. Judging by the public positions of Kennedy, Romney and other big pols, they have certainly made in impact and have succeeded in stalling it, forcing the developer to spend millions to defend against the attack. Millions which could have been spent on testing and implementation.
- He used a term familiar to some, but quite funny for first timers like AEman and most of the MIT crowd: BANANA NIMBY. NIMBY, of course, is the oft-cited "Not In My Back Yard". BANANA, however, is the 10 megaton grand-daddy of NIMBY, as in "Build Absolutely Nothing, Anywhere, Near Any-place." Way beyond luddite, it calls for the type of engineering productivity you would expect from a practicing Buddhist monk. Of course, it applies to some folks' position vs. Cape Wind and other wind farm and AE projects. AEman, thusly educated, will now in future posts wield this BANANA with mighty force to club sense into the fearful programmed masses.
posted by Andy Bochman at 10:20 AM
Dr. Dom on Gas Efficiency and Humans
The good doctor observes fuel efficiency graph in the previous AEmanic posting and articulates the following nugget of wisdom:
Hi AEman,
Just a quickie today. The graph you recently provided us with is of interest. Four of the 6 countries listed have very high gasoline prices to account for their improved mpg. China, however, has low prices. The reason mpg is improving there is that the government wants it to. How refreshing to have a system that that can do the right thing because it is the right thing.
--Dr. Dom
posted by Andy Bochman at 7:08 PM
Positive Energy in Bushdom?
From The Economist, 9 Dec 2004
The most recent article in The Economist to catch AEman's eye is called "Energy Policy and the Envronment: Heating up at Last?" It essentially pokes the Bush administration energy policy with a pointy stick, which has been lying face down in the dirt for some time now, to check for life signs. And sure enough, wouldn't you know it groaned and wheezed a bit. It didn't wail or shout, but it's not dead yet, Jim. Meanwhile, auto efficiency improvements do appear flatlined in the US vs. every other freak'in country in the world. Uncle Sam's cars are all but comotose. Wonder which Bible verse helps George splain the holy logic in that.
posted by Andy Bochman at 11:47 PM
Published just a few days ago, this 150 page report is intentionally apolitical. As the diverse panel says, they are "REJECTING MYTHS ON THE LEFT AND RIGHT". AEman finds AE getting shrift here, but otherwise generally likes their attempt to bolster fuel efficiency, energy security and greenhouse gas amelioration. Below find an excerpt from the executive summary.
Commissioners found ...
common ground in rejecting certain persistent myths —
on the left and on the right — that have often served to
polarize and paralyze the national energy debate. These
include, for example, the notion that energy
independence can be readily achieved through
conservation measures and renewable energy sources
alone, or that limiting greenhouse gas emissions is either
costless or so costly as to wreck the economy if it were
tried at all. Most of all, Commissioners rejected the
proposition that uncertainty justifies inaction in the face
of significant risks.
Given current trends, the consequences of
inaction are all too clear. Under business-as-usual
assumptions, the United States will consume 43 percent
more oil and emit 42 percent more greenhouse gas
emissions by 2025. At the global level, oil consumption
and emissions will grow 57 and 55 percent respectively
over the same timeframe2 and the Earth will be heading
rapidly — perhaps inexorably — past a doubling and
toward a tripling of atmospheric greenhouse gas
concentrations. In the Commission’s view, this is not a
scenario that should inspire complacency, nor is it
consistent with the goal of reducing the nation’s
exposure to potentially serious economic,
environmental, and security risks.
Ah yes, the polite and circumspect language of the bureaucrat, "not a scenario that should inspire complacency" = in regular folk vernacular: "Mayday! Mayday! Mayday! Iceberg ahead off the starboard bow. Initiate evasive maneuvers. Fire retro rockets!"
posted by Andy Bochman at 7:39 AM
AEman's agent writes the Army Corps of Engineers a note
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, I am neither Cape Cod dweller, energy magnate nor rabid environmentalist. I am a father of four cute, smart and wonderful children and we live just to the west of Boston. I am a business person, and, perhaps stereotypically, I most often make decisions using a cost-benefit analysis type approach. To me, while there are clearly competing interests here with no small amount of emotion in the mix, there's really only one clearly intelligent course of action. Here's my case, short if not sweet: It's well past time to act like responsible adults on energy. That means using the information available to us, which is most often incomplete, we chart a coherent course for the future - our own, our children's, and beyond. In a world with demonstrably finite and volatile oil reserves, with coal and oil-based power generation threatening the macro environment via global warming and more local negative health effects, it's time to begin charting a new course. The construction of Cape Wind is a locally significant and nationally symbolic sea change. Let's show the country, and more importantly, ourselves, that we're going to make sacrifices to begin putting our energy house in order. Cape Wind provides most of the energy Cape Cod needs on any given day without adding yet another CO2 belching coal or oil plant to the mix. While scientists and engineers keep the knowledge, politicians hold the power. You are a special intermediary organization that has clout with both parties. As such, we need your help. Please continue to support Cape Wind and other similar new energy projects based on the evidence you have already found and produced in your work on this project. Respectfully, Andrew A. Bochman
Sherborn, MA
andybochman@hotmail.com
781.962.6845
posted by Andy Bochman at 8:12 PM
According to Broecker, Kyoto will not Work
Professor Wallace Broecker of Columbia University has spoken out again, damn him. He's reminding world leaders (again) that Kyoto isn't going to cut the mustard. Why won't he just go away or study a different subject? His critique of Kyoto is that it sucks. It's a lame attempt to appear to be doing something to appease the masses. But by failing to bind CO2 emmissions from developing countries like China and India, who are each burning ever increasing metric shitloads of coal to drive their growth, any gains in the industrialized world will be for naught.
Of course, we don't have to worry about China and India offsetting progress in the US because we officially don't believe in CO2's link to global warming. According to Biblical science, the earth is only 9,000 or so years old and as it is, we're all going to be raptured or burning in hell soon enough, so screw it.
Clearly, Kyoto is for wimps. Broecker must be a Euro hugging tree kisser to say we need something substantially tougher if we're going to keep the ice caps intact, keep the oceans flowing the right way, and keep our climate and ocean levels in check. Is Broecker an alarmist or a smart guy sounding an alarm? ... an oft-repeated question on the AEman blog. We'd better figure it out and start acting fast if we want any kind of a say in the matter at all.
posted by Andy Bochman at 9:50 AM
Cape Wind Opponents put the Ass in Aesthetics
Word is the discussions at the Army Corps of Engineers public hearings are very polite. Isn't that sweet? While supporters list of compelling reasons is about a mile long, not the least of which are: regional economics, additional jobs, clean air, reducing dependance on middle east oil, etc., the detractors line up like modern day peaceniks missing only love beads and bongos. The war room cry they rally around seems to be "It's the aethestics, stupid."
Remember the Red-hot poker comment in a previous post? Along the lines of "politicians won't do the right thing on AE until red hot pokers of compelling reason are shoved up their asses." Well guess whose lining up for pokers on the Cape Wind project ... none other than the most priminent and powerful pols in Massachusetts: Attorney General Thomas Reilly, Governor Mitt Romney, Senator Ted Kennedy. Art history majors, all? Maybe Reilly was an interior decorator in his previous job ... Romney a landscape architect ... Kennedy a street performer? The poker thesis seems to have predictive power, does it not?
AEman proposes floating a coal plant on a barge in the same location for comparision. Or let's put the wind turbines or new coal plants in Dorchestor or Roxbury to not blight the eyes of the wealthy. What a bunch of assholes. And AEman is being polite.
posted by Andy Bochman at 6:59 AM
Shocking News Just In: US Car Makers as Brain Dead as Ever
The Union of Concerned Scientists (think: knit, deeply furrowed brows, pocket protectors, MIT) has just released their Automaker Rankings 2004: Environmental Performance report and guess which companies continue to suck the most? That's right! How did you know it was the US's Big Three? Psychic, huh? GM in fact, still the biggest (though slipping fast) has managed to get consistently worse since 1998. Way to leverage new technology, guys! These folks aren't just asleep at the AE, fuel economy, emissions wheel, they're asleep in the engine, in the wheels, in the exhaust system ... probably even asleep in the glove compartment.
Here's the UCS' surprisingly simple way of stating what's been going on:
Clear differences exist among the automakers when it comes to environmental
performance. Since our first automaker ranking report, for model year 1998
(MY98), a trend has emerged for the market leaders and laggards: Honda has
consistently remained at the top, representing the cleanest of the Big Six
automakers, while GM has consistently fallen in our rankings, from fourth place
in our first ranking to last place in 2003, the latest model year for which data
were publicly available. The difference between Honda and GM is most apparent in smog-forming pollution; Honda’s vehicles produce less than half the pollution of
the fleet average, while GM’s produce nearly a third more than the
average. AEman stresses the need to be realistic. GM wouldn't and couldn't do what it does unless it were rewarded for its behavior by many, many customers. Kind of like the exploding Pinto's, you know? Gonna lose some money in law suits but they'll make it up on volume, especially when the cars only cost about $79.95 to make. It's plain embarrassing, isn't it? Well, if you can't teach this old dog new tricks, it's probably time to get a new dog. Here Rover, Fido, Spot.
posted by Andy Bochman at 9:47 PM
Excerpt from "Oil Price Trends Through 2004 – 2010"
Respected energy analyst Andrew McKillop just published an oil price update on EnergyPulse. Here is the money quote:
Under any scenario, the basic need is for higher and less volatile oil and energy
prices, accompanying serious and committed energy conservation, transition to
renewable energy and restructuring for a low energy economy, habitat and society. This will be forced on energy consumers worldwide through increasing annual depletion losses, and slower additions of net supply, firstly for oil (around 2008) and then for natural gas (at latest by the 2015-2018 period). However, at present, energy transition is discarded as utopian and unworkable by current political decision-makers. Essentially echoing Dr. Dom's guidance in the previous post. The current politicians in the current short-term reward system will not make the right moves. While true, this is not at all acceptable. Hmm, there's the rub.
posted by Andy Bochman at 10:20 PM
How you Gonna Pay for all this AE Goodness, AEboy?
You know, for all of AEman’s enthusiasm about what’s happening in the power tech space, one simple fact needs airing:
We don’t need ANY tech breakthroughs at all to effect radical economic, goeopolitical and environmental improvement. As you’ll see, AEman’s special guest commentator Dr. Dom doesn’t mince words:
Here it is ... it's all about politics. Never mind technology, money, research, that's all bullshit. In late 2004, we have all the solutions we need to solve our energy and environmental problems. It happens to be very simple. All we need is politicians who have the guts to make decisions that may be "offensive" to some special interest groups.
In one sense, it's relatively easy …. First as you have said, AEman, we need to eliminate all oil powered power plants and replace them with modern, safe nuclear plants. Also, all outdated coal plants would also be replaced by new nukes. Remaining high emissions coal plants would be retrofitted to reduce emissions, especially CO2.
In parallel with the above, we would begin replacing passenger cars and light trucks with hybrid vehicles that get at least 40 mpg. The government would offer cash rebates to purchasers of these vehicles. Phased in over ten years, auto manufacturers would be required to produce only passenger vehicles and light trucks that get at least 32 mpg.
Now how do we pay for all this? Three easy pieces: - A Federal gasoline tax increase of of $1 per gallon.
- A 10 percent fed tax on all vehicles that get less than 32 mpg.
- Elimination of all Federal subsidies and grants for alternative energy research.
While point three may seem counterproductive at first, that money would be better put into private programs to implement, not research alternative energy. If there is potential profit from any research program, the private sector will suck it up. There it is, but guess what, you can’t have it. Not unless we place term limits on politicians and completely eliminate lobbyists from capitol hill. This will be the topic of another letter. -- Dr. Dom
Rock on, good doctor.
posted by Andy Bochman at 6:32 PM
The Happy Hybrid
Summary - Hybrid gasoline vehicles and new-design nuclear plants, lots of them, are the short term answer. They buy time for the better longer term combo’s while immediately boosting supply, cutting oil consumption, reducing oil and coal pollution and overall knocking down greenhouse gases. If this approach offends thine eye, then pluck it out. Let’s go.
The two chewiest energy problems, right? Light vehicle transportation sector stuff and power generation for homes and businesses. Fragen 1: how to get to clean and sustainable versions of power for both. Fragen 2: How to get the biggest bang for the buck in both for both the short term and the longer term.
In the utopian future, thousand foot, invisible (via Romulan cloaking devices so as to not offend the advanced aesthetic sensibilities of cultured citizenry and governors) wind and water turbines and super-efficient citrus-scented solar cells generate the electricity and make the hydrogen generation for the transportation sector. Sweet. But there are miles to go before we get within spitting distance of anything like that. So ...
Short Term
Cars and Light Trucks - If you don’t know it already, hybrid cars are here and they are coming out in enough different shapes and sizes that most drivers can find one that suites their needs (see the past couple of posts for more hybrid car info). Increasingly, too, they are being produced in enough volume that you won’t have to wait a year to drive one off the lot. They don’t require special fuel and they don’t need to be plugged in. Stated plainly, there’s nothing wrong with them. All cars and light trucks should be thusly equipped. Sure, they still burn gasoline and emit CO2, but in much smaller amounts than conventional light vehicles. What about hydrogen n the short term? Well, today, infrastructure issues aside, the easiet way to make hydrogen is from natural gas. AEman says don’t bother burning carbon fuels to make hydrogen for cars as some suggest … what’s the freakin’ point of that? Sustainable clean sources (e.g., solar, wind and water turbines) will not be able to generate nearly enough H2 any time soon so let’s make the most of hybrids on gas.
Power for Homes/Biz - Today it’s coal, oil, gas and nuclear in the U.S. The first two create lots of greenhouse gases, while the second two are comparatively “clean”. However, oil and gas are demonstrably finite resources and are subject to significant price volatility. The current nuke plants are inefficient and far more dangerous and expensive to run than they need to be. AEman suggests, short term, a wave of new-design nuclear reactors to retire the aging nukes as well as all coal and oil burning plants. While these new reactors are an excellent way to generate H2 for early H2 cars, there’s just way too much home/biz demand for this power to go anywhere but towards supplementing, then replacing, coal, oil and aging nuke power plants. The objective here is to buy time for the maturation and wide deployment of truly sustainable clean power sources a.k.a. turbines and solar. Hmm, understand the quibble with “short term” on this, but the point is this is work we could/should embark on NOW. The tech is there, the economics are there, only the politics are not; that’s where you come in.
Long Term
Cars and Light Trucks – Don’t undo hybrids; rather, take advantage of the smaller The “engines” required to broadly introduce H2 fuel cells faster than would otherwise be required. Where does the H2 come from? See next.
Power for Homes/Biz – The longer term wave would have Pebble or similar reactors phased out by turbines and solar. In utopia, turbines and solar create both electricity for direct delivery to commercial/residential power and H2 for use the transportation sector above as well as point-of-use power generation in residential fuel cells.
posted by Andy Bochman at 9:13 AM
|
