YJay Draiman, Energy Consultant says:
Energy Policy
June 24th,
U.S. Energy Policy, as it stands today, is broken because it is not sustainable in the long term, and provides far too little foresight to ever become sustainable. A lot of people agree, but they are split into groups that prevent enough action from being taken. The largest group agrees with the problem, but is concerned that the necessary action will disrupt their lives through economic impacts. This is understandable, since it’s true, but the disruption is exaggerated due to factors of uncertainty.
June 24th,
U.S. Energy Policy, as it stands today, is broken because it is not sustainable in the long term, and provides far too little foresight to ever become sustainable. A lot of people agree, but they are split into groups that prevent enough action from being taken. The largest group agrees with the problem, but is concerned that the necessary action will disrupt their lives through economic impacts. This is understandable, since it’s true, but the disruption is exaggerated due to factors of uncertainty.
Another group would advocate every possible action, all at once. While their concern is justifiable, the view is not realistic. It might be economically feasible to enact all or most of those changes at once, but it would require sacrifices beyond what the public will support. I doubt most people in this group believe they’re unreasonable because they rarely put all those actions together into one set. But if you ask them about any specific action, their response will undoubtedly be right here, right now. There is ground between these two groups, but it’s relatively unpopulated.
There are also people who stubbornly believe that because the current system is functioning today it’s not broken. Only when they can divide the other two groups, as they have done, do these people have power. In order to maintain the confidence of the pragmatic first group, there needs to be a plan stating what’s in, what’s out, and when. Today, it seems, we leave this up to our elected officials to create through compromises. This is a mistake as these efforts become heavily influenced by powerful interests. This prevents the taking of enough action to produce a sustainable plan.
If, however, a plan had solid support from pragmatists and idealists, it could deliver a message strong enough and clear enough that our elected officials would not need to make compromises with those hostile influences. While I hardly consider myself qualified to draft such a plan, I did think I’d try and write something up that might at least be heading in the right direction.
The energy situation in the U.S.
Oil and Vehicles
The current situation with oil is orders of magnitude larger than we can sustain long term. In fact, due to worldwide consumption our long term plans should not be to reduce petroleum consumption, but to almost entirely eliminate it. There is, however, no short term method to entirely eliminate oil consumption compatible with the technological, economic and political limitations of today. However, there are still short term motivations for reducing petroleum consumption and methods available to accomplish this less ambitious goal.
The current situation with oil is orders of magnitude larger than we can sustain long term. In fact, due to worldwide consumption our long term plans should not be to reduce petroleum consumption, but to almost entirely eliminate it. There is, however, no short term method to entirely eliminate oil consumption compatible with the technological, economic and political limitations of today. However, there are still short term motivations for reducing petroleum consumption and methods available to accomplish this less ambitious goal.
Ethanol
Short term considerations are why I support ethanol usage. In the long term there are more efficient means of powering transportation devices, but presently we have a very large quantity of cars designed to run on gasoline. Likely, these cars will be on the road for another 10 to 20 years, and will not be retrofitted to be more efficient. However, ethanol can reduce the gasoline consumption of these vehicles by 10 to 15 percent when used as an additive to gasoline. This is a tried and tested practice, yet of the 140 billion barrels of gasoline consumed in 2006, less than 3.8 billion gallons of ethanol were used. That comes out to about 2.7%.
Short term considerations are why I support ethanol usage. In the long term there are more efficient means of powering transportation devices, but presently we have a very large quantity of cars designed to run on gasoline. Likely, these cars will be on the road for another 10 to 20 years, and will not be retrofitted to be more efficient. However, ethanol can reduce the gasoline consumption of these vehicles by 10 to 15 percent when used as an additive to gasoline. This is a tried and tested practice, yet of the 140 billion barrels of gasoline consumed in 2006, less than 3.8 billion gallons of ethanol were used. That comes out to about 2.7%.
Even if today’s cars could use 100% ethanol, it would be difficult to produce that much ethanol. However producing 14-20 billion barrels of ethanol yearly is possible. That won’t solve all the problems but it will reduce pollution and reduce dependence on the volatile world producers of oil for the next 20-30 years that gasoline only vehicles remain in service.
People often put down ethanol by pointing out the factors that make it unsuitable as a long term fix. They’ll point out the difficulties of producing enough ethanol to meet the national demand, much less the international demand. They’ll point out the stress that diverting farmland toward the production of ethanol producing crops will place upon food supplies. These are valid points, but not when applied to a much less aggressive goal of 100% E10 (a mix of 10% ethanol, 90% gasoline) usage. The US
Another argument against ethanol is the erroneous claim that ethanol requires more energy to produce than it generates. This claim is untrue and is based upon old surveys of facilities using old methods and not benefiting from economies of scale. Admittedly the raw number of a 10% positive gain is marginal, but this number is not a fair comparison. The production of ethanol produces byproducts which, if not producing ethanol, would directly consume production energy. Also, the production of gasoline itself requires the use of energy.
Also, ethanol use in E10 has energy benefits beyond the pure energy value of the ethanol added. E10 burns cleaner and more completely than regular gasoline because ethanol enhances the octane of fuel. The result is burning 10 gallons of E10 produces more energy than burning 1 gallons of ethanol and 9 gallons of gasoline separately. Fuels like E85 don’t have this advantage, but E10 does. Lastly, energy input is not the same as petroleum consumption. Ethanol production (and use) consumes a great deal less petroleum (or petroleum substitute) than the use (and production) of petroleum.
In terms of energy production per acre, ethanol will never come close to the efficiency of solar power, but that’s not the point because we have no method to directly power the cars already in service through solar power and almost certainly do not have the political will to gather up all the existing cars and replace or retrofit them. The purpose of batteries or hydrogen is not the production of power, but as a vehicular energy delivery device. Ethanol is less efficient than solar as a renewable energy source and less efficient than batteries and hydrogen as a vehicular energy delivery device, but it does have the advantage of doing both in a way that is compatible with today’s vehicles.
Electric
In the long term the gasoline powered car must be replaced, and we need to start the process today, or very soon. The best long term replacements are electric powered cars because they are readily adaptable to whatever clean power generation technology we employ in the future. Electric cars have challenges, such as range for which technological solutions need to continue being pursued. Despite these challenges, it is entirely possible to build electric cars today that meet the needs of many. It is also possible to enhance the support infrastructure to mitigate the impact of these challenges. The car linked above can be charged in 10 minutes through an off board charger, which if as ubiquitous as gas stations would make the charge process almost the same as a fill up. Or, battery packs could just be swapped out for fully charged packs if that infrastructure existed.
In the long term the gasoline powered car must be replaced, and we need to start the process today, or very soon. The best long term replacements are electric powered cars because they are readily adaptable to whatever clean power generation technology we employ in the future. Electric cars have challenges, such as range for which technological solutions need to continue being pursued. Despite these challenges, it is entirely possible to build electric cars today that meet the needs of many. It is also possible to enhance the support infrastructure to mitigate the impact of these challenges. The car linked above can be charged in 10 minutes through an off board charger, which if as ubiquitous as gas stations would make the charge process almost the same as a fill up. Or, battery packs could just be swapped out for fully charged packs if that infrastructure existed.
It would be nice to steer consumers toward electric cars today, but public sentiment is not yet mature enough for this step. What we can do is to take the early adopter edge off the technology through incentives to consumers, manufacturers and researchers. In addition we can place more research money into the challenging areas in the hope that solutions will develop to mitigate the remaining consumer objections, or at least broaden the customer base.
Efficiency
Beyond the question of what powers a vehicle, there is the question of efficiency. For conventional car engines the efficiency of converting gasoline into mechanical energy varies substantially. Beyond this, the weight, and thus amount of mechanical energy required to move different vehicles varies dramatically. The result is that some vehicles have mileage ratings of 10mpg and others have ratings of 60mpg. The 60mpg vehicles are not generally impractical, or even expensive, yet quite often the small differences in practicality or price, or other even less important characteristics cause consumers to purchase the 10mpg vehicle instead.
Beyond the question of what powers a vehicle, there is the question of efficiency. For conventional car engines the efficiency of converting gasoline into mechanical energy varies substantially. Beyond this, the weight, and thus amount of mechanical energy required to move different vehicles varies dramatically. The result is that some vehicles have mileage ratings of 10mpg and others have ratings of 60mpg. The 60mpg vehicles are not generally impractical, or even expensive, yet quite often the small differences in practicality or price, or other even less important characteristics cause consumers to purchase the 10mpg vehicle instead.
The problem is not what can we do, but what are we doing? It’s not just the choice of vehicle; many other decisions result in less efficient energy use. Buying a home an extra 10, 20 or 30 miles away from your job, to get an extra 100sq ft; or avoiding public transportation, because it makes you feel safer. Driving a car most definitely is not safer, by the way, but the perception is that it is.
While not all such decisions are so illogical, usually there are at least some advantages, from the point of view of those making them, that encourage them to consume more energy and create pollution. Personally, I’m not sure they’re worth what others think, but if they really are, they’ll withstand an increase in gas prices. But if they aren’t, an increase in gas prices will show they aren’t even worth an extra $500 per year, per person. If they aren’t worth an extra $500 per year, how can they be worth the destruction of our planet?
The simplest way to address all the decisions that result in inefficient usage of gasoline is to raise the price. The economy demonstrated last year that despite all of the gloom and doom, it can handle $3.50 gas. To encourage consumer driven change I feel we ought to institute a much larger federal gasoline tax. I’m not sure of the exact amount, but my general feeling is a $1.00 increase to $1.50 per gallon.
Consumer driven change is critical to both short term and long term change, and is the only method by which to cause short term change.
For long term change it’s also important to invest heavily in research, but it’s important to remember that additional capabilities developed through research will always still require adoption. Without consumer demand for efficiency improvements, not only does all research need to be centrally funded by the government, which is inefficient, but it often goes to waste as business continues as normal.
Hydrogen
The purpose of hydrogen is often confused. Hydrogen is better compared to battery technology than to gasoline or ethanol. Though often not employed today, hydrogen production is possible with just water and energy. Hydrogen has long term promise since it is not dependent on limited resources of petroleum or farmland. The energy for hydrogen production could come from the same sources as electric power for batteries.
The purpose of hydrogen is often confused. Hydrogen is better compared to battery technology than to gasoline or ethanol. Though often not employed today, hydrogen production is possible with just water and energy. Hydrogen has long term promise since it is not dependent on limited resources of petroleum or farmland. The energy for hydrogen production could come from the same sources as electric power for batteries.
Also, like electric cars, hydrogen requires a completely new vehicle. The engine has more similarities to a gasoline engine than an electric engine, but this has little real world value as it still requires a new car.
As far as cars go, I don’t think hydrogen is as promising as batteries, but that’s only a guess since it’s really all a numbers game, and the numbers aren’t yet written in stone. Even the numbers we have so far are very confusing. Batteries are supposedly somewhere around 90% efficient as short term storage devices energy drawn from the power grid. Hydrogen is 40% efficient for this same purpose. However, over long periods of time, hydrogen is more stable, and economic. This advantage may have validity in some applications (such as remote areas that aren’t connected to a power grid), but it isn’t exceptionally pertinent to vehicles.
Therefore, while hydrogen research is important, I’d prefer adoption to head toward the electric car, which has a simpler and more efficient support infrastructure.
Electricity
As visible as cars are, they still account for less than 20% of U.S energy consumption (61% of transportation’s 28%). You could fairly add another 5% to that to account for the energy spent on petroleum refining, but still, there is more than 75% left.
As visible as cars are, they still account for less than 20% of U.S energy consumption (61% of transportation’s 28%). You could fairly add another 5% to that to account for the energy spent on petroleum refining, but still, there is more than 75% left.
Conservation
After cars, the largest use of energy is in heating and air conditioning. Better insulation and personal conservation (running air conditioning at 72 rather than 68) can help, but the real culprit for the rise in use in this sector is the increase in average home size. While I feel the obsession with bigger and bigger homes is lamentable, it’s not something I’ve really put much thought into preventing. For one, I think the vast majority of people have no problem with this trend, and as such there is likely to be little public support for it. Secondly, in the area of electricity I feel a more important goal is in the pursuit of sustainable clean method of production.
After cars, the largest use of energy is in heating and air conditioning. Better insulation and personal conservation (running air conditioning at 72 rather than 68) can help, but the real culprit for the rise in use in this sector is the increase in average home size. While I feel the obsession with bigger and bigger homes is lamentable, it’s not something I’ve really put much thought into preventing. For one, I think the vast majority of people have no problem with this trend, and as such there is likely to be little public support for it. Secondly, in the area of electricity I feel a more important goal is in the pursuit of sustainable clean method of production.
Production
Today, theU.S.
Today, the
Solar power in the long term is probably our most solid hope. With the exception of nuclear, all other power sources are really just a byproduct of solar energy. Wind and weather is a result of the solar energy heating our atmosphere, our oceans and our land. Virtually everything else that affects weather is merely a conduit or resistive force that shapes, rather than creates weather. Petroleum products are the decayed remains of animals which ate plants which gained their energy from the sun. So why not just go to the source?
Even in the short term solar power is very attractive, but wind is very attractive as well. Hydroelectric power has proven to be fairly economic, but the good opportunities are mostly already in use, leaving fewer opportunities for improvement.
Also, in the short term, cleaning up the existing infrastructure of mostly coal burning power plants is important.
Accounting
Amazingly, one of the largest obstacles to renewable electricity generation is accounting. The most visible example of this is consumer credits for excess power from sources like rooftop solar panels. Even among and inside power companies however there are sometimes issues. I’ve heard of wind turbines being stopped because the billable price to the power company was higher than non-renewable sources. Power companies also worry a great deal about the impact on profitability of existing power plants if demand for their services becomes more variable due to variations in sources like solar or wind.
Amazingly, one of the largest obstacles to renewable electricity generation is accounting. The most visible example of this is consumer credits for excess power from sources like rooftop solar panels. Even among and inside power companies however there are sometimes issues. I’ve heard of wind turbines being stopped because the billable price to the power company was higher than non-renewable sources. Power companies also worry a great deal about the impact on profitability of existing power plants if demand for their services becomes more variable due to variations in sources like solar or wind.
All of these problems are solvable. For each megawatt a coal, oil, natural gas or biomass power plant operates below capacity for which they produce a matching megawatt of clean renewable power positive variation, electric companies should receive a credit. Pricing and accounting practices should insure that the billable price for no production cost clean renewable power sources always remains 5% below the next lowest price. If necessary, credits should also be given to the producers to insure these pricing practices don’t ruin the economics of clean power generation. For each kilowatt of excess clean renewable power a consumer produces, electric companies should pay them market rates. In addition the consumer and electric company should receive credits to insure that it never is in an electric company’s best interest to discourage consumer production.
Credits for these policies could come from traditional local, state and federal taxes, but it would be most logical to instead tax the power producers, and distribute the credits from this pool. This will keep average prices relatively unchanged because credits and taxes will cancel each other out, but the internal economics will shift to insure that accounting practices are never the obstacle.
Conclusions
To sum up, here is a list of actions I would like to see taken:
To sum up, here is a list of actions I would like to see taken:
Target 100% replacement of pure gasoline with E10 in all US
100% sales tax rebate for electric cars from local and state governments.
Free vehicle registration for electric cars from local and state governments.
Federal tax incentive, similar to the fuel cell credit, for electric cars. For cars this would be a $12,000 tax credit. Electric is better than hydrogen, so reward it as well or better.
The subsidization of construction and maintenance of electric charging stations, especially in urban environments and along interstate highway routes.
Increase federal gas tax to $1.50 per gallon to target a price of at least $3.50 per gallon.
Rewrite the CAFE regulations to average efficiency ratings based upon gallons per mile, rather than miles per gallon.
Raise CAFE standards to 5% per year as per ACEEE recommendation. Under gpkm (gallons per thousand miles) ratings this would target 23.4 gpkm (42.6 mpg) for cars, and 27.4 gpkm (36.5 mpg) for light trucks.
Include large SUVs in CAFE regulations. Use a 2008 target of 20mpg, rising to 30.7 gpkm (32.6 mpg)
Consider consolidating CAFE classes should be one class fits all.
Dramatically increase research funding for the key technologies of Solar Cells and Electric Vehicles. Continue or increase funding for Ethanol Production, Wind Power, Hydrogen Production and Nuclear Power.
Increase incentives for construction of Solar and Wind Power Generation facilities.
Reform consumer and producer excess capacity accounting practices to insure economic viability of both clean renewable power and less consistent and lower usage of existing power plants.
Continue to encourage existing power generation plants to modernize their clean up processes. I realize the importance of this, but unfortunately I don’t know enough about the current day laws to say whether we’re doing a good or bad job, and if bad, how to appropriately improve it.
If all of these actions were taken, there would be certain other initiatives I’d be willing to sacrifice:
There is not a strong need for E85 development or infrastructure. As long as battery development is vigorously pursued, and E10 universally replaces non-reformulated gasoline, E85 conversions would be unnecessary. I wouldn’t take any action to discourage E85 development, but I wouldn’t press for any action to be taken to encourage it either.100% sales tax rebate for electric cars from local and state governments.
Free vehicle registration for electric cars from local and state governments.
Federal tax incentive, similar to the fuel cell credit, for electric cars. For cars this would be a $12,000 tax credit. Electric is better than hydrogen, so reward it as well or better.
The subsidization of construction and maintenance of electric charging stations, especially in urban environments and along interstate highway routes.
Increase federal gas tax to $1.50 per gallon to target a price of at least $3.50 per gallon.
Rewrite the CAFE regulations to average efficiency ratings based upon gallons per mile, rather than miles per gallon.
Raise CAFE standards to 5% per year as per ACEEE recommendation. Under gpkm (gallons per thousand miles) ratings this would target 23.4 gpkm (42.6 mpg) for cars, and 27.4 gpkm (36.5 mpg) for light trucks.
Include large SUVs in CAFE regulations. Use a 2008 target of 20mpg, rising to 30.7 gpkm (32.6 mpg)
Consider consolidating CAFE classes should be one class fits all.
Dramatically increase research funding for the key technologies of Solar Cells and Electric Vehicles. Continue or increase funding for Ethanol Production, Wind Power, Hydrogen Production and Nuclear Power.
Increase incentives for construction of Solar and Wind Power Generation facilities.
Reform consumer and producer excess capacity accounting practices to insure economic viability of both clean renewable power and less consistent and lower usage of existing power plants.
Continue to encourage existing power generation plants to modernize their clean up processes. I realize the importance of this, but unfortunately I don’t know enough about the current day laws to say whether we’re doing a good or bad job, and if bad, how to appropriately improve it.
If all of these actions were taken, there would be certain other initiatives I’d be willing to sacrifice:
The development of a hydrogen infrastructure likewise feels unnecessary, although more promising than E85.
Other than the gas tax, which might reduce suburban sprawl as a side effect, I would leave the concerns of
In the short term, I’m not very concerned with whether solar power utilizes some harmful chemicals. The benefit of reducing demand for other types of power, in the short term outweighs those concerns. I’m not saying anything goes, but if the chemicals are only as bad as what goes into gasoline, at it significantly lowers the cost of solar power, that’s a reasonable sacrifice. There will always be environmental impacts to any development. If an initiative saves 5 environmental dollars, but costs 1, it’s a good thing.
Other than the gas tax, which might convince some people to retire some of the most harmful vehicles a bit earlier, it wouldn’t be appropriate to force vehicles to be replaced. If progress is made in the types of new vehicles purchased soon, then this won’t be necessary.
Forcing existing power plants to close is not possible, nor desirable. Reducing their overall usage, and insuring that sufficient new clean capacity is created to reduce the need for new coal, oil or natural gas plants should be the short and midterm goal. With sufficient clean capacity and proper accounting practices existing plants will eventually close without being forced to do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment