Archives

America is too reliant on fossil fuel and our security depends on finding a new path. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16288772/site/newsweek/)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/Solar_Panels_on_home_roof.jpgSamuel W. Bodman – Newsweek – Dec. 23, 2006

Solar power: Another technology we had better consider.

Issues 2007 - If we look at the global energy picture today, the challenges America faces are startling. Demand is rising rapidly and will continue to do so. And it's clear that our world is overly dependent on one source of energy: fossil fuels. For a host of reasons—related to our economic health, our environmental well-being and our national security—our current path is unsustainable. We need a safe, clean, affordable, diverse energy supply. Here are 10 ways to get there.

Develop cellulosic ethanol. Producing ethanol from cellulosic biomass—like perennial grasses and wood chips—offers a tremendous opportunity to expand our homegrown fuel supply in an environmentally sustainable way. Life-cycle analyses at Argonne National Laboratory have shown that CO2 emissions from cellulosic ethanol are 85 percent lower than those from gasoline. The Advanced Energy Initiative, which includes significant increases for federal funding of science and engineering, will enable this and other alternative-energy research.

Harness the power of nature. To exploit the energy potential of the sun and wind, we must advance the study of high-efficiency wind power and solar photovoltaics. If we can make solar power cost-competitive, by 2015 it could provide enough electricity to power more than 1 million American homes.

Build a hydrogen economy. Accelerating the development of hydrogen fuel cells and the infrastructure needed for hydrogen production, delivery and storage should be a national priority. Hydrogen could fundamentally change the transportation sector in this country and around the world, but more work is needed.

Power up the hybrids. Alternative vehicles—like hybrids, clean diesels and flex-fuel cars—offer a near-term way to reduce oil consumption and better our environment. Among other things, we must increase the efficiency of batteries for hybrids and encourage more Americans to purchase these vehicles; current tax credits can be worth as much as $3,400.

Use our own natural resources. Any transition to alternative energy will not happen overnight. To decrease our reliance on foreign suppliers of fossil fuels, we should increase our domestic production in an environmentally responsible way. This means further exploring our own oil and gas reserves, especially in parts of the outer continental shelf.

Clean up coal. Along the same lines, we must develop ways to burn coal—our nation's most abundant fossil fuel—more cleanly. This is a necessity for other countries as well, especially China. The United States is leading the way through FutureGen, a $1 billion international collaboration to develop a zero-emissions coal-fired plant by 2012 that will combine the latest technology in electricity generation, hydrogen production and carbon-dioxide capture and storage.

Get real about nuclear power. If we are to truly reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, we should look seriously at this paradox: Right now, nuclear power is the only mature technology with significant potential to supply large amounts of emissions-free base-load power. And we have not licensed a new nuclear plant in this country in more than 30 years. That must change, period.

Get real about nuclear waste. We can expand the use of nuclear power only if we deal with the storage of spent fuel. The safest, most effective way to store spent fuel is in a permanent geologic repository at Yucca Mountain (located in the Nevada desert). This project has been under development for 20 years, and we need legislative action to move it to completion.

Modernize our power grid. As the Northeast blackout of 2003 demonstrated, our electricity grid is badly in need of an upgrade. We have made progress on modernization: repealing outdated rules that discourage investment; offering tax incentives for new transmission construction; developing technologies—like high-temperature superconducting materials—to improve the grid's efficiency and reliability. More needs to be done, quickly.

Conserve. The largest source of immediately available "new" energy is the energy we waste. Everyone—individuals, families, businesses, government agencies—can do more to conserve. You can learn more at energysavers.gov.

To achieve all this, we need forward-looking leadership and strong financial commitments in the public and private sectors; congressional action; and the hard work of our scientists and engineers. And we need the commitment of the American people to achieve together what none of us can do alone.

Thank you for posting that, Wayne. Except that I often get a little depressed when I read articles like that because I know that the people reading those articles are not the people who need to read those articles. Likewise, the people who need to read those things, don't.

All the same, I've burned it to PDF and will email it to some people I know. With luck, they will prove me wrong.

Very well balanced and thoughtful article.

Still touting hydrogen for vehicle use, though. One thing I
learned at altwheels was that *local* stationary generation, storage,
and use of H2 is about the only way fuel cells have any real hope of
practicality. Which is exactly how they could be used to charge
transferable vehicle batteries in bulk...
.
_H*

Hi All:

___Although on paper, this list looks well and good (except the H2 non-sense Hobbit ;)) I took from this news item an entirely different feeling. Bodman is the head of the DOE and has supported “Bush” Energy policies hook line and sinker. When I saw the H2 section, I knew there was another few Billion $’s thrown down a rat hole. If Bodman was really serious, he would direct the DOE in such a way to produce tangible results. As of today, the US Governments maybe .5 Billion $’s contribution to the United States Advanced Battery Consortium (USABC) since 1991 has given us absolutely “NOTHING” to show for it. The Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) spent yet another 1.5 Billion $’ with again, “NOTHING” to show for it. Now we have George W. Bush’s pet Freedom Car project with a $2.5 Billion appropriation focusing on H2 that has so far produced “NOTHING” but another total waste of my tax payer $’s. All the while we are growing even more oil dependant and CO2 emissions are becoming the three headed monster most now know we will have to face. It is 55 degrees in Chicago on this New Years Eve day and the winter so far has been the mildest I have known in my life. I have mentioned many times in the past how the winter snow line has receded from central Wisconsin (what snow line in central Wisconsin?) and yet all we have is talk talk talk … Do you think someone at the top is getting this yet? MIT’s Sloan center as well as the A123 Systems spinoff, Altair Nano, EVermont, Hymotion, Energy CS, and CalCars should be receiving a lot more of these $’s yet the US Labs appear to be focused on tearing apart Japanese designs to see how they work instead of creating the next generation breakthroughs we are going to need to move forward as a society and a planet.

___If any of the US Lab’s members read this, please respond in kind and blast my own thoughts piece by piece to at least give all of us hope :(

___Good Luck

___Wayne

It went from near coldest temps in 2000 http://www.sws.uiuc.edu/hilites/wx/coldwx122800.asp to record warmth in only 6 years. Bush sure has been busy ;)

My question is, why isn't private industry doing anything about it. There sure is a profit to be made by someone that has a solution when everyone else is just starting to think there is a problem.

A reliance on government is a big mistake. ALL politicians have their own agenda. If something is good for the country, but bad for their state then they are going to block what ever legislation goes past their desk.

Places like Terrapass and others that raise money and contribute to projects to reduce global warming are where we have to look for solutions.

Hi Tom:

___Something like 7 of the past 10 years have been the warmest in recorded history. I have seen a few Billion of my $’s spent on nothing as described above. Bush has only mentioned our “Addiction to oil” once but has touted the H2 economy tens if not hundreds of times. Do you know who signed the FreedomCar non-sense into law and kicked the PNGV program into the garbage heap? We should rely on private industry but there is no incentive for them to move to low GHG emissions production right now. Bring in Carbon Credits and you might see those 10 Coal plants in Texas head towards a CO2 sequestration program themselves. Do nothing as is the case in “TEXAS” and you have a few million tons of CO2 emitted per year once complete. What is the difference between a 55 degree New Years Eve in Chicago vs. a 35 degree one? WooHoo, it is great to have these kinds of temps this time of year. And what about all those glaciers and Ice pack over Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctica? To bad for them I guess. I hope you get a chance to visit Glacier National Park before it is completely gone. My parents where there this past summer and they were aghast at how little ice was left.

___Where does Leadership in Washington come from, The House? The Senate? The Supreme Court? No, it is the president and he has all but paid lip service to this problem. Until the president comes around and starts pushing a low Carbon emissions and less oil dependence agenda/platform, we only have states like the CA. doing the bull work. Guess what Bush’s clones are doing to that lawsuit right now?

___I spoke with Bradlee Fon’s this evening about this same issue. He has been living on a Lake in Pewaukee, WI. for over 30 years. This is the first year of those 30 that his Lake has not been completely frozen over at New Years. First time 30 years! What does that say about Global Warming.

___It is real alright and we need hybrid car incentives, Carbon Sequestration incentives and tax credits/penalties placed where they will do the most good vs. the BS $100K H2 tax write off in a single year crap that is available now due to the Bush Whitehouse promoting such non-sense.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Last I checked California was not the poster child on how to handle energy. Sure, they have done a good job at requiring cleaner cars. But how much money is being wasted on a lawsuit that has no chance of winning.

I do hold it against Bush that he hasn't gone after the environment and oil dependency as much as he went after tax relief and terrorism. But even if he is misguided on H2, at least he feels he has to do something.

BTW, this whole H2 thing is likely promoted for selfish reasons. I'm thinking these guys promoting it want to lead us in that direction for some reason. These guys at the top don't operate independently. They are leading us toward H2 for a reason and thats just the way it is. To try to fight it at the top isn't going to work. Like I said before, we need to fight it in the private sector.

There are a lot of people that think along the same lines as a lot of us, we have to support them and become soldiers and fight to educate and convince others and not try to fight those at the top. Most revolutions (and thats what energy independence and environmental responsibility requires) are fought by individuals, not by generals.

The article seemed to make plenty of common sense. I don't have that big a problem with hydrogen research over the long term, but GM and the Federal Goverment's involvement (?) does not look serious. We should not be looking at H2 as a solution in the next 10 years, but I would not dismiss them in the 30-50 year range.

I see the heart of the problem a lack of conviction at the grass roots level that something needs to be done. We see people daily that obviously think fossil fuel will be both cheap and a non-factor in climate change - they don't think (or care) there is a problem. The first step is the general public to think of this as seriously as past generations took The Great Depression, World War II, The Cold War.

The next step is lifestyle changes that practice conservation. I don't really see serious personal sacrifice involved at this point - just avoiding waste.

One of my themes is if the public is serious, they can compel business and government to take action. Detroit is very reluctant to cut back on the production of gas guzzlers because the public still wants them. Government is not requiring significantly increased fuel economy because the public is not insisting on it. Imagine if you will a mandate approaching the War on Terrorism right after 9/11. I don't even think it would need that level of intensity, but government and business would comply.

The California lawsuit on Global Warming - I see this a result of a lack of consensus. Because a lack of action on CO2, you get fragmentation and a few frustrated to take whatever means possible without regard of whether it is a good tool.

I'm thinking these guys promoting it want to lead us in that direction for some reason.

H2 is the more difficult technology to pursue. It's going to take much longer to implement and it's going to be more expensive. I personally think it should be researched and developed to some extent, but diverting government funding from advanced ICEs and EVs into hydrogen does one thing: keep us burning gasoline and diesel for longer.

That may not be the intention, but that's what I see happening.