ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



The future of energy

Posted: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 7:00 AM by Alan Boyle


Getty Images file
Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles took the spotlight at July's Plug-In Conference and
Exposition in San Jose, Calif. How much will plug-ins change the energy game?

If the plans being laid for the economy and the environment work out the way President-elect Barack Obama's advisers hope they do, the future of energy can be summed up in one word: electricity.

That one word covers a lot of policy twists, however: What will the economic downturn mean for initiatives to cut down on greenhouse-gas emissions? What will the recent drop in gasoline prices mean for efforts to boost alternatives to fossil fuels? Can the electrical grid handle increased demand? How do you smooth out the highs and lows of power generation? Where will all that power come from?

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has repeatedly cited a catalog of challenges for future energy policy, ranging from the global supply-and-demand imbalance to climate change and the threat from "petro-dictatorships." Some people might look at that list and conclude that "we're cooked ... we're completely fried," Friedman said during a conference sponsored last week by the Center for American Progress, Washington's most Obama-centric think tank.

"That's one way to look at that list," Friedman continued. "I look at it the way John Gardner looked at a similar list - and he said, 'That list? That's a list of incredible opportunities masquerading as insoluble problems.'"

That reflects the thinking of Obama's top advisers on energy and environmental policy, who would make "green infrastructure" a top target for next year's economic stimulus. Based on statements made during the campaign as well as afterward, they see energy innovation as a key economic driver as well as a way out of the climate-change mess.

Some experts on energy policy, such as U.S. Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., are bullish about pushing through fundamental changes in energy policy, driven by new technologies ranging from plug-in hybrids to smarter electrical grids.

Israel compared the current situation to the promise of information technology in 1980. "I think we're on the cusp of a massive transformation in clean technologies," he told me this week.

Others, however, are more circumspect about the prospects for developing an energy policy that boosts the economy as well as the environment - particularly in the wake of the credit meltdown that started in mid-September.

"It was harder on Sept. 16 than it was on Sept. 14," said James Woolsey, a Democrat who directed the CIA during the Clinton administration but served as an adviser on energy and climate change issues for GOP presidential candidate John McCain. "I hope we haven't gotten to a tipping point in which it becomes impossible."

Here's a six-point action plan for energy policy, based on past statements from Obama's energy and environment transition team as well as observations from Israel, Woolsey and other experts:

1. Generate 'negawatts'
The first step, and arguably the easiest step, would be to patch up the gaps in today's energy infrastructure. Federal incentives could be provided for home weatherization and better insulation, for rooftop solar cells or even low-tech energy-saving measures such as adding a coat of reflective paint to the roofs of commercial buildings. "That would employ people who normally would be building houses, but [are idle because] those types of projects are being closed down," Woolsey said.

Some economic stimulus funding would go toward mass transit projects, with the aim of reducing gasoline consumption - as well as smart-metering systems that could make the electric grid more efficient (see No. 4 below).

In the long run, the resulting energy savings (and reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions) could be just as important as the economic shot in the arm. Two decades ago, energy-efficiency guru Amory Lovins coined the term "negawatt generation" to describe the beneficial effect of such energy conservation.

2. Move from fossil fuels to renewables
Israel said the "game-changer" in energy policy will take the form of incentives to move from an economy based on fossil fuels to one that puts more emphasis on renewable energy sources. The top three items on his agenda are:

"If we do those three things, we will have absolutely changed the game on energy after 30 years of missteps, back steps and half-steps," Israel said.

Some have criticized cap-and-trade schemes on the grounds that they smack of socialism, or that Europe's experiment with the system just plain didn't work. Woolsey agreed that the first European effort was a "ridiculous" failure. "It's an example that things can go wrong if you go right to an international system," he said.

But he said a cap-and-trade system can succeed if it's phased in correctly, and would be more palatable than the carbon tax that some environmentalists are now suggesting. "We've run a good cap-and-trade system with sulfur dioxide, and another good one, sort of, with chlorofluorocarbons," Woolsey observed.

Israel said he thinks "the will is there" to approve a cap-and-trade system during the next Congress, although fixing the economy will have to come first. "Once we stabilize our economy, we can then get to work on making the marketplace [for energy] more consistent, sustainable and predictable," he said.

3. Promote plug-ins
When it comes to fueling the autos of the future, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (or PHEVs)still look like the best bet. Dan Reicher, a member of Obama's transition team and one of the top prospects to head the new president's Energy Department, has proselytized for PHEVs and pioneered a plug-in project called RechargeIT at Google's philanthropic arm.

"The moment is now for plug-ins," he said during a Brookings Institution conference this summer. The auto industry's current woes have led some to worry that the moment has passed, while others hope that lawmakers will put more pressure on carmakers to produce greener machines.

What about biofuels? In the past year or so, the bloom has come off the rose (or should that be the cornflower?) for corn-derived ethanol, due to concerns about pollution as well as a food-vs.-fuel faceoff. And if fuel prices stay below $2 a gallon, the switch to biofuels may not make economic sense, Woolsey said. There's a danger that the biofuel boom could give way to the same kind of bust that hit the synthetic-fuel market when oil prices fell in the 1980s.

PHEVs could make the difference this time around.

"The thing that is different from what happened in the mid-1980s is electricity," Woolsey said. "Because electricity is 2 cents a mile, there's no way gasoline gets down there to compete with electricity."

But increased electricity use could drive up utility costs and ultimately force the construction of new plants. If electric utilities generate that power by burning natural gas, coal or oil, shifting to plug-ins would do little to address climate change or energy efficiency. In fact, researchers at Duke University suggest that regular hybrids may be more cost-effective than plug-ins for reducing CO2 emissions (unless gasoline rises to $6 a gallon).

That's why the Obama administration wants to make the electric grid greener - and smarter.

4. Build a smarter, more open grid
A smarter electric grid would use software to manage the flow of power more efficiently, evening out the load throughout the day (when there's high demand) and the night (when the demand is lower).

"There's no reason why we can't have a lot more use of time-of-day pricing," Woolsey said. "That'll encourage people to set timers and run their dryers during off-peak times."

Future electrical grids could also be more open to distributed generation. For example, utilities could make it easier for homeowners with solar panels to feed their surplus power into the grid and get paid for doing it.

"In every forecast of the deployment of plug-in hybrids, the electricity consumption goes up," Israel said. "Therefore, we need to make sure that we are focusing on innovative technologies to manage that increase in electrical use by smart metering, and by integrating renewable technologies as sources of electricity."

Israel gushed over the research being conducted at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado. "One of the most fascinating demonstrations they have is a plug-in hybrid that's attached to solar panels. It's completely off-grid," he said. "That's the future. The problem is that NREL's [annual] budget is $328 million, which is equivalent to 18 hours in Iraq and Afghanistan."

5. Solve the storage problem
One big problem with the electrical grid as it exists today is that it's a "just-in-time" system, Woolsey said. Plenty of renewable energy may be available when the wind blows or the sun shines - but what do you do at night, or when the air is calm?

This is why so much energy (of the mental variety) is being devoted to designing better batteries, as well as developing systems that can efficiently transform electrical power into more easily stored form of energy. Compressed-air energy storage is one of Woolsey's favored options.

During the presidential campaign, McCain floated the idea of a $300 million prize program to encourage the development of advanced batteries. At the time, Obama criticized the idea as a "gimmick," but there's no question that better batteries are the key to plug-in progress.

6. Boost electric production
Nearly everyone acknowledges that more electrical capacity will have to be brought online, particularly if the plans to shift consumption away from the oil tank and onto the electric grid actually take hold. And nearly everyone acknowledges that more nuclear plants and coal-fired plants will have to be built. The question is how much progress the energy industry can make on renewables, and how much it will have to rely on dirtier alternatives.

Some researchers, such as NASA's James Hansen, are so worried about the coming climate crisis that they are advocating accelerated construction of next-generation nuclear plants. One company has even proposed building mini-nuclear reactors that would bring electrical power to remote areas.

Israel, however, thinks nuclear power is the "weakest link" in the energy chain. "The nuclear piece is, in my view, the most difficult - only because of the storage issue," he said.

There are plenty of energy technologies waiting just over the horizon. OK, maybe way over the horizon: nuclear fusion, for example, or space-based solar power. Those technologies could play a significant role in the post-oil era - but probably not during the Obama administration.

Israel said the best role for the federal government in the years ahead will be to widen the options for the energy marketplace to choose from.

"The problem with energy policy over the past 30 years is that they let congressmen like me, who can barely operate a TiVo, pick the technical winners and losers on alternative energy," he said. "In my view, we ought to incentivize everybody and diversify our portfolio."

Is the current angst over energy, the economy and the environment an incredible opportunity masquerading as an insoluble problem? If you buy into Israel's view, you might think so.

"Over the past few years, our economy was riding on a real-estate bubble," he told me. "Once that bubble burst, we can now use green energy as the next bubble, and sustain it for the next several decades."


What do you think? Is there a relatively pain-free path to the future of energy, or are we in for a rough ride? I haven't even touched upon some of the big energy debates - such as carbon sequestration and the prospects for cleaner coal-fired plants. (Here's an NBC News video about a cleaner-coal technology being developed in Germany.)

Feel free to weigh in with your comments on these and other subjects related to the future of energy. For more on energy policy, check out msnbc.com's Oil and Energy section as well as the Green Machines archive, and take a look at former Vice President Al Gore's interview with Newsweek. President-elect Barack Obama is due to meet with Gore today.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

While I am all for the push away from fossil fuels as our source of fuel for cars, this plan hardly touches on the real source of the problem we have with pollution. If we eliminate fossil fuels and instead use electricity, how does that actually do anything? All we're doing is transferring the source of pollution from cars to electricity generators. And higher demand on power grids means there will have to be more generators.

The 2nd point of this plan *kind of* touches on renewable energy, but that's clearly the most crucial part.

Until plans like this really focus on renewable energy, the problem is going to continue to exist, and our attempts will do very little until we realize that.
I can think of a win-win, scenario: electrify the railroads!  It would employ people, reduces diesel fuel consumption, reverse the subsidy to trucks over the more efficient mode, and (with a few restored sections of double-tracking) promote passenger traffic.
What about Fuel Cells?

Use wind and solar to create hydrogen and then convert that into electricity on demand anywhere with fuel cells. 100% green and transportable.

Fuel cells also act just like bateries without all of the bad side affects. And they don't wear out after a certain number of charges. They could easily last the lifetime of the vehicle without being overhauled or replaced.
The government has free energy, but is unwilling to release this technology because it will ruin their game.  Free energy is very simple.  Read about Tesla or simply search Magnet Motor on Youtube.  It is a joke.
Great article Alan!  We really need to get serious about getting our energy system up to snuff with the 21st Century.  There is no such thing as clean coal and burying it in the ground only invites disaster as an earthquake will bring it right back up again.  We need more clean green power from wind and the sun.  We also need to find a better way to store electricity made from these clean sources for use when the sun and wind goes down.

We also need a Manhattan Project type of approach to making houses more energy efficient by having a government project that puts solar panels on all houses.  It will create jobs and get more houses solar powered.  Tax credits will fail because only a few people who have excess money and can use the tax break will use that kind of losing program.  A government program will put many people to work in the private sector which is what we need since the private sector is such a failure at employing people.
What about the water powered car?? I've seen and read enough to think it is a viable option for development, but nothing is being said about this option..
One additional way that was not mentioned that would have a huge impact on energy conservation -- and also reduce the need to add more generation capacity or allow present generation capacity to be reallocated --is to encourage or mandate the use of compact fluorescent light bulb (CFLs), which use substantially less electricity and last longer.   This could be done in several ways.  One way is for utilities to offer consumers a financial subsidy to purchase CFLs, which benefits the utility through the reduced consumption by likewise reducing the utility's make the capital investment to build new plants to increase or maintain production. After all, it is cheaper both short term and long term to subsidize CFL use than it is to build, run and maintain a new generating plant.  Another way is for government to introduce a tax on conventional lightbulbs (like the "gas guzzler" tax on vehicles), thereby incentivizing consumers to buy relatively cheaper CFLs and more fairly recognizing the greater cost to society of the use of such bulbs.  The tax revenues could be used to find research and development for greener energy sources or infrastructure.  And the greater demand for CFLs will surely continue to lower the per unit price of each bulb as production levels (and manufactuing efficiencies and competition among suppliers) continue to increase.
With all the attention nuclear power is getting these days, are people giving serious consideration to the problem of nuclear waste disposal?  Are people aware of just how dangerous the biproducts of nuclear reactors are?  We're talking about high level waste that contains isotopes like I-129 that have a half-life of 17 MILLION years.  The waste these reactors are producing will probably be on this planet longer than the human race as we know it.

A current popular solution is to encase waste in solid glass and bury it.  But do people know that outside some of these burial facilities, scientists have had to design warning signs that, because of the time scale of radioactive decay, have to transcend the bounds of normal written language (which on average will evolve to a form unrecognizable by current speakers every 600 years) and use cryptic heiroglyphs to indicate the horribly dangerous poisons contained within?

There are also processes being used to transform high level waste isotopes to lower level ones, but are these efforts enough to keep the planet from being poisoned by radiation in the long term?

The decay of radioactive isotopes generates heat.  Is it possible that over thousands of years the heat buildup in burial facilities will crack open the containment glass and eventually cause a containment failure, releasing radiation into the environment?

For 30+ years it seems like the attitude has been "we will eventually find a permanent solution for radioactive waste".  Well now that nuclear energy is gaining popularity as a worldwide energy solution, have we found the solution to the waste problem other than "bury and forget"?

These are questions that I sincerely hope are being considered by scientists and politicians alike.  But it may be too much to hope that the public would ponder these issues.
I can't wait for the first Plug In Price War...it'll go all the way to nude Plug in Chicks before someone drastically drops the price, and everybody goes for a charge at the same time...
OOOPPS!!!
The switch to plug-in hybrids and "pure" electric vehicles does not simply shift pollution from exhaust pipe to smokestack, nor does it require a massive expansion of the grid. There is a very real reduction in CO2 emissions resulting from electric versus internal combustion transport. Google "Mileage from Megawatts", a study by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and "Debunking the Myth of EVs and Smokestacks".
Hydrogen,Hydrogen,Hydrogen
Why aren't more people thinking Liquid Hydrogen?

Dear Anonymous: I've mentioned renewable energy repeatedly in the article but I realize that I probably should have devoted more attention to laying out the details on solar, wind, geothermal, wave power, bioconversion, etc....

Here are some links:

Solar power:
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/23/165659.aspx

Wind power:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27329653/

Geothermal power:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27068984/

Wave power:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28113042/

Algae power:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22027663/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27521731/

Mold power:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25607079/

Hydrogen power:
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/01/24/41211.aspx

A 'revolution' in batteries:
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/17/586070.aspx

There is a simple solution. Install solar panels on home roofs, install an air compressor storage system and a network computer on each home that buys an electric car. The solar cells create energy that is stored in the compressed air system and when the car returns home it is charged from the compressed air system. Any surplus can be used by the home owner or used by the utilities. That gives utilities a mass energy storage system, free power generation and network control of it all. For the home owner, free trips to work and shopping and the ability to review the system and reduce energy usage in order to make money from the utilities (or reduce their electric costs). Right now home owners can’t see what is costing them the most electricity. A network connection would allow them to see when their refrigerator needs a repair or their air conditioning needs a tune up. Home owners would be more aware of energy usage if they had the ability to see live data.

This creates tens of thousands of new jobs and thousands of new small businesses to install and provide maintenance and upgrades to the systems.

The question really becomes what happens when 1 million people get off work and plug in their electric cars. Our existing grid can’t handle it and do you really want to move paying the oil companies to paying the electric companies? Right now, if you can’t pay for gas you can’t be thrown out of your home. If we become dependent on the electric companies you could have your electricity cut off and be thrown out of your home during the winter if you can’t pay your electric bill. That could be avoided by having a storage account with the electric companies. Your surplus covers you for hard times or could be donated to the needy.

Local generation and storage at the home owner’s level is the answer.
I can't wait to spend $150,000.00 for a car that will go 30 miles on a charge.  Happy days are here again.
One obvious solution that no one has talked about: We have a challenge in terms of reducing carbon output, as well as all the carbon that currently exists in the environment. Basically, if carbon were viewed as a natural resource (rather than a pollutant), we would have an overwhelming abundance. Enter: Carbon fiber and carbon nano-materials (bucky-balls and carbon nano-tubes), which have dozens of high-tech applications-from designing vehicles and aircraft with carbon-fiber skins (lighter and stronger than steel), high-speed computers, etc... If we can find an inexpense means of collecting all this excess carbon and of using it to produce these materials, we will have simultaneously solved three major problems: reduction of excess carbon, reducing energy-consumption by using more efficient materials and replacing the petro-based materials (i.e.-plastics) that will eventually disappear along with all the oil.
Switching over to a totally new system, while a worthwhile goal, is actually unnecessary. If we can get even a 20% increase in fuel efficiency on our auto fleet we will save roughly 1/5th of the money we send out of our economy every year. We import roughly $350-450 billion a year in oil and 20% would be $70-90 billion off of our $450 billion trade deficit. The auto industry bailout would actually make good sense from a national standpoint if that increase was a condition of it.
It comes as no shock to me that the Obama transition team is preparing to enter office without a clue about energy solutions.  No doubt Mr. Obama will get similar advice from Al Gore today, and McCain energy advisor Woolsey is as much off base as the Obama team.  The problem is simple, renewables would supply the energy we need 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  Any scheme to replace fossil fuels with renewables is going to end up an expensive failure.  The cost of base load electricity schemes with solar or wind, will be more expensive than nuclear power.

The negawatt scheme, represents the same sort of solution that Herbert Hoover offered to end the great depression.  Many economists and energy experts, have pointed out that it violates a well established economic principle, Jevons Paradox.  Efficiency does not offer a long range energy solution.  

Energy storage schemes are going to be expensive.  Storage capacity would have costs comparable to nuclear while offering far less.  A smart grid would be expensive and while grid upgrades would use electricity somewhat more efficiently, they are no stand in for generating electricity when it is needed.

James Hansen is on the right track.  Generation IV nuclear technology prototypes were long ago been demonstrated to be safer and far more fuel efficient, and well as disposing of the problem of nuclear waste.   The need now is to complete the developmental phase of this technology, and begin the rapid deployment of mass produced factory built Generation IV reactors.

 
A few points: 1) if we shift to PEVs then the carbon can be scrubbed at the power plant, something that can't be done at the car level. Secondly, it breaks the chicken and the egg problem. Cut the car to electricity, then focus on changing the energy source.
Timing demand (cars) to night allows the power plant to run at a more consistent level, which equals higher efficiency. If more power is needed I say look at the AP-1000 from Westinghouse, as far as nukes go it is simply brilliant...

Final thought:

Humankind has been burning sh** since the beginning of time (> 100,000 years) we simply need to stop. I have adopted the mantra "We gotta stop burning sh**" we should all do it... I put my money on nanoscale batteries, quick charge, 200+ mile range plug ins, all jacked into AP-1000's from Westinghouse (check'em out) Open Yucca flats and let's get building them nukes....
If all this can be done with tax incentives primarily and government subsidy secondarily, then all we need is a credible plan to put it in motion.  Distributed generation (wind and solar) utilizes the existing "grid".
Upgrading existing nuclear capacity to produce commercial volumes of hydrogen for fuel cell consumption paired with nuclear fuel reprocessing would solve the problems of reducing nuclear waste, and providing fuel for electric vehicles, and reducing the demand for batteries.
Conversion from incandescent lamps to CFL, LED, and Electroluminescent plastics should reduce consumption to levels requiring less coal burning generation.
Petroleum and coal could be utilized in synthetic construction materials, and eventually carbon nanotube materials.
I'd like to see honest and accountable, free market capitalism achieve these transitions with only minimal initial government stimulation. I envision a new "manned moom mission" effort that will deliver the things I've mentioned the way the original program brought about microelectronics.
We are in for a rough ride, but no one has a crystal ball on exactly what it will look like.

Exhibit 1: although many peakers predicted oil price volatility, none that I know of predicted this deep a collapse.

Peak oil is still a problem in the long view, which is why Obama taking leadership in all these areas is very important.  As little as I may support him on other issues, on this one I am rooting for him to succeed beyond his wildest dreams, to go beyond even what is laid out in this article.  It's a matter of our national security, future health and prosperity, and perhaps even survival (in more sense than one) that we get this energy transition right.
Without leadership, the purpose of production of goods and services falls into broad categories: survival (housing, food, medical, and sanitary services), production (making stuff) and consumption (insurance, consumer goods, travel, entertainment).  A fourth broad category – financial instruments – well, we’ve seen how well that pays back.

Transportation cuts across all four of those categories and has been the bulwark of production for decades – cars, trucks, energy, roads, and all the stuff that helps us move people or things.  Unfortunately cheap energy and the push to pave America has subsidized inefficient modes – bulk transport by trucks rather than rail and the personal automobile often with one person to one destination per use.  

So where do you get return from spending… one way is derivative speculation on financial instruments (recall: we’ve seen how well that pays back) another way is to turn raw materials into useful in-demand products.  The latter has been the bread and butter of China of late… look at any consumer item label to see those infamous made-in words.

Perhaps it is time to leverage the “financial crisis” into something a bit more lasting than the “way things are right now”.  That takes leadership to inspire us to move in a direction that may be less comfortable for a while – but benefits many more than the few that are profiting off the status quo.  Given the modernization of economies in places like India and China is the current consumer-driven model of the personal car sustainable?

Imagine new highway construction across the US stopped.  The cries of outrage would be deafening.  The political connections strained beyond belief.  The victims everywhere.  And yet, somehow life would go on – perhaps a bit more slowly.  

Next imagine the construction of high-speed rail corridors between major cities – two modes: freight and passenger rail.   The shifting of highway work to rail construction would benefit the construction industry and demand re-investment in local construction material (especially steel) production.  This would be mass conversion of raw materials to finished products – with plenty of jobs and money velocity.  

Now make those rail systems electric and an industry to support efficient delivery of energy based on nuclear or “clean” coal would mean added construction of infrastructure and a new network of power transmission (needed to harvest energy from all those local solar and wind farms).  
Of course this industry would require additional rolling stock… more steel, more copper, more of everything to build this system. More jobs and money velocity.

Ah, but who would want to ride these rails.   Ever travel by air between two major cities like Chicago and Detroit?  You spend more time on the ground in the terminal and on the tarmac than in the air.  A 500 mile-an-hour jet-age ride that still takes 3 hours of your time.   Ever ride a TGV? These 200 mile an hour bulk carriers, on the right kinds of rails, with frequent departures, could easily compete with a jet-powered aluminum tube...

But then I’d have no way of getting around at my destination.  Yes, and that’s the beauty of plug-in electrics.  Instead of building hefty 4-wheel-drive all-purpose cross-country personal vehicles, imagine a generous fleet of small 100 mile range vehicles waiting at your destination.   Mobility-on-demand.  Order it on-line, use it, and leave it when you’re done.  Someone else would come along and take it somewhere else.  

An industry shift to create and maintain fast long-range bulk transport bolstered by small lightweight short range vehicles that get you and your stuff where you want to go when you need it.  Conversion of resources focused on the efficient timely delivery of transportation as a service.  Jobs aligned with a bigger purpose.

Yeah, you could still buy and ride your tricked out SUV on a highway system that has fallen on hard times (like passenger rail in the 60s) – but would you want to?
"I can't wait to spend $150,000.00 for a car that will go 30 miles on a charge.  Happy days are here again."

Still stuck in the 70s?

I am converting a $4000 existing car to a pure electric, for $7000, with off-the-shelf technology and proven lead-acid batteries, with a range of at least 40 miles.  That would be good enough for around-town driving and shorter commutes.  *For $11K.*

For longer ranges, you need more expensive batteries, but we're still talking LESS total cost than most new gas-guzzling cars.  All in my garage.

If that sounds too hard, just wait for the Volt.  It's pricey at $40K (out of my range) but a far sight from $150,000.  And it drives 40 miles on pure electricity, but can go as far as you like with gasoline.  Best of both worlds!

Electrics are at least twice as energy-efficient, even including the electricity generated.  Gasoline engines are around 30-40% efficient; electric drivetrains are often close to 80% efficient even with power transmission, battery storage, etc. all factored in.

Studies have shown we could convert probably about a hundred million cars to electricity without the need to build new plants.  We would be burning more fuel to generate the new electricity, but most of it would occur during off-peak hours when lots of excess capacity is already available.  And if we put renewable energy into the mix (I buy my power from a 100% clean energy company) then burning fossil fuels can be reduced significantly.
Building more coal plants should not be an option for addressing an increase in electricity demand.  We are at if not past a tipping point in our climate that we might never recover from and generating more CO2 will certainly only hurt the changes of saving our world from a mass extinction.  There is no such thing as clean coal, it is purely a political ploy created by the utilities to convince us that coal really isn't that bad.

While there are problems with nuclear the amount of waste that needs to be controlled is miniscule compared to the amount of coal that we are mining on a daily basis to feed our power plants.  Yes, nuclear waste is long lasting but if we properly recycle our spent fuel we can effectively minimize the amount produced.

While other renewable sources as well as moving from gas to plug-in hybrids offer some relief from the energy and climate troubles plaguing us right now it is not a viable answer to solve our problem over the next few years.  The only way to quickly address the energy and climate issue is to mandate a dramatic reduction in energy use.  It must be more than switching to CFLs and putting reflective paint on  the roof of a building but it must also involve inconveniences to the public.  Shut down street lights (not traffic lights) after 10 PM when fewer people are driving and prohibiting the use of air conditioners unless the outdoor temperature is above a government regulated limit.  While people might be opposed to solutions like this at first it really is the only way we will see a significant impact in the immediate future.
I think everyone's comments make very valid and extremely important points.  However, it is unfortunate that a large percentage of the world population cannot afford to buy hybrid, all-electric cars or to install solar panels on their homes.  Until these types of technologies become more affordable for the 'common' person or for 'Main Street' America, another form of conservation needs to be implemented.  As much as paying $4 (+) for a gallon of gas sucked, people were more conscience of where and how much they drove and what kind of car they bought because they were feeling the direct effects in their pocket.  I think until we really feel the monitary effects of our dependence on non-renewable forms of energy (i.e. petroleum products, coal, etc.) in our pockets, change will be very difficult.  We need to be in a sense, retrained to be more efficient and conservative in our day-to-day lives.  Until that time, bring on higher electric costs and $4 a gallon gas.  It's a start...
Isreal's ideas, and those of the others in this article are all great. The biggest problem is that industry efforts are generally driven by industry profit motives. The real solution is to have increased state and federal tax breaks and subsidies for homeowners and businesses to buy rooftop solar electric, solar hot water and small wind systems. The demand for manufacturing, sales, distribution and installation will employ many of the currently laid off Americans and it will give the double benefit of reducing electrical demand during peak hours so we won’t need to build as many new large scale power generating facilities. The only drawback to this approach is that there’s not much money in the form of up-front or monthly fees for big businesses…
Viability of a hydrogen economy has been questioned around a "chicken-or-egg" dilemma; where to start: hydrogen powered fuel cell cars with no fuel dealers, or fuel dealers with no market?

Marketing? At first: for gas cooking/heating. Many of these now use bottled propane delivered to large white tanks near consumers. Heating-hydrogen's transportation need only be, like other heating-gas now, from local fuel dealer to consumer.

For early evolution toward cars, heating-gas trucks, and other applications, existing gasoline or diesel engines could use the fuel. Kits: with small pressure tanks, ignition timing adaptation (if needed), tubing, fittings, instructions, etc., could eventually permit it.

Pioneering "garage engineers" would find fuel at these heating hydrogen suppliers. This could eventually begin gently establishing hydrogen fueling stations for new, plug in free, fuel cell electric cars, like the General Motors, directly electricity driven, constant all wheel traction from 4 mechanically indendent wheel motors "Sequel" concept car.

Further evolution could move toward, more convenient, roadside locations, that gasoline and diesel now use.

Some say electrically separating hydrogen (H2) from water (H2O) (called electrolysis) requires fossil fueled electric grid reinforcement, and still more fossil fuel to transport it to fueling stations/dealers, adding CO2 from every stage, just to use a fuel that, itself, burns without making CO2, effectively eliminates the atmospheric CO2 reduction of hydrogen.

Does it?

We can increase gridpower with wind. Some people complain storage is needed to cope with wind's "variability". "What do you ... when the air is calm?", ask some. There are some places where the wind literally never stops; it varies there, but within a known range. When a wind turbine is selected that functions within that range, power from it is always available. Does that power vary? Without any automatic onboard controls against it, yes. Today, most megawatt-sized turbines have onboard computers informed of wind speed and direction by onboard weather stations. Despite wind variability, these provide the constant power output and cyclage that the grid always needs.

Beyond that, cannot photovoltaics (PV) power electrolysis off-grid? Unchanged, the direct current of PV powers electrolysis without expensive, power-losing electronics to adapt the alternating current from gridpower. Pressurized hydrogen storage makes overnight production unneeded.

Why transport motor fuel, when made from energy produced where sold?

Gridpower could continue supplying the lights, tools, etc. the station uses.  

Using mass-produced kits of: PV panels, electrolyzers, a compressor, instructions, etc., hydrogen infrastructure could be inexpensively aquired by station owners; if desired, even by homeowners.

The "chicken-or-egg" question need not delay introducing hydrogen powered fuel cell
cars.  
First of all, you are all running under the assumption that global warming is man-made.  That's why this huge push for 'green' technology.  None of these so-called experts want you to know that there are more natural greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere than man-made ones.  Of course we should be good stewards of the environment, but SUV's are not killing the planet.  Man-made global warming is a myth and a lie.  Let me illustrate a simple example for you.  Take a pen and hold it in the middle with your thumb and fore-finger.  The pinch point represents the center of the Earth and the pen is the axis of the Earth..  Now, with your free hand put your index finger on top of the pen and move it in a circle.  This represents the 'worble' effect of our axis, caused by the push and pull of gravitational bodies (the sun, planets, etc.) in our solar system.  The worble cycles around once every 25,000 years.  (And this is a proven effect, not hypothetical junk science like man-made global warming...)  Now if we consider that during the course of this 'worble' our axis tips closer and closer toward the sun, we will warm up, and as it moves away we will cool down.  Amazing!  Somehow I don't think that changing our lightbulbs is going to affect the gravitational forces at work.  And there is something else to realize.  The Earth has been around for BILLIONS of years.  During the course of that time, there have been numerous global climate changes, all caused by some force other than man.  Industrialization has only been around for, what, 200 years or so?  How many people think it is even possible for us to have changed the global climate in such a short period of time?  It's ridiculous.  And as fas as saving a few birds?  Again, I'm all for being a good steward of our planet, but realixe that over 90% of all plant and animal species that were once here are now EXTINCT!  And I would venture to say that they were probably wiped out before Henry Ford started rolling out Model T's.  There is nothing wrong with using our OWN oil, coal and natural gas resources to bridge the gap between today and tomorrow.  Everybody wants to jump right in with solar and what-not.  We should do an environmental impact study on the wide-scale use of solar panels.  After all, what might happen to our climate if that energy is being taken by solar panels and not the groung itself?  Will plant and animal life suffer?  What about all of the heat energy that would be bounced back into the atmosphere from glass panels instead of being absorbed by the Earth?  Ever seen a solar oven at a science fair?  Think about it...  And windmill farms are decimating Brown Eagle populations in California because the windmills happen to be in the eagles' migratory path.  So how come we haven't heard anything about that?  So I say if you want to save some birds, and majestic ones at that, start knocking down some windmill farms in California and start drilling for oil.  Let's tap into the resources we have that are proven, before we start tossing billions of dollars into technology that is not quite ready for prime-time yet.  Hmph!
Honest Question:

I have heard that it takes more energy to manufacture a solar panel than can be produced by that solar panel in its usable life.

Can anyone provide any links/information confirming or refuting that?
The battery powered car is absolutely necessary to slow down the emissions into our air. Sure the hybrid is a start. The next phase is a limited distance car with an easily removable standard battery.  By easily, I mean in the time it take to fill a tank of gas.  The infrastructure is already in place; thousands of gas stations.  They will become battery stations.  We will "rent" or "lease" the battery.  As battery technology improves so will our distances.  A little country, Israel, is in the beginnings of using this idea.  (And, I thought I had it first.)

Anyway, did you ever see hydrogen explode?

You can never compete with an energy source that took millions of years to accumulate and with anywhere near the enrgy density.  Research it yourself.
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
Steve Moniz is right, electrifying the railroads would be terrific!  They already contain an excellent conductor for, at least one pole -- hundreds of miles of rails.  
What ever happened to gardens, a chicken coop, a cow or two, fireplaces, horseback, and candlelight?......LOL Yah I know!!......
The basic issue here is sacrifice. We have had small fuel efficient cars for quite some time yet what do people buy SUVs, large pickups, large sedans. The reality is we Americans love our cars. Until we change that it will be an uphill battle. If right now everyone driving a large vehicle gave it up for a small one how much fuel would we save? With current technology no less! The true purpose of a car is to get from point A to point B in a safe vehicle. The fact that we choose to make the vehicle an extension of our living room is the basic cause of our big mess. Same holds true for mass transit, most people simply prefer to drive to work because they enjoy driving their ultra luxurious living room on wheels or their ultra comfortable upholstered personnel carrier (SUV). Address that and we are 75% into less dependence on oil. Finally, if we walked and biked more often perhaps we would start getting healthier. I for one would love to bike to work but I would need to shower at the office. How many office provide showers for their employees? This type of thinking is limited to a few people and companies, make it the norm and see the massive changes in our country. Billions saved in fuel cost and health care cost. We need radical thinking all right but not just in Washington, the whole country needs to reassess the basic day to day functions as we practice them today.
35 years ago when I was an undergraduate student I spent a couple of summers working for a civil engineering firm.  One of the projects we were working on was a new coal-fired power plant.  By new federal laws this plant was required to not only take out the particulates (using electrostatic precipitators) but also to remove the sulfur from the smokestack.  They were using a new lime slurry process.  It was going to take ~ 1/2 of their staff and 10s of percent of their electricity to run these systems.  At the time the lime slurry process only had a proven capacity factor of 25% (i.e.  it didn’t work 75% of the time).  Furthermore, they had no idea what they were going to do with the lime slurry once they used it, but at the time the government wasn’t regulating that (I understand that it has since been placed on the hazardous materials list).  The utility knew that they were being forced to use a poor technology, but they needed the power and felt that they didn’t have any other choice.  
My point is that you can’t legislate technologies into existence.  Someone has to design them and the market needs to have some say as to which ones work and which ones don’t.  
check this out air car could do better than electric. there is also an all car electric that can run for years beore recharging and goes 256 mph
air car;
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4251491.html?series=19
also
electric car;
http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/sep2008/bw20080925_308061.htm?campaign_id=rss_innovate
re: point 1, "negawatts"

Increased efficiency will always lead to *more* electric consumption overall, not less. To claim that increased efficiency can generate negawatts is akin to saying "1 + 1 = -2".

The things that will decrease electricity consumption are higher prices (that continually increase) and depressed economic activity.

Increased efficiency is still a great thing to shoot for, but don't plan on it reducing electric demand.
"What about Fuel Cells?

Use wind and solar to create hydrogen and then convert that into electricity on demand anywhere with fuel cells. 100% green and transportable."

The viable kinds so far also require platinum. Not only is it expensive,there isn't even enough to build as many cars as we need. On the bright side,the chemists claim they can reduce the platinum usage by putting thin films on graphite,but so far they haven't gotten the amount of platinum down to the point where its cheap enough. Until they do,if they do,they remain to expensive for automotive use. (I understand that Honda's fuel cell vehicle costs something like a half a million dollars each)
The other problem is power output. Engineers look at electric vehicles and tell us that a 15 or 20 hp power plant is good enough to make an electric car from.
This is true,but so is a small gasoline power plant. The old Geo Metro had a 45HP 3cyl engine. It got over 50MPG. It also didn't see for a variety of reasons. People just didn't like it. They ended up putting a larger engine in the next model. (of course then,no one wanted it,because it wasn't "prestigious" AND it didn't get the great mileage.)
Heat is also a problem. consider a 100KW fuel cell,which is about 130HP. That's about what people expect in a small to mid sized car. That fuel cell has an efficiency of about 70% or so. That means there are 30KW of heat generated in the fuel cell. Thats like 300 100watt light bulbs heating your fuel cell. You have to get rid of that heat. The problem is,the low temperature fuel cells have plastics in them. If they get to hot,it destroys it. (the plastic is a membrane that makes the fuel cell work,you cant get rid of it) Thats another limiting factor. Its not too bad,but it is a problem.
The fact is,fuel cell technology is not ready yet. It works great it space because cost is not an issue there,but here on earth,we have a long way to go.
heres a simple one, stop makeing cars that go faster than the speed limit.
The global inventory of nuclear waste has the energy potential of approximately 200 operational reactors.

The energy return on investment for the development of Canada's bitumen is 5.2/1 therefore the global nuclear fuel inventory has the energy potential to produce roughly 6 billion barrels of oil annually. Currently this energy source is simply going to waste. The heat of the spent fuel would lower the viscosity of bitumen, allowing it to flow to a producing well, in the same fashion as the SAGD method. Plus, ionizing radiation would both upgrade the bitumen in situ as well as release hydrogen ions from in situ water, which would further fracture the long chain molecules.

A recent study notes the unprecedented capacity of bitumen to sequester radionuclides. Along with this capacity much of Canada's bitumen resource resides beneath a capping shale formation that would further constrain the mobility of either hydrocarbons or radionuclides.

Spent nuclear fuel is a free, carbon-free source of energy that would make oil sands viable even at $40 oil. Utilizing decay heat over the next hundred, or so years, would not preclude the ultimate reprocessing of this material once all of the fission products have decayed.



There is already a government program to phase out incandescent light bulbs in favor of CFL's.  Look it up and read about it.

The problem with fuel cells is that it takes roughly the same amount of energy to create the fuel as what you get out of it.  That energy still has to come from some where.

There simply are NO easy solutions, and not ONE solution, but many.
R.Buckminster Fuller published a book " Operating manual for spaceship earth" in the 60's that told of the energy problem and offered solutions.
The solutions are still pertinent but ignored by the USA. He spoke of tidal power and it's perpetuity.
South Korea is building a wave and tidal power plant now that is non-pollutant and effective. A tidal plant is being built in Wales that will produce the equivalent of 12 nuclear plants with no nuclear waste.
New Zealand is building a tidal and wave plant which will produce 20% of the nation's power. I say no more nuclear or coal plants need be built. Improve the grid and build wave and tidal plants. We have the technology now. Other countries are doing it. Why aren't we???
Consolidating emissions from millions and perhaps billions of sources to thousands as it would result by focusing on electricity would enable us to more efficiently address our air emissions problems, and achieve efficiency through economies of scale.  Furthermore it will enable us to focus on renewable energy since most forms of renewable energy result in electricity.  Easier to do that with power plants than it is with trying to produce liquid fuels.
Nobody here has mentioned the best alternative to fossil fuels: Magic Wand technology.  Magic Wand technology is 23% more energy efficient than solar panels and 28% more efficient than wind turbines.  Magic Wand technology produces no harmful carbon emissions and no dangerous waste.  Magic Wand technology requires no enhancements to our current power grid and can completely eliminate our dependence on foreign oil in ten years.

Magic Wand technology is a proven source of clean energy.  First discovered by Supremo the Great five years before the birth of Tesla, in Tibet, Magic Wand technology has sense been perfected in MIT computer simulations.  

Leading scientists all agree an investment of 350 billion dollars (just HALF of the cost of latest bank bailout) could bring Magic Wand technology into the mainstream by the end of Obama’s presidency.

I know expert politicians say wind and solar (combined with and extra layer of insulation and properly inflated tires) can completely meet our current and future energy needs.  DON’T LISTEN TO THEM!  Magic Wand technology is a far more realistic solution for America and for our children.
The technology for producing environmental friendly megawatts is not all that hard of costly. For all the talk, no one is investing a dime in this.
Why are they even promoting hybrids? One of the huge downsides to our current rescission is from oil prices being so high, yet here car companies are promoting hybrids as if oil prices in the last 2 years were a joke to the consumer, Its high time we get off petrol based vehicles and step foot into the new era of 100% electric  vehicles, "ehem, 10 years ago era".
It's too bad the politicians don't care as much as people on this thread about finding real solutions. The fact is they don't want easy solutions.

Climate change treaties are simply about transferring money and technology to developing countries. It is not about finding renewable sources, reducing CO2, etc.

It is simply about hamstringing europe and the US and transferring wealth in the name of "fairness" to China, India and developing countries. Who needs the Global Poverty Act when you have the IPCC.

1998 is still the hottest recent year on record but apparently lower tempatures don't indicate a problem with the models. It means the problems are more "dire." I feel sorry for the people that have been suckered into this without even needing solid science.

If you think I'm wrong look into the demands being given by developing countries and the focus of the meetings. It is about how to distribute money not how to solve the problem.
What about bug, enzyme, and fusion power?
 There are a number of scientists developing bacteria that eat cellulose and excrete oil.
 Others are working on enzymes that directly work on cellulose to convert it to usable hydrocarbons.
 None of these are very efficient yet, but with a few hundred billion dollars, I'll get they could be up and running in a few years.  My bet's on these approaches, since once it's set up, it's very simple and relatively low tech.
 Similarly, with a few hundred billion, good clean fusion power could be here within a decade or so.
 What's the common thread here?  Money.  If we would just put our money where it counts, we could develop new technology that would save our assets and be a financial boon.  We failed to do this in the 1980's, are we going to do this again?
It's a shame the big three didn't tackle this 10 years ago. At least 1/4 of the driving population would have electric vehicles by now and with better technology.

A lot of people, especially politicians & lawyers forget this, the "Law of conservation of Matter/Energy".  This states that matter/Energy cannot be created nor destroyed so there is no such thing as renewable energy.
There are 60 new coal powered plants scheduled to be built in this country.  There is no such thing as clean burning coal.  These new plants can be converted to use compressed air to turn the turbines instead of steam.  Compressed air does not require the use of any burning fossil fuels.  It's an energy source that's right in front of everyone's nose, but no one wants to see it.  Good luck with your fuel burning future.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1702783

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google