We don't need taxes at the moment, we need jobs....and, if we create jobs, the taxes and the economy will begin to take care of themselves. Additionally, small business credits will encourage growth everywhere and in all sectors of the economy.
Do you agree? Disagree? Have a better idea? I'd love to hear your thoughts (and so would your Congressional delegation ;) ) Just click discussions and chime in!
So, last post, I laid out the current technology gaps that would prevent the United States from divorcing itself from fossil fuels. Today, I'll offer a few more and then propose what I would do about it, were I Steven Chu (our Energy Secretary-to-be).
First another issue. Gasoline. Or more to the point, petroleum fuels in general. There has been a fair amount of attention paid to how we might make a 'non petroleum' car; prototypes and production vehicles have included all-electric cars, hydrogen cars, fuel cell power sources and biomass. One of those will likely emerge as the leader in the coming decade. What is NOT commonly discussed is a power source or fuel for trucks and jet airplanes, yet these two sectors consume twice the volume of oil as personal cars - approximately 10 million barrels per day or roughly 40-50% of our overall oil consumption (depending on whose numbers you use). Seems like we need a solution, right? I mean we all want bananas in Ohio and blueberries in Florida, so trucks and planes are going to be around for the duration.
The US military has been thinking about this for some time. You don't win wars without oil (or fuel) and history has taught many nations this lesson. So, they asked, "since it's sometimes hard to defend an oil supply chain, what could we use instead?" It has been the topic of many research investigations and it turns out that there are some options...but they aren't quite ready. They work on the prototype level, but there are gaps in how to field them at the production level and there are many unanswered questions.
Having said all of that, it turns out that the solution to the problems in my first post just might be tied to the solutions in the transportation sector. Were I Mr. Chu, I would call for a 'Manhattan Plan' for energy independence.
Goals:
- By 2033, the United States is 100% energy self-sufficient.
- By the same time, the United States uses renewable sources for a minimum of 50% of all power production
- Create a viable method (or methods) for energy storage and re-delivery that will:
-----> Facilitate a departure from foreign petroleum in transportation, including heavy freight and air travel
-----> Enable greater deployment of wind and solar as measured by % of total grid production
Years 1 -5: Technology Development - Cost $200 billion ($40B per year)
- Invite all stakeholders, including the oil companies to work on solutions. See comments, below.
- Use existing federal labs and public/private universities to create technology umbrella groups. These main partners would lead the development in their own area, encouraging collaboration wherever possible.
- Heavily fund small and medium-sized businesses.
- Invest in research aimed at bringing high capacity fuel cells, aviation hydrogen, grid-capable chemical-electrical storage (batteries) and mechanical-electrical storage (among others) to a TRL of 6-7. Grid-capable storage and shunting allow for wind and solar to be deployed for more of the grid power demand.
- Form teaming ventures in areas of strength, pairing small, innovative businesses with major corporate partners who have the funds and resources to carry forward.
- If you want the federal funds, your research is NON-PROPRIETARY in years 1-5. If you think you can go solo, see you in Year 5.
Year 5: Downselect Summit
- This is a painful year, some ideas are abandoned...some survive. In the end, pick two leading technologies to carry forward toward real production readiness and national deployment.
- A handful of production leaders (private companies) are identified within each umbrella group.
Years 6-10: Prepare for Roll Out - Cost: $25 billion ($5B per year) with a $50 billion cost share from the industries.
- The roles of the universities and labs diminish as the production leader companies take the lead.
- In this phase, the research and development becomes proprietary and the cost-share reflects this.
- Small-scale roll outs take place in years 8-10. These help work out the bugs.
- Competing technologies are encouraged, though not mandatory.
- Ramp up production of domestic wind and solar. These industries are currently poised for a 20% market share; once solutions are identified to allow greater grid reliance on these options, the wind and solar industries will respond in order to capitalize on the opportunity.
Years 10-25: National Deployment - Cost: $10 billion per year initially, diminishing to $5 eventually - all to be repaid.
- Converting our nation's transport sector, electric grid, etc... isn't going to happen overnight. As vehicles age and substations are repaired, gradually 100% of the infrastructure, trucks, planes and fueling stations will be converted.
- The initially higher costs reflect that the fuel system will likely need to be updated to some minimum level of national availability quickly. Trucks heading from Florida to Ohio need to be able to refuel at predictable intervals.
- Most costs are picked up by industry. At this point, the solutions are proprietary and are 'products' for all intensive purposes. The small amount of federal funding should be in the form of bridge loans and financing options needed to facilitate the rollout.
.
The side benefits are enormous:
- Job creation
- Foreign policy implications
- Low emissions economy
- Increased industry collaboration
- New inventions and business opportunities.
.
*A few notes about big oil.
- The easiest (cheapest) way to get hydrogen is from HYDROcarbons - i.e. oil.
- The national network of filling stations is a good thing. Be it electricity, hydrogen or spit (LOL) you will need to refuel regularly...why re-invent a system that already works?
What's missing from the current energy debate? Real potential to make progress, unfortunately. If I had the ear of the presidential candidates - any of them - here's what I'd tell them: The United States needs domestic, sustainable energy sources that will allow our economy to grow and prosper. Accomplish this and our nation will own its own destiny - for the long term.
So - I said sustainable, right? That means wind and solar, right? Well, sure....but those are taking care of themselves. Many Americans might be surprised to learn that the United States is the largest market for wind development on the planet; in fact, last year (2007) more wind turbine power(megawatts) was installed in the US than the number 2, 3 and 4 nations on the list combined. Really. And what's more - it's been that way for about 3 years....and is predicted to be that way through 2020. Sometime between 2010 and 2020, the US will pass Europe (as a whole) in total installed megawatts. Part of the reason that this is happening is that major companies (GE, Seimens, Mitsubishi, to name a few) are seeing green. No, not ecological green....money green. Wind turbines are a revenue generating investment for these companies; demand for electricity is always present and there's a good income-to-life ratio for a wind installation these days. The other reason this is happening is technical developments are making 40m and 50m wind blades possible. Because the installation costs don't scale linearly with blade length, yet power generation increases substantially, the base (installed cost per megawatt capacity) is greatly reduced. Short story: it's cheaper to intsall more power these days.
A similar 'perfect storm' of technology and capital are happening with solar installations. That's great, right? Sure.....but....There's always a but, isn't there?
Wind and solar are 'probable' power sources; this means that over the course of a year, one can - with reasonable accuracy - predict how much power will be generated. The wind blows at average speeds...the sun shines for an average of so many hours a day.
What's missing is a tie back to when and where electrical power is needed. Our electrical grid is based on a demand system - as more electricity is needed, more plants are 'turned on' to supply that electricity. In fact, 10% of the existing generating capacity in the US is used for about 50 hours a year. That's it. But - when those 50 hours happen - you need every one of those plants. That's just the reality of the situation.
When demand spikes, more power is needed. In the case of a gas-fired system, you flip on the switch. Ok, to be fair, it's slightly more complicated than that, but it is relatively an 'instant on' solution. With wind you have the unrealistic option of installing 900% more turbines than you need - most spinning and dumping their power into heat because the demand at that moment is low. With solar, you have nothing - if the sun isn't shining - you're out of luck.
Wait, wait you say - what about nuclear? what about hydro? what about....fill in the blank. What about them? You can't 'flip on' a nuclear plant. You don't ever turn off a hydro plant - they are the some of the least expensive generating plants. That leaves burning things. Coal, gas, oil. Combustible materials lend themselves to 'instant on' solutions. The real downside of fossil fuels is that they will run out one day - and that runs against sustainability. Once they run out, we'll be right back buying our power - and sacrificing our independence.
So - how would I deal with this quandary? Stay tuned for the next installment ;)
