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?
No comments:
Post a Comment