New Energy & Industrial Region ….
Today’s post: Weds, 2-27-2008
Today, solar generated electricity is still more costly than generating electricity by burning natural gas, oil, or coal.
However, that is rapidly changing on both ends of the equation.
Thin film solar promises to soon cost less than fossil fuels at today’s prices. Other new technologies are being developed all over the world to bring down the cost of solar electricity. And we are already seeing the increase in volume of solar deployment that will allow for economies of scale & drive developments in cost-effective manufacturing.
Increased worldwide economic & population growth have increased demand enough that oil has gone from $30 a barrel to $100 in the last six years or so. Unlike the spike in the late 1970’s & early 1980’s, the upward trend in prices caused by increased demand for energy is likely to continue -- though perhaps at a lower annual growth rate -- over the next 50 years.
And, increasingly, because of the problem of already having too much CO2 in the world’s air, use of fossil fuels will increasingly be taxed. Soon all uses in most developed countries of fossil fuels will be taxed directly by carbon taxes on natural gas, oil, & coal. And, increasingly, to use such sources, you will need to get licensed & will also need to pay enough to offset 100 % of the carbon dioxide generated.
Given these things, I believe solar generated electricity will soon cost less than generating electricity by burning fossil fuels. I think we’ll be best served if it happens in five years for new capacity. But it may take more like 10 or more.
However, it’s quite clear to me that sooner is better and that there will be huge amounts of money to be made as this happens whether it takes 5 years or 20. And, it’s equally clear that is certain to happen barring world wide disasters or somehow developing safe & cost effective controlled fusion power.
You may be aware that the thermal solar company Ausra and PG & E are already beginning to build large scale thermal solar electricity generation facilities in the desert of Southeast California.
(If not, see http://www.ausra.com .
Here’s a quote from their website:
“Amid growing public demand for clean energy, Ausra offers solar thermal electric power stations that provide large-scale low-cost, reliable, renewable energy. Unlike competing approaches, Ausra's technology is proven, easily manufactured and installed, and scalable to high volume.“)
And, here is the key quote from their website.:
“Using Ausra's current solar technologies, all U.S. electric power, day and night, can be generated using a land area smaller than 92 by 92 miles.
Ausra's business will benefit local economies by bringing “green collar” manufacturing and operating jobs to rural communities.”
Ausra’s is not the only thermal solar approach. From what I’ve seen it may well be one of the most cost effective. However, there are other companies already moving into this space. Some may eventually be more cost effective than Ausra.
And, it may be that in some locations, it may be most cost effective to combine thin film solar with thermal solar. Thermal solar has the advantage of being able to store the collected heat for use in nighttime electricity generation. However, for optimum cost effectiveness, it may make sense to have the increased daytime demand be covered by thin film solar “farms.” (So, far it looks to me as if thin film generated solar electricity will cost less per megawatt to install & operate.)
So why does this mean there is a “New Energy & Industrial Region “?
In North America, the locations that work best for large scale electricity generation need to be unusually sunny year round and have land that is not very arable & is currently not very populated.
Where is that found in North America?
1. In the United States,
It’s in California in Southeastern California, far Southern California, &, given less water access in the future, in the South end of the Central Valley at least in part.
It’s also in much of Nevada & a good bit of Arizona & New Mexico. To a lesser degree it’s also in parts of Utah, Colorado, & West Texas.
2. In Mexico,
It’s most of Baja California.
And, it’s in a huge area of Northern Mexico that lies South of California, Arizona, New Mexico, & West Texas.
Since this area taken as whole totals thousands of square miles & has abundant sunshine year round, once it is fully developed as a solar electricity generation zone, much of the electricity needed to power the economies of the United States & Mexico may well come from this area.
Some electricity will come from locally generated renewable sources such as local rooftop solar & wind. And, some will likely come from sequestered coal burning & nuclear -- at least during the transition phase.
I believe that as this area becomes a major energy generation zone, it will make increasing sense to locate server farms, manufacturing, & industrial plants that need large amounts of electricity, such as aluminum smelting, in this area.
In addition, the current populations of this area will need desalted sea water let alone increased populations. This will clearly be powered by solar thermal & solar electricity.
To me, this makes the area of California along the Pacific coast from San Diego to the Mexican Border, the coast of all of Baja California, & the part of Northern Mexico on the other side of the Gulf of California the site of real estate that will be quite valuable in the future for such businesses.
One of the interesting implications is that there may well be enough jobs in this overall area of Northern Mexico to mostly solve the problem of excess & illegal immigration into the United States from Mexico.
If this forecast is correct, there will soon be enough jobs in this part of Mexico, people in Mexico will no longer need to move to the United States to get good jobs. They will be abundantly available in Northern Mexico.
A policy implication of this is that the governments of Mexico, California, & the United States would do well to foster the development of such solar farms & new jobs in Northern Mexico as fast as it can be made to happen.
And, it will pay companies in the United States to plan on expanding into this area as well. In the Silicon Valley where I live, there are three companies that I think for various reason might look at this.: Google, Intel, & Hewlett Packard. These & similar companies thrived by adding facilities in Ireland. And the economy of Ireland has thrived because of it.
I predict this will now happen in Northern Mexico because of solar power available there already -- & the solar electricity that will be available there soon.
The good news is that the current governments of California & Mexico seem likely to like the idea. The President of Mexico just said recently that while he wants people from Mexico who do come to the United States to be treated humanely, he would much rather they could find the good jobs they want in Mexico.
The development of this Solar Energy Area in Northern Mexico has the promise of doing exactly that.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Energy Flags….
Today’s post: Weds, 2-20-2008
I recently read an interesting article. In much the same way that self-winding watches work, the article said that nanotech “cloth” had been developed that could use the normal motions of the wearer to generate electricity.
Due to severe skin irritation or serious health problems nanoparticles may be capable of causing, I’m not at all sure that using such devices would be wise or safe--in clothing.
Cloth tends to break down into dust particles. So you also have think about whether or not it’s safe to breathe nanoparticles before they get used in clothing.
Lightweight plastic film could seal in the electricity generating nanoparticles & prevent these problems. But it’s not very comfortable to wear.
So, I’m not sure energy generating shirts are a good idea at all.
However, the article also happened to mention that this kind of cloth would produce current if it was moved by a light breeze.
That suggests a potentially very useful application.
In fact, it may suggest a double application.
Windmills do work to convert wind in windy areas to electricity.
But they use a lot of metals to build. They have a significant lead time to install them. And, the big ones quite literally hit birds out of the sky when they are turning.
Why not put up multiple flags on each pole where the flags are made of this lightweight plastic film sealing in the electricity generating nanoparticles this article describes?
You could put up a lot of these flag poles quickly. With enough flags deployed & enough wind, I suspect you could out-generate the windmills you could fit on the same land. Even better, birds do not run into or get clubbed by stationary flag poles with flags on them.
The double application would be to put thin film solar cells on the outside of the flags. That way the outside would make electricity from sunlight. And the inside would make electricity from the wind.
I’m not technical enough or rich enough to try this myself. And, the basic idea may be too simple to patent directly.
(The precise processes needed to make it work properly at reasonable cost definitely would be.)
So, if anyone reading this can use this idea, by all means explore it or use it.
Today’s post: Weds, 2-20-2008
I recently read an interesting article. In much the same way that self-winding watches work, the article said that nanotech “cloth” had been developed that could use the normal motions of the wearer to generate electricity.
Due to severe skin irritation or serious health problems nanoparticles may be capable of causing, I’m not at all sure that using such devices would be wise or safe--in clothing.
Cloth tends to break down into dust particles. So you also have think about whether or not it’s safe to breathe nanoparticles before they get used in clothing.
Lightweight plastic film could seal in the electricity generating nanoparticles & prevent these problems. But it’s not very comfortable to wear.
So, I’m not sure energy generating shirts are a good idea at all.
However, the article also happened to mention that this kind of cloth would produce current if it was moved by a light breeze.
That suggests a potentially very useful application.
In fact, it may suggest a double application.
Windmills do work to convert wind in windy areas to electricity.
But they use a lot of metals to build. They have a significant lead time to install them. And, the big ones quite literally hit birds out of the sky when they are turning.
Why not put up multiple flags on each pole where the flags are made of this lightweight plastic film sealing in the electricity generating nanoparticles this article describes?
You could put up a lot of these flag poles quickly. With enough flags deployed & enough wind, I suspect you could out-generate the windmills you could fit on the same land. Even better, birds do not run into or get clubbed by stationary flag poles with flags on them.
The double application would be to put thin film solar cells on the outside of the flags. That way the outside would make electricity from sunlight. And the inside would make electricity from the wind.
I’m not technical enough or rich enough to try this myself. And, the basic idea may be too simple to patent directly.
(The precise processes needed to make it work properly at reasonable cost definitely would be.)
So, if anyone reading this can use this idea, by all means explore it or use it.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
New directions needed for biofuels….
Today’s post: Weds, 2-13-2008
I. First, here’s the news article that prompted this post.:
“Biofuels Study Heats Up Global-Warming Debate Jennifer LeClaire, newsfactor.com
Mon Feb 11, 11:17 AM ET
A new study is heating up the global-warming debate. The report by The Nature Conservancy and the University of Minnesota concludes that converting land for biofuel crops results in major carbon emissions that make global warming worse. The study will be published in Science later this month.
The researchers ask: Does the carbon you lose by converting forests, grasslands and peatlands outweigh the carbon you save by using biofuels instead of fossil fuels? They say no, but as with other environmental issues there are many who disagree.
Paying Back the Carbon Debt
The study found that land conversions for corn or sugarcane (ethanol), or palms or soybeans (biodiesel) release 17 to 420 times more carbon than the annual savings from replacing fossil fuels.
The carbon, which is stored in the original plants and soil, is released as carbon dioxide, a process that may take decades. This "carbon debt" must be paid before the biofuels produced on the land can begin to lower greenhouse gas levels and ease global warming, the researchers said.
The conversion of peatlands into palm-oil plantations in Indonesia ran up the greatest carbon debt and would require 423 years to pay off. The next worst was the production of soybeans in the Amazon, which would not pay for itself in renewable soy biodiesel for 319 years.
"We don't have proper incentives in place because landowners are rewarded for producing palm oil and other products, but not rewarded for carbon management," said Stephen Polasky, a University of Minnesota applied economics professor and an author of the study. "This creates incentives for excessive land clearing and can result in large increases in carbon emissions."
A Plausible Theory
As a researcher who has written several papers on biofuels, Kenneth Mulder, a professor and college farm director at Green Mountain College, views the findings as entirely plausible.
"We know that from strictly an energy perspective, the biofuels currently in heaviest production do not have a very high rate of return," Mulder said. "When environmental consequences are taken into consideration, they have been shown by several researchers to have a net negative impact on society."
In particular, Mulder said, many acres of marginally productive land that have been serving a vital function sequestering carbon are now being converted to intensive agriculture, resulting in a loss of soil carbon. There is more carbon in the soil than in the atmosphere above it, he added, and the release of this soil carbon has strong implications for climate change.
Not Logical?
Wilfred Candler, author of Global Warming: The Answer, has a different view. Basically, he insisted, the notion that making ethanol will cause forest destruction is not logical. It could be that it would raise the price of corn or palm oil, he said, and people eat less chicken, or use less palm oil for cooking.
"It is probably right that cases can be found -- Malaysia comes to mind -- where serious amounts of forest are being cut down or burned to make way for palm-oil plantations, where the palm oil is intended to be used to make biofuels," Candler said. "They might even be building processing plants in the new plantations. This might appear to be pretty clear cause and effect, but if biofuel was prohibited, there is no assurance that the forest would not have been cut down. Would you believe coffee, coconut or even palm oil for soap?"
II. I see several implications of this study.
1. We need to minimize our reliance on biofuels while still eliminating fossil fuels & maximize other ways to power transport that use technologies such as battery power using solar generated electricity.
It also likely makes sense to use telecommuting & locally bought foods etc as much as we can to minimize the use of fuels for transport in those ways.
This makes all electric cars like the Tesla & plug-in hybrids with roof top solar cells an extremely good idea. It also puts a premium on improved battery technology.
It also may make electric powered mass transit more desirable.
2. We need to maximize our biofuels that are created from sources that do NOT require new fields to be planted & to create ways to grow crops for biofuels that do NOT create this problem.
We also need to be able to prevent the conversion of rain forests & other existing plants to uses that do not remove as much carbon dioxide from the air.
It also puts a premium on developing ways to generate biofuels from compost, agricultural waste, & harvesting already existing plants like grasses that can simply be mowed periodically.
One way to do this may pay double benefits.
a) Grain fed cattle & poultry are considerably more likely to promote disease than grass or pasture fed. Grain fed animals produce more fat than grass or pasture fed; their fat has MUCH less omega 3 oils & more omega 6 oils & saturated fat than grass or pasture fed; & they need more herbicides, pesticides, & antibiotics than grass or pasture fed.
It may make excellent sense to eat less meat; stopping eating it fro from grain fed cattle & poultry; & eat the meat we do eat from grass or pasture fed only.
That way, the grain that is now being fed to beef cattle & poultry can – or the switch grass, or biodiesel crops that could be grown on the same land can -- go to biofuels only.
b) Similarly, high fructose corn syrup is making people fat & sick with diseases like type II diabetes that it has been implicated as causing. That costs our economy to treat these diseases that could be prevented by eliminating high fructose corn syrup. And, that corn – or the switch grass, or biodiesel crops that could be grown on the same land – can go only to biofuels.
3. This also puts a premium on getting biofuels from algae that is grown in tanks on non-arable land.
It’s abundantly clear that ALL our liquid fuels need to come from biofuels as soon as possible.
But we also need to keep the near term carbon emissions from doing so as close to zero as we can possibly manage.
Here are some of the ideas & implications that have occurred to me.
Today’s post: Weds, 2-13-2008
I. First, here’s the news article that prompted this post.:
“Biofuels Study Heats Up Global-Warming Debate Jennifer LeClaire, newsfactor.com
Mon Feb 11, 11:17 AM ET
A new study is heating up the global-warming debate. The report by The Nature Conservancy and the University of Minnesota concludes that converting land for biofuel crops results in major carbon emissions that make global warming worse. The study will be published in Science later this month.
The researchers ask: Does the carbon you lose by converting forests, grasslands and peatlands outweigh the carbon you save by using biofuels instead of fossil fuels? They say no, but as with other environmental issues there are many who disagree.
Paying Back the Carbon Debt
The study found that land conversions for corn or sugarcane (ethanol), or palms or soybeans (biodiesel) release 17 to 420 times more carbon than the annual savings from replacing fossil fuels.
The carbon, which is stored in the original plants and soil, is released as carbon dioxide, a process that may take decades. This "carbon debt" must be paid before the biofuels produced on the land can begin to lower greenhouse gas levels and ease global warming, the researchers said.
The conversion of peatlands into palm-oil plantations in Indonesia ran up the greatest carbon debt and would require 423 years to pay off. The next worst was the production of soybeans in the Amazon, which would not pay for itself in renewable soy biodiesel for 319 years.
"We don't have proper incentives in place because landowners are rewarded for producing palm oil and other products, but not rewarded for carbon management," said Stephen Polasky, a University of Minnesota applied economics professor and an author of the study. "This creates incentives for excessive land clearing and can result in large increases in carbon emissions."
A Plausible Theory
As a researcher who has written several papers on biofuels, Kenneth Mulder, a professor and college farm director at Green Mountain College, views the findings as entirely plausible.
"We know that from strictly an energy perspective, the biofuels currently in heaviest production do not have a very high rate of return," Mulder said. "When environmental consequences are taken into consideration, they have been shown by several researchers to have a net negative impact on society."
In particular, Mulder said, many acres of marginally productive land that have been serving a vital function sequestering carbon are now being converted to intensive agriculture, resulting in a loss of soil carbon. There is more carbon in the soil than in the atmosphere above it, he added, and the release of this soil carbon has strong implications for climate change.
Not Logical?
Wilfred Candler, author of Global Warming: The Answer, has a different view. Basically, he insisted, the notion that making ethanol will cause forest destruction is not logical. It could be that it would raise the price of corn or palm oil, he said, and people eat less chicken, or use less palm oil for cooking.
"It is probably right that cases can be found -- Malaysia comes to mind -- where serious amounts of forest are being cut down or burned to make way for palm-oil plantations, where the palm oil is intended to be used to make biofuels," Candler said. "They might even be building processing plants in the new plantations. This might appear to be pretty clear cause and effect, but if biofuel was prohibited, there is no assurance that the forest would not have been cut down. Would you believe coffee, coconut or even palm oil for soap?"
II. I see several implications of this study.
1. We need to minimize our reliance on biofuels while still eliminating fossil fuels & maximize other ways to power transport that use technologies such as battery power using solar generated electricity.
It also likely makes sense to use telecommuting & locally bought foods etc as much as we can to minimize the use of fuels for transport in those ways.
This makes all electric cars like the Tesla & plug-in hybrids with roof top solar cells an extremely good idea. It also puts a premium on improved battery technology.
It also may make electric powered mass transit more desirable.
2. We need to maximize our biofuels that are created from sources that do NOT require new fields to be planted & to create ways to grow crops for biofuels that do NOT create this problem.
We also need to be able to prevent the conversion of rain forests & other existing plants to uses that do not remove as much carbon dioxide from the air.
It also puts a premium on developing ways to generate biofuels from compost, agricultural waste, & harvesting already existing plants like grasses that can simply be mowed periodically.
One way to do this may pay double benefits.
a) Grain fed cattle & poultry are considerably more likely to promote disease than grass or pasture fed. Grain fed animals produce more fat than grass or pasture fed; their fat has MUCH less omega 3 oils & more omega 6 oils & saturated fat than grass or pasture fed; & they need more herbicides, pesticides, & antibiotics than grass or pasture fed.
It may make excellent sense to eat less meat; stopping eating it fro from grain fed cattle & poultry; & eat the meat we do eat from grass or pasture fed only.
That way, the grain that is now being fed to beef cattle & poultry can – or the switch grass, or biodiesel crops that could be grown on the same land can -- go to biofuels only.
b) Similarly, high fructose corn syrup is making people fat & sick with diseases like type II diabetes that it has been implicated as causing. That costs our economy to treat these diseases that could be prevented by eliminating high fructose corn syrup. And, that corn – or the switch grass, or biodiesel crops that could be grown on the same land – can go only to biofuels.
3. This also puts a premium on getting biofuels from algae that is grown in tanks on non-arable land.
It’s abundantly clear that ALL our liquid fuels need to come from biofuels as soon as possible.
But we also need to keep the near term carbon emissions from doing so as close to zero as we can possibly manage.
Here are some of the ideas & implications that have occurred to me.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Some Energy Policy ideas that might help….
Today’s post: Weds, 2-6-2008
The world's economy today is almost exclusively based on burning carbon based fuels. (At this time, nuclear and renewable energy are supplemental only although in some places, are a significant supplement.)
As we spoke of last time, our national security in the United States, the health of the economy, & possibly our survival, look to depend on switching to a 100 % renewable energy based economy.
I. Since we are already desperately late in doing this, it needs to be done very rapidly and on a large scale.
II. And, if the effort is to succeed, it needs to reward current businesses for doing the right things far more than it does penalize them for doing the wrong things. In my view this is essential to avoid slowing the process.
Businesses, particularly the stronger ones, tend to go much faster when thy have something to gain. And, if they will lose money now available to them, they often try to get out of it or delay as long as they can, or implement these changes as slowly as they can manage. And, we need maximum speed here. Yes we need to have businesses stop doing some things as fast as possible. But to get them to do it quickly, we need to also give them some strong incentives & help them to avoid losing too much money. To the maximum extent, we need to put them in a position to make MORE by replacing the things they should no longer do with those that they should do.
In addition, these businesses are where most of the developed talent, people, management, & capital now are available to get the job done. And, this is critical since we need speed, scale, and a gradually accelerating pace of change.
One way to do this is to create the new businesses & technologies we need. And, that process is well started. Both venture backed startups & some of the more visionary & informed large companies are doing this.
In the area where I live, Ausra, Nanosolar, & Applied Materials are good examples of this. Honda in Japan is another. General Electric is a bit slow & behind based on what I saw on their website. But they show signs of moving in the right direction now.
And, my examples are likely less than one percent of what is already happening.
The bad news is that we are at least 25 years behind & we are only about one percent of the way to an economy based on renewable energy.
III. Here’s a partial to do list that would help.
1. A. We can dramatically expand the generation of solar energy to electricity. By doing that we can get close to 100 % of our electricity from renewable sources if we expand solar enough.
We can increasingly use electricity to power transportation, particularly by car with electric cars & plug-in hybrids.
This is clearly a very high priority item. So the development of thin film solar & other ways to drive the cost down; electric & plug-in hybrid cars; & improved battery technology are also imperative.
Germany has a special incentive program that is proven to sharply increase the deployment of solar electric generation. So, a logical policy would be to require every utility regulating entity in the United States to adopt that policy in whole or in part within a year.
A similar & related policy is to insist that when homes & businesses create more energy than they use, they be paid for it. In California now, you can pay for the grid electricity you use with solar electricity you generate, which can result in a zero utility bill.
But if you install a lot of solar & add energy conservation so well you generate MORE than you use, you get no money. Given the current energy & CO2 situation, that stupidity must be stopped everywhere as soon as is possible.
More money for venture capital in this area will help.
But one of the most important policies our government should adapt as soon as possible is to create a huge funding agency to finance the deployment of solar electricity generation & conversion costs for both industry & consumers.
As the dollar cost, let alone the real environmental impact cost, of fossil fuels rises, getting solar power instead will be cost effective within at least 20 years & increasingly much faster. But businesses & consumers need financing that allows them to pay for the installation & conversion now through the financing that also has at least half the interest cost paid by the government. It would also help if the payments could then become part of their utility bill & paid over a 30 year period. That way, the costs will be less than the savings very quickly and as many as ten times as many people will deploy solar soon.
Another policy area for government is the rapid installation of roofs with solar electricity generating cells in place over every parking lot in the United States. Such roofs will also provide shade in the summer & protection from the rain. Even better, they use land already available & paved over that is right next door to the potential users. That is a HUGE opportunity that government should boost in every way possible.
2. We will still need liquid fuels for air transport and for the transition period while most of our vehicles still use it. And, particularly at first, we will need a source of what is now called “natural” gas for heating.
We need gradually to develop sources like agricultural waste, switch grass & similar plants than can be grown on land not suitable to grow food, & algae as sources for hydrocarbons as this is powered by solar energy & removes CO2 from the air.
And, we will need to learn to use solar electric powered refinery & conversion sites that will enable us to replace, from this source, 100 % of the petroleum & natural gas we now use & cannot replace with solar electricity.
This will need venture capital, some of which it’s getting now. But of much greater importance it will need large amounts of expansion capital once the technology is in place.
The seed or starter funding for this is a good policy for our government to have.
3. Aggressive re-forestation & a slow down of the reverse is paramount, since we need the trees to continue to remove CO2 at no further charge.
So the development of effective & economically doable ways to do this is a priority.
4. The more energy efficient we are the faster we can reach 100 % of our energy from renewable sources.
Energy conservation is therefore paramount.
a) Conservation that involves doing without things requires sacrifice & constant attention to work. This can only be done successfully for a short time. So I think it should either be not done or done for a five year period only, when the extra energy will empower one of these other changes to get to 100 % faster.
b) Selling people on avoiding waste, however, & culling wasteful & unnecessary practices in part by taxing them, will work just fine.
That can be done by government policy & be a source of revenue besides.
c) The huge opportunity though, is in deploying energy conservation devices & infrastructure rapidly.
Those need not require sacrifice & can save money. Even better, they do not need continuous attention or effort once they are in place.
Examples, if homes & businesses become better insulated & are retrofitted to prevent summer heat from entering in other ways, we will need dramatically less energy for heating & cooling. And, that will free solar generated electricity for other uses & reduce the amount of heating oil & natural gas we burn.
Another example is LED light bulbs. They use even less energy than compact fluorescents; & they do not have mercury in them that is already causing dangerous mercury pollution problems from disposal of compact fluorescents.
Government must put incentives & financing in place to deploy the existing technologies & to deploy the better technologies as they come online.
Further, they need to partner with venture capital & large appropriate businesses like GE to get cost effective LED light bulbs & similar technologies developed & deployed.
5. We need to start taxing the use of fossil fuels.
Since doing it in huge amounts now will crash the economy & hurt innocent people & make enemies of businesses doing so is an absolutely horrible idea.
But in the same way that income tax started as a very small part of federal funding, I think we should begin to tax fossil fuels at least some immediately.
We can then fund the other programs from this tax. And, as the conversion process makes alternatives available, we can gradually increase the rate from the one % or so where we start to 500 % over the next 40 years.
Also, particularly in the early stages, vetting real & effective programs to offset CO2 emissions & allowing businesses to pay this tax or avoid it temporarily by buying carbon offsets is an excellent idea.
Since the places to put this carbon offset money have often NOT been vetted or been that effective now, a very important government priority needs to be putting that in place as soon as possible.
6. We need a President next time who makes this area a number one priority no matter what.
That even the candidates who say they understand this issue are not running as if this area is a priority, I am gravely concerned.
I’m also surprised & disappointed. In this I’m not alone. I’ve gotten an email from the Sierra Club requesting help in getting press coverage of this issue.
So, if you have the ear of a candidate or their campaign chairpeople, please put in good word for the idea.
I believe it will be a significant competitive advantage for the candidate who does it first & the one who does it best.
This is in part because the voters are quite concerned about the economy which will soon be in serious, serious trouble without these policies.
To re-phrase an old Bill Clinton slogan, “It’s the energy economy stupid.”
That’s my take on it.
Today’s post: Weds, 2-6-2008
The world's economy today is almost exclusively based on burning carbon based fuels. (At this time, nuclear and renewable energy are supplemental only although in some places, are a significant supplement.)
As we spoke of last time, our national security in the United States, the health of the economy, & possibly our survival, look to depend on switching to a 100 % renewable energy based economy.
I. Since we are already desperately late in doing this, it needs to be done very rapidly and on a large scale.
II. And, if the effort is to succeed, it needs to reward current businesses for doing the right things far more than it does penalize them for doing the wrong things. In my view this is essential to avoid slowing the process.
Businesses, particularly the stronger ones, tend to go much faster when thy have something to gain. And, if they will lose money now available to them, they often try to get out of it or delay as long as they can, or implement these changes as slowly as they can manage. And, we need maximum speed here. Yes we need to have businesses stop doing some things as fast as possible. But to get them to do it quickly, we need to also give them some strong incentives & help them to avoid losing too much money. To the maximum extent, we need to put them in a position to make MORE by replacing the things they should no longer do with those that they should do.
In addition, these businesses are where most of the developed talent, people, management, & capital now are available to get the job done. And, this is critical since we need speed, scale, and a gradually accelerating pace of change.
One way to do this is to create the new businesses & technologies we need. And, that process is well started. Both venture backed startups & some of the more visionary & informed large companies are doing this.
In the area where I live, Ausra, Nanosolar, & Applied Materials are good examples of this. Honda in Japan is another. General Electric is a bit slow & behind based on what I saw on their website. But they show signs of moving in the right direction now.
And, my examples are likely less than one percent of what is already happening.
The bad news is that we are at least 25 years behind & we are only about one percent of the way to an economy based on renewable energy.
III. Here’s a partial to do list that would help.
1. A. We can dramatically expand the generation of solar energy to electricity. By doing that we can get close to 100 % of our electricity from renewable sources if we expand solar enough.
We can increasingly use electricity to power transportation, particularly by car with electric cars & plug-in hybrids.
This is clearly a very high priority item. So the development of thin film solar & other ways to drive the cost down; electric & plug-in hybrid cars; & improved battery technology are also imperative.
Germany has a special incentive program that is proven to sharply increase the deployment of solar electric generation. So, a logical policy would be to require every utility regulating entity in the United States to adopt that policy in whole or in part within a year.
A similar & related policy is to insist that when homes & businesses create more energy than they use, they be paid for it. In California now, you can pay for the grid electricity you use with solar electricity you generate, which can result in a zero utility bill.
But if you install a lot of solar & add energy conservation so well you generate MORE than you use, you get no money. Given the current energy & CO2 situation, that stupidity must be stopped everywhere as soon as is possible.
More money for venture capital in this area will help.
But one of the most important policies our government should adapt as soon as possible is to create a huge funding agency to finance the deployment of solar electricity generation & conversion costs for both industry & consumers.
As the dollar cost, let alone the real environmental impact cost, of fossil fuels rises, getting solar power instead will be cost effective within at least 20 years & increasingly much faster. But businesses & consumers need financing that allows them to pay for the installation & conversion now through the financing that also has at least half the interest cost paid by the government. It would also help if the payments could then become part of their utility bill & paid over a 30 year period. That way, the costs will be less than the savings very quickly and as many as ten times as many people will deploy solar soon.
Another policy area for government is the rapid installation of roofs with solar electricity generating cells in place over every parking lot in the United States. Such roofs will also provide shade in the summer & protection from the rain. Even better, they use land already available & paved over that is right next door to the potential users. That is a HUGE opportunity that government should boost in every way possible.
2. We will still need liquid fuels for air transport and for the transition period while most of our vehicles still use it. And, particularly at first, we will need a source of what is now called “natural” gas for heating.
We need gradually to develop sources like agricultural waste, switch grass & similar plants than can be grown on land not suitable to grow food, & algae as sources for hydrocarbons as this is powered by solar energy & removes CO2 from the air.
And, we will need to learn to use solar electric powered refinery & conversion sites that will enable us to replace, from this source, 100 % of the petroleum & natural gas we now use & cannot replace with solar electricity.
This will need venture capital, some of which it’s getting now. But of much greater importance it will need large amounts of expansion capital once the technology is in place.
The seed or starter funding for this is a good policy for our government to have.
3. Aggressive re-forestation & a slow down of the reverse is paramount, since we need the trees to continue to remove CO2 at no further charge.
So the development of effective & economically doable ways to do this is a priority.
4. The more energy efficient we are the faster we can reach 100 % of our energy from renewable sources.
Energy conservation is therefore paramount.
a) Conservation that involves doing without things requires sacrifice & constant attention to work. This can only be done successfully for a short time. So I think it should either be not done or done for a five year period only, when the extra energy will empower one of these other changes to get to 100 % faster.
b) Selling people on avoiding waste, however, & culling wasteful & unnecessary practices in part by taxing them, will work just fine.
That can be done by government policy & be a source of revenue besides.
c) The huge opportunity though, is in deploying energy conservation devices & infrastructure rapidly.
Those need not require sacrifice & can save money. Even better, they do not need continuous attention or effort once they are in place.
Examples, if homes & businesses become better insulated & are retrofitted to prevent summer heat from entering in other ways, we will need dramatically less energy for heating & cooling. And, that will free solar generated electricity for other uses & reduce the amount of heating oil & natural gas we burn.
Another example is LED light bulbs. They use even less energy than compact fluorescents; & they do not have mercury in them that is already causing dangerous mercury pollution problems from disposal of compact fluorescents.
Government must put incentives & financing in place to deploy the existing technologies & to deploy the better technologies as they come online.
Further, they need to partner with venture capital & large appropriate businesses like GE to get cost effective LED light bulbs & similar technologies developed & deployed.
5. We need to start taxing the use of fossil fuels.
Since doing it in huge amounts now will crash the economy & hurt innocent people & make enemies of businesses doing so is an absolutely horrible idea.
But in the same way that income tax started as a very small part of federal funding, I think we should begin to tax fossil fuels at least some immediately.
We can then fund the other programs from this tax. And, as the conversion process makes alternatives available, we can gradually increase the rate from the one % or so where we start to 500 % over the next 40 years.
Also, particularly in the early stages, vetting real & effective programs to offset CO2 emissions & allowing businesses to pay this tax or avoid it temporarily by buying carbon offsets is an excellent idea.
Since the places to put this carbon offset money have often NOT been vetted or been that effective now, a very important government priority needs to be putting that in place as soon as possible.
6. We need a President next time who makes this area a number one priority no matter what.
That even the candidates who say they understand this issue are not running as if this area is a priority, I am gravely concerned.
I’m also surprised & disappointed. In this I’m not alone. I’ve gotten an email from the Sierra Club requesting help in getting press coverage of this issue.
So, if you have the ear of a candidate or their campaign chairpeople, please put in good word for the idea.
I believe it will be a significant competitive advantage for the candidate who does it first & the one who does it best.
This is in part because the voters are quite concerned about the economy which will soon be in serious, serious trouble without these policies.
To re-phrase an old Bill Clinton slogan, “It’s the energy economy stupid.”
That’s my take on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)