Download a coherent energy policy for the united states

A COHERENT ENERGY
POLICY FOR THE UNITED
STATES
SOL SHAPIRO
303 693-3591 [email protected]
NOVEMBER 2008
ENERGY ISSUES FACED BY THE UNITED STATES
THREE INTER-RELATED ISSUES:
- DOMESTIC TRANSPORTATION ENERGY
- CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION
- MOVING ELECTRICITY GRID FROM FOSSIL FUEL
IMPORTANT NOTE: WE CANNOT DRIVE CARS USING
OUR ELECTRIC GRID UNTIL/UNLESS WE HAVE
BATTERIES WHICH MEET:
RANGE/ECONOMICS/SAFETY/RELIABILITY FOR
MASS PRODUCTION
TRANSPORTATION FUEL - THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE
MY ENGINEERING BACKGROUND SAYS THAT WE SHOULD NOT
BET THE FARM ON INVENTION!!
CURRENT LAW DOES NOT ADEQUATELY TREAT THE SHORT RUN;
IN 10 YEARS, IT IS ESTIMATED THAT:
- CAFÉ STADARDS WILL SAVE LESS THAN ONE MILLION
BARRELS PER DAY (HYBRIDS INCLUDED HERE)
- BIOFUELS MAY PRODUCE ONE MILLION BARRELS PER DAY
- DRILLING MAY PRODUCE 1TO 2 MILLION BARRELS PER DAY
WE SHOULD USE COAL-TO-LIQUID AND NATURAL GAS TO LIQUID
FOR AN ADDITIONAL ONE TO TWO MILLION BARRELS PER DAY.
- COAL-TO-LIQUID BASED ON THE FISCHER-TROPSCH PROCESS
IS OVER 80 YEARS OLD:
- GERMANY USED IT FOR MUCH OF ITS LIQUID FUEL IN WW2
- SOUTH AFRICA IS MAKING 150,000 BARRELS PER DAY AS A
VESTIGE OF APARTHEID
- COAL-TO-LIQUID CAN BE MADE FOR ABOUT $60 PER BARREL
- NATURAL GAS-TO-LIQUID MAY BE A GOOD TAKE-OFF ON THE
“PICKENS PLAN”
TRANSPORTATION FUEL (CONTINUED)
BUT: THE 2005 ENERGY BILL MANDATES THAT LIQUID FUEL
MADE FROM COAL MUST HAVE “WELL-TO-WHEEL” CO2
EMISSION 20% LESS THAN CRUDE OIL.
RATIONAL FOR THIS IS TIED TO THE ISSUE OF CLIMATE CHANGE
MITIGATION.
ALSO: COAL-TO-LIQUID PLANTS ARE CAPITAL INTENSIVE –
ABOUT $5 BILLION FOR A 50,000 BARREL PER DAY PLANT;
- FOR THE CAPITAL MARKET TO SUPPORT THESE PLANTS, WE
NEED A LONG TERM GUARANTEED MARKET FOR THIS FUEL.
- ONE APPROACH FROM S 4000 BY SENATOR LUGAR FOR
BIOFUELS IN THE 109TH CONGRESS IS TO PROVIDE TAX
CREDITS TIED TO THE PRICE OF CRUDE OIL
- EXAMPLE: IF WE WERE MAKING ONE MILLION BARRELS PER
DAY OF THE 20 MILLION WE CONSUME; AND THE PRICE OF
CRUDE WERE $10 BELOW THE FLOOR, A TAX COULD BE
PLACED ON ALL LIQUID FUEL OF ABOUT 1 ½ CENTS PER
GALLON TO MAKE THE SUPPLIERS WHOLE!!
TRANSPORTATION FUEL (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY:
- DO ALL: DRILL, BIOFUEL, BATTERIES PLUS COAL AND
NATURAL GAS-TO-LIQUID – INITIALLY LIMITING THESE TO
ONE MILLION BARRELS PER DAY – WITH TAX CREDIT
COLLAR
- LOOK AT THE PROGRAM EVERY TWO YEARS AND DECIDE
WHAT TO DO
- THE BELIEF THAT ONE CAN SET UP A PROGRAM FOR A 10
YEAR PERIOD OR MORE WHERE THERE IS SO MUCH
UNCERTAINTY AND BELIEVE THAT IT WILL NOT NEED
MODIFICATION IS NOT RATIONAL.
CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION
CLIMATE CHANGE POSES A SERIOUS THREAT TO THE WORLD
AND ACTION MUST BE TAKEN TO SLOW OR REVERSE THE
PROCESS
THE IPCC MITIGATION APPROACH IS FOCUSED SOLELY ON
MOVING THE WORLD’S ENERGY BASE FROM FOSSIL FUELS
TO STABILIZE CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE
- THIS IS A NECESSARY LONG RANGE GOAL FOR MANY
REASONS - CLIMATE CHANGE BEING A MAJOR PLAYER; BUT
ALSO BECAUSE RESOURCE DEPLETION WILL REQUIRE THIS
MOVE AT SOME TIME
- BUT CHANGING OUR ENERGY BASE IS A GOAL WHICH THE
WORLD IS HAVING A DIFFICULT TIME ACHIEVING
- AND WE ARE BEING TOLD (JAMES HANSEN) THAT THE
WORLD IS FACING THE POSSIBILITY OF A “TIPPING POINT” IN
A MATTER OF DECADES
AND SO – SHOULDN’T WE LOOK AT POSSIBLE SHORT TERM
SOLUTIONS? THEY DO EXIST
CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION
STUDY GEOENGINEERING AND DEPLOY AS NEEDED
THERE ARE SHORT TERM SOLUTIONS TO PUT CLIMATE
CHANGE ON HOLD AND GIVE THE WORLD THE CENTURY OR
MORE IT WILL NEED TO CHANGE ITS ENERGY BASE
- THE TERM USED IS “CLIMATE CHANGE GEOENGINEERING”
- ONE IMPLEMENTATION WOULD BE TO EMULATE THE
COOLING EFFECTS OF LARGE VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS BY
PLACING PARTICULATES INTO THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE –
REDUCE INCOMING SOLAR FLUX BY 1 ½ TO 2%
- ANOTHER IS CLOUD SEEDING
- STUDY AND DEPLOYMENT AS NEEDED OF THESE AND
OTHER APPROACHES HAS BEEN ENDORSED BY NOBEL
LAUREATE PAUL CRUTZEN AND RALPH CICERONE,
PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
AMONG OTHER PROMINENT SCIENTISTS OVER THE PAST 30
YEARS
CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION
STUDY GEOENGINEERING AND DEPLOY AS NEEDED
THE IPCC KEEPS GEOENGINEERING ON THE BACK BURNER
- IT WAS MENTIONED IN A BACK PAGE OF THE LAST
MITIGATION REPORT – BUT IN A NEGATIVE WAY
- STEVE SCHNEIDER, A MEMBER OF THE IPCC HAS
SUGGESTED THAT WE NOT TALK TO THE PUBLIC ABOUT
GEOENGINEERING – TO PARAPHRASE “LEST THEY
CONTINUE TO POLLUTE (CO2) – NOT WITHOUT MERIT
- THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY DOES NOT ANSWER
PHONE CALLS ON THE SUBJECT
- SUSAN SOLOMON OF THE IPCC, IN RESPONSE TO MY
QUESTION ON THE SUBJECT AT A PUBLIC MEETING AGREED
THAT STUDY SHOULD BE DONE, BUT THEN QUICKLY
CHANGED THE SUBJECT
CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION
STUDY GEOENGINEERING AND DEPLOY AS NEEDED
SHOULD THE WORLD NOT ACT TO STUDY AND DEPLOY
GEOENGINEERING FOR SHORT TERM MITIGATION
- AND SHOULD WE SEE A “TIPPING POINT”
- THE IPCC AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY WOULD BE
MORALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DISASTERS ASSOCIATED
WITH SUCH A TIPPING POINT
- IS IT NOT THEN INCUMBENT UPON THE LEADERS OF THE IPCC
AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY TO WORK TOWARD
BOTH SHORT AND LONG TERM SOLUTIONS FOR CLIMATE
MITIGATION?
- SHORT TERM – GEOENGINEERING STUDY AND DEPLOYMENT
AS NEEDED
- LONG TERM – MOVE THE WORLD FROM USE OF FOSSIL FUELS
AND IT IS BECAUSE OF THIS BELIEF THAT GEOENGINEERING WILL
BE USED THAT COAL-TO-LIQUID, INITIALLY WITHOUT CO2
SEQUESTRATION SHOULD BE PART OF US ENERGY POLICY
AN ELECTRICITY GRID WITHOUT FOSSIL FUELS
WE NEED TO SELECT A SHORT TERM PATH WHICH CAN LEAD
TO THE LONG RANGE SOLUTION – NOT 10%, 20% BUT 80%+
PRINCIPAL OPTIONS RECEIVING MOST ATTENTION – SINGLY OR
TOGETHER ARE:
- WIND
- SOLAR
- GEOTHERMAL
- NUCLEAR
AN ELECTRICITY GRID WITHOUT FOSSIL FUELS (CONTD)
WIND CAPACITY COULD PROBABLY BE EXTENDED TO MEET
ALL US ELECTRICITY ENERGY NEEDS; BUT IT WOULD NEED
MAJOR EFFORT IN ENERGY STORAGE – WHICH IS ONLY NOW
STARTING TO RECEIVE ATTENTION
SOLAR PV CAN MEET ALL ELECTRICITY ENERGY NEEDS ON
LESS THAN 10,000 SQUARE MILES OF THE SOUTHWEST –
BUT AS WITH WIND, WE NEED TO FACE THE ISSUE OF
STORAGE
SOLAR THERMAL WHICH HAS INHERENT STORAGE CAN, AS
DOES SOLAR PV MEET ALL OUR ELECTRICITY NEEDS ON
LESS THAN 10,000 SQUARE MILES; AND DOES HAVE
STORAGE BEFORE GENERATION OF THERMAL ENERGY;
WOULD NEED TO BE BACKED UP WITH FOSSIL FOR CLOUDY
DAYS BEYOND STORAGE CAPACITY
TO USE SOLAR AND WIND, A NATIONAL DC GRID SHOULD BE
BUILT FOR TRANSMISSION FROM ENERGY RICH REGIONS TO
CONSUMPTION REGIONS – THIS TECHNOLOGY IS AVAILABLE
AND AFFORDABLE – STUDY IS URGENTLY NEEDED
AN ELECTRICITY GRID WITHOUT FOSSIL FUELS (CONTD)
GEOTHERMAL USING THE NEW TECHNOLOGY OF INJECTION
MAY HAVE SUFFICIENT CAPACITY
NUCLEAR WILL ONLY HAVE CAPACITY NEEDED WITH
REPROCESSING INVOLVING THE PLUTONIUM CYCLE WITH
THE THREAT OF SPREADING WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY; AND
RENEWABLES CAN DO THE JOB; SO WHY RISK IT?
THE NEXT 5 YEARS SHOULD GAIN US SIGNIFICANT
KNOWLEDGE ON WHICH APPROACH TO TAKE; MUCH SOLAR
THERMAL IS BEING BUILT; THE PRICE OF SOLAR PV IS
COMING DOWN; STORAGE ISSUES ARE BEING CONSIDERED
AND THE NEW GEOTHERMAL APPROACH WILL GAIN SOME
EXPERIENCE
I DO NOT BELIEVE WE ARE IN A CRISIS MODE REQUIRING THAT
DEPLOYMENT DECISIONS BE MADE