Addiction to Fuel

Bryan Lawrence has pointed to a presentation titled Western civilisation’s “energy normality illusion”. In it, they rely on Hubbert peak theory to project future carbon dioxide emissions. Their projections are far below even the most conservative of the SRES projections. In fact, they go as far to say that the “IPCC scenarios are impossible” [emphasis in original]. Some of the figures are also available on The Oil Drum with explanatory text.

I think this is the most telling figure. My interpretation is that there is a certain amount of combustible material in the ground. And in the absence of a cheaper form of energy, we will continue to dig up and burn it to maintain our standard of living. If emissions are regulated, this pushes the peak to fossil fuel combustion to a later date, but the same amount of carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere.

The solution is to provide a cheaper source of energy.

Renewables and Infrastructure

In the presentation, Kjell Aleklett and David B. Rutledge argue that peak oil and peak coal will provide constraints on how much carbon dioxide will eventually be emitted into the atmosphere. However, even though their emission predictions are lower than the IPCC, they also point out that we cannot wait to mitigate the eventual effects of warming.

Delaying crash-programme of conversion to renewable energy means that the energy to do this later will not be available and so it will never be done (pain now means much less pain later).

This is extremely important. We must make the transition from a fossil fuel based economy to a renewable economy for the simple reason that there is a finite supply of fossil fuels. Eventually, they will run out. When that time comes, we as a society need to already have the infrastructure in place to transition to a new source of energy. But as the above quote suggests, doing so will not be cheap. Speaking as an America, we have a dreadful inability to look into the future and make decisions that will be good for us in tens or hundreds of years instead of right now.

This lack of foresight leads to infrastructure problems, such as the catastrophic collapses, monumental projects after years of neglect, and the use of a dam as a thoroughfare creating a security nightmare. But in a time of “no new taxes” it’s no wonder that we don’t have enough tax dollars to adequately address infrastructure needs. The United States Interstate Highway System hasn’t had significant change since Eisenhower instituted it in the 1950s.

Possible Solution?

Given that many Americans are opposed to large-scale government intervention of any kind, the solution must be at a smaller scale – it must be locally governed. The federal government must play a role, and for that reason will upset many. We must develop distributed energy production and storage. Right now, we have no way to store energy. The energy used to power my laptop as I write this was produced almost the same instant as it was used. This lack of storage capacity has implications for the future of our energy infrastructure.

The biggest problem is that if we want to switch to truly renewable energy such as solar or wind (and I see no viable alternative, as biofuels will just delay the problem), we need some way to store that energy produced during periods when supply is greater than demand to be used later when demand is greater than supply. There would obviously be no solar production at night, so if we want to switch to a solar-based energy infrastructure, we’d need a vast storage system.

A Solar Energy Example

Solar has several problems; the most worrying are that it is extremely variably from day-to-day, and non-existent at night. For instance, at this very minute there is a solitary cloud in the sky that is blocking solar radiation from the sun to the spot where I am sitting. However, in a few moments that cloud will move and I will again be basked in the electromagnetic energy from our sun. And there we are.

If I were a solar panel, I would not have produced electricity during the time when the cloud was between me and the sun. But my laptop has a battery, which would have provided me with power until I was again able to get primary production from the sun. This simple illustration shows that individual implementations of solar power are not a viable solution.

The good thing about solar power is that it is extremely reliable on large temporal and spacial scales. If we average the amount of solar radiation received by the whole of the Earth’s surface this year, it will be very close to the amount from last year. If solar power is to be viable, it must cover a large area to be insusceptible to local changes in weather.

Batteries

Solar energy, while currently not as cheap as energy from burning fossil fuels, is still cheap. The problem of variable power production due to changes in the weather can be compensated for by the implementation of solar panels over a large area. But this does not solve the problem of storage. We have the capacity to store power – in small amounts. That’s exactly what AAA batteries do, or really any other kind of battery.

Golf carts are a great example of using stored energy as a useful transport mechanism. The good thing about golf carts is that their batteries can provide power for a long time, as a typical golf game will take longer than 4 hours. The problem is that they are limited in speed. As the speed limit is increased, the time the batteries last decreases quickly.

We need better batteries.

Completely electric cars are the solution to the storage of energy. Whenever they were not in use they would need to be plugged into the grid. In periods of excess production, their batteries would be charged to be used when there was excess demand. Everyone would have one or two power plants in their garage instead of having just a few large power plants for an entire city.

Conclusion

Fossil fuels are in limited supply, and therefore there is a need to change our energy infrastructure to a different source of power. The most logical source of power is directly from the sun. There are currently major problems which limit the implementation of solar photovoltaics, but these can be overcome with significant investment in new infrastructure. The problem of energy storage will need to be solved, and the proposed solution is to use personal batteries as a distributed communal storage device. This solution to the energy problem is independent from the consequences of the CO2 problem.

McCormick started his quest to create a fuel-efficient vehicle as a UA student concerned about rising gas prices. He quickly realized then that his lifestyle of fuel consumption was no longer an option for him, or for car owners anywhere, he said.

Judging from the picture, I’d guess that gasoline prices when McCormick was a university student were around $0.25 per gallon. Nothing wrong with that. But then he “quickly” realized wasn’t an option. Wha? I don’t think so. But giving him the benefit of the doubt, why did it take 20-30 years (again, guessing) to make a prototype?

He goes on,

He explained that although most people tend to favor renewable energy like solar or wind, the hidden problem is the lack of an efficient way to store them, and the distribution ability is very limited.

Ethanol, McCormick explained, is a viable option, but only if it is not shortchanging the public of food. General Motors has invested in two companies - Coskata and Mascoma - that endorse ethanol use but only cellulosic, or non-edible products in order to make ethanol.

I’m not a fan of ethanol. It is a band-aid, not a solution. But casually dismissing solar and wind power like this not acceptable. It’s true that energy cannot be stored for very long or very efficiently right now. But in the time-line of everything that works, there was once a time when it didn’t work. It seems that a possible solution might be to use renewable non-polluting energy to make hydrogen, which can be stored.

“The next president and his policies are going to determine a lot of the future of these vehicles,” McCormick said. “We (GM) are willing to put in the money and the technology, but we really need favorable government policies. These cars are going to be more expensive, and tax breaks would encourage consumption by the public.”

True. But the difference between the candidates isn’t that large. If you’re looking for government handouts to corporations, then McCain would probably be a better choice. If you’re worried about the environmental impacts of pollution, then Obama would be a better choice.

But that pretty academic by now. When the pundits start describing Georgia as “too close to call”, it’s over. If Obama doesn’t get 350 electoral votes, I’d be surprised.