Talk Back Tuesday: What's the REAL Energy Solution?

This has been a busy week in terms the energy problem and how to solve it. First, we just published a story about the Sustainable Mobility Summit recently held at the Art Center College of Design in Pasadena. This was a meeting of the green energy movement, and like any good summit a variety of interesting ideas were floated (Volkswagen's army of microscopic car builders was certainly a new twist on the issue). Then there was the Joint Statement from Rick Wagoner, Tom LaSorda and Alan Mulally regarding their meeting with President Bush. To risk oversimplifying their statement, they essentially told the President that the energy solution relies on a more robust E85 and Biofuel infrastructure. Then you had Al Gore telling congress that global warming represents a Planetary Emergency.
While both the severity of the situation and the solutions to the problem could be argued until the next Sopranos' season starts (Oh, wait! That's actually pretty soon these days!), I've got a relatively cheap and highly realistic solution I'd love to see all these forces rally behind.
In my estimation the major stumbling blocks continue to be infrastructure, cost and real-world functionality. I've said for years there is no "silver bullet" to the energy solution, meaning no one thing will solve the problem. But I have come to support the idea of combining solar energy and plug-in hybrids as the most realistic, and widely applicable, answer. Put simply, if a vehicle like the Chevrolet Volt (or even the modified, plug-in Prius) could be created on a large-scale level you'd be able to meet the majority of Americans' transportation needs using nothing but electricity. And if you have solar panels on the majority of American roofs than that electricity is coming from a renewable, non-polluting source.
And the beauty of a plug-in hybrid is that it's a highly functional vehicle without the limitations of a purely electric car. It drives 40-plus miles on battery power, and then if you need more it switches on an internal combustion engine that can provide another 200-plus miles. The 40-mile range would cover nearly everyone's daily needs, and plugging in at night would recharge it (for free, from the sun). One the weekend, when you want to visit grandma or go on a vacation you still have the 250-plus range at the ready, so no need for a second vehicle (thus avoiding the Prius-daily-driver/Escalade-weekend-warrior situation).
Yes, people who tow things and haul things and build things probably would need a large truck with a powerful engine (hey, maybe a biodiesel), but think about yourself and your friends and consider how many people you know that the above situation would work for. I don't have any figures on what it would cost to put solar panels on every American's roof, but I have researched the concept for myself and the price looks to be between $10,000 and $20,000 depending on your energy needs. That's not cheap, but with enough government support (whether in tax breaks or outright funding) I'm betting you could cut that figure dramatically. I'm probably going to go solar soon just to avoid the mini-bar prices that California charges for electricity. According to my calculations it will take about 10 years for the system to pay for itself.
With luck I'll have a plug-in hybrid to drive by then, further cutting my energy costs -- not to mention my carbon footprint, right Mr. Gore?
But maybe I'm living in a dream world. Happy to hear if anyone has a better idea.
Posted by Karl Mar 27, 2007 7:02 am
Permalink
Categories: Talk Back Tuesday | Fuel Efficiency | Hybrid Vehicles
|
|
FTD factors aside, I agree except on the solar electricity thing. I've done some unrelated research on this, regarding the wind farm boom in PA. This may be different on a personal use, off-grid situation, but on the public utility renewable energy scale, wind and hydro is much cheaper. Solar panels are quite pricey, and are more dependent on storage mechanisms (i.e. batteries) which reduce efficiency.
|
|
 |  |
|
|
I hate hydrogen cars. They pretend to be eco-friendly by emitting water vapor when water vapor happens to by the most important greenhouse gas and makes up for 95% of all greenhouse gases, way more than CO2.
|
|
 |  |
vvk
- Mar 28, 2007 3:59 am
(#7 Total: 24)
|
|
|
|
All the electric and fuel cell cars may work OK in mild climate like South California. But in placed were we have real winters these cars are just expensive paperweights. Especially anything electric.
Real fuel savings are extremely easy to achieve. Just impose a $10 per gallon tax on gasoline (leave diesel fuel be). Bam -- instant reduction in consumption. And we would see real numbers -- 50%, 60%, maybe more reduction. People would instantly change their attitude. No more soccer moms with multiple kids accelerating faster than Corvettes because their minivan has a huge V-6. No more people idling their cars for hours sitting waiting for someone in the parking lot. We would see more car pooling. Manufacturers would IMMEDIATELY introduce small diesels in North America, not just talk about it for decades. More people would learn to drive stick. More would ride public transporation. People would start to care about the condition of their cars and their tires -- this would improve safety.
Take the tax revenues and improve our infrastructure. Bring our highways to world standard like they once were. Poor roads contribute a good deal to increased fuel consumption. Create better traffic controls to reduce congestion. Improve public transportation. This one is crucial. Free people from necessity to drive everywhere. Let them use their legs. In most places in the US public transportation is patheticly poor. Poorly planned, poorly funded and inefficient.
As far as solar panels on roofs go. In places like California and Texas it may be worth it. But I bet we would get far greater bang for our buck in most places if government subsidized geothermal HVAC.
|
|
 |  |
|
|
I think I'm with you on this WK. As much as it would suck for all of us personally, I think it would do us a lot of good if gas cost as much as it does in Europe. On the other hand, you think we'd have more people in the passing lane doing the speed limit? Or worse yet, below the limit on the two-lane twistys?
|
|
 |  |
|
|
I could support an un-extreme gas tax increase (our infrastructure sure needs it) but it's not going to work well unless there are large fuel-efficient vehicles. Not every family can make do with a Corolla, no matter the cost.
A tax would be a shot in the arm for plug-in hybrids and other efficient vehicles. It might take that sort of artificial demand to get some manufacturers interested, but public policy is already going in that direction.
|
|
 |  |
|
|
Being a Midwesterner, I just love it how Californians seem to have all the answers. Okay you SoCal know-it-alls, listen up. There are, in fact, tens of millions of Americans who do not live in sunny SoCal, or the equally sunny and warm southwestern desert areas, and for whom reliable, year-round sunlight conditions would be, well, unreliable. Furthermore, many of these Americans actually live in areas of the country that experience no-kidding cold-ass winters, where temperatures may fall below zero deg F for weeks on end. Electric vehicles simply do not perfom well in these extremely cold evironments. So, as you say, there is no silver bullet. Let's face it, the practical engineering challenges of implementing this kind technology such that it is reliable, easily accessible, and low cost (both in terms of manufacturing costs and ownership/maintenance costs) across the full range of potential operating conditions that exist are extremely high, and not likely to be solved in the next few years, or even decade. So let's be realistic about all of this and, barring some unexpected breakthrough, expect incremental improvements over long period of time and not place our hopes on pie-in-the-sky hope or hype.
|
|
 |  |
|
|
Two words for energy: Solar Tower. http://www.infolink.com.au/articles/42/0C049F42.aspx
Solar towers are especially suitable for sunny and remote areas with low land values, like the Australian Outback or other desert areas of the world.
Or California, Arizona, Nevada, NM, Texas, etc.
Another option, instead of a solar Chimney:
http://www.greenoptions.com/node/3206
Like the idea of plug-ins. Also, we really need to find a way to reverse vehicle bloat. Extra weight is the enemy of efficiency. A 3600 lbs car can be fairly efficient but a 2600 lbs one takes far less energy to get moving.
|
|
 |  |
|
|
L.A. CA United States of America |
|
|
If only people living in California, Arizona, Texas and Florida all converted to solar panels and plug-in hybrids the total U.S. demand for oil would plummet. Figure it's our way of balancing the scales. You deal with sub-zero temperatures, we deal with 10-second zero-to-60 times, and all of us tell OPEC where they can put that next barrel of oil.
BTW, $10-a-gallon gasoline would shut the U.S. economy down. Shipping costs, airfare, etc. -- it would touch everything. Business would shut down, meaning our number one concern would shift from gas prices and global warming to keeping our citizens fed. Not really an improvement in my mind.
|
|
 |  |
|
|
Andersendl, would you rather we took the attitude that there's no silver bullet so we shouldn't even try?
If there were an easy answer it'd already be in place. Photovoltaics aren't great yet (but they're kind of beside the point in this thread), batteries don't work well in the cold, there are no plug-in hybrids, their range won't be great, gas isn't much higher than $3/gal, and most manufacturers aren't convinced that they should bother developing anything new. And if we don't demand giant leaps from everyone involved, we're never going to get those incremental steps.
Tell us what would work better for your situation.
|
|
 |  |
flicmod
- Mar 28, 2007 11:45 am
(#14 Total: 24)
|
|
|
|
My solution? Dismantle OPEC. Glutinous pigs...
Ok, maybe that's partially a short-term solution and partially a personal grudge.
Whatever the solution will be, it's going to have to work regionally. We've obviously expressed that each region can't use the same methods of cutting fuel usage due to geography and climate. The states below the sunbelt could use plug-in cars with solar panels. I think that's reasonable.
I'm kind of echoing carlisimo's statement here, but I think the stumbling block is getting a practical solution to work in colder, darker climates. Suggestions?
|
|
 |  |
drwales
- Mar 28, 2007 12:02 pm
(#15 Total: 24)
|
|
|
|
I almost hate to say this, but Bush is probably right on this one about the long-term solution being a hydrogen economy. Hydrogen not as a fuel per se, but more as an energy storage medium. Solar-generated electricity will electrolyse water to hydrogren and oxygen. The sunnier climes can use the hydrogen in Honda-style fuel cells, and the northern part can have BMW-style internal combustion engines running on H...
But is that too long-term for your answer, Karl?
Since that's decades away, in the meantime, hybrids of any description and modern European turbodiesels will reduce our demand for petroleum. CAFE standards need to rise. Oh, and ethanol is a total crock. Or at least corn-based ethanol is a total crock.
|
|
 |  |
vvk
- Mar 28, 2007 5:18 pm
(#16 Total: 24)
|
|
|
|
Karl, $13/gal, not $10. $10 is too cheap for American consumers. If Poles and Lithuvenians can pay $4-5/gal or more, then Americans can certaintly afford 3 times more.
You missed my point about taxing gasoline only. No additional taxes on diesel, no additional taxes on aviation fuel. Shipping costs and airfares would stay at market prices.
|
|
 |  |
|
|
Good thinking WK, but it would still kill a lot of people like contractors who are trying to be economical by running 1/2 ton pickups and the like. Why don't we have diesel 1/2 tons yet? They wouldn't make as much profit as they would selling us 3/4 tons?
I think there would be a lot of rioting though if gas was taxed to $13 and diesel and aviation fuel stayed where it's at. If you think people cry the the government favors big business now... Not to mention all the stories on the news with single mothers bawling that they can't afford gas to go to work or something like that.
|
|
 |  |
|
|
L.A. CA United States of America |
|
|
This idea of "punishing" all those evil SUV-driving Suburbanites is appealing...to some, obviously. But doing it through a gas tax is simply not realistic -- and not justified in my opinion.
|
|
 |  |
crowb
- Mar 29, 2007 3:10 pm
(#19 Total: 24)
|
|
|
|
Wouldn't the gas tax hurt everyone? I drive a small economical car, partly because I don't like big heavy ones, but also because its what I can afford. I can no more to see the cost of my gasoline triple than can an SUV driver. Lots of us live narrowly within the means we have. I'd hate to pay more for gas...but I must regrettfully agree that it might be a solution. Its been suggested several times on other forums on this website, and its often followed by a compelling argument...I dunno.
|
|
 |  |
|
|
I think a small increase (well under a dollar) could be justified. If the current gas tax isn't enough to cover our infrastructure costs, then it's simply too low! But it's a regressive tax, whereas if we cover our infrastructure costs through other taxes it's progressive.
There's always the Segway =].
|
|
 |  |
|
|
Karl, wouldn't photovoltaic cells on the roof of your house be a rather inefficient way to charge a car parked at work during daylight hours? It implies that you need to convert light to electricity, then convert electricity to chemical energy in a stationary battery at your house, store energy until you get home from work, and then convert chemical energy to electricity to store chemical energy in the car's mobile battery. You would lose a lot of energy in all the conversions. Either that or only drive at night.
I define the transportation fuel problem as oil price spikes caused by almost no spare oil production capacity combined with too much of the total oil supply comming from insane parts of the world. Given this assumption, I could both save money and show both Al Gore and the arabs the finger by recharging a plug-in hybrid using nighttime off-peak power generated by burning good old American coal. Sweet!
|
|
 |  |
|
|
L.A. CA United States of America |
|
|
If the original energy comes via a free, renewable source, and also provides me with effectively free transportation, I don't care how many times it has to be converted and how much of it is "wasted" in the process.
"Wasting" solar energy is much better than sitting in stop-and-go traffic while gasoline (non-renewable) is burned up and emissions are burned. Of course, I'm less worried about the latter in terms of the world blowing up and/or the Statue of Liberty being up to her armpit in sea water or any other Chicken Little scenarios, but nice that a free and renewable energy source is also a zero-emission vehicle. Happily take that situation, even with the "waste" involved.
|
|
 |  |
|
|
That's why Karl needs a turbine. :-)
|
|
 |  |
|
|
One way of solving enery crisis is by supporting the air powered vehicle. Concern has been expressed regarding pollution resulting from the energy needed for the fueling station compressors. Instead of using electricity to power the compressors, wind or water power could be used in some instances.Used directly to power the compressors there would no need to use electricity. This could lower pollution even more since most electricity is produced from coal burning power plants./ Chevrolet pickup light kit
|
|
|
|
|
|
- 2009 Ford Flex: First Look and Crawl Around May 16, 2008
- Edmunds Consumer Comparison Test: Economy Cars May 15, 2008
- 2009 Acura TSX: A Really-Really-Really Good Honda May 14, 2008
- Talk Back Tuesday: Chrysler refools-ur, refuels America May 13, 2008
- Ford's SYNC: A Look at the Future in a Car from the Past May 12, 2008
- April's Automotive Sales Numbers: Not a Pretty Picture May 9, 2008
- MPG Smackdown: Focus vs Jetta vs Prius vs Smart May 8, 2008
- Cars that Jumped the Shark: Mazda Miata May 7, 2008
- Talk Back Tuesday: Will Plug-In Hybrids Really Work? May 6, 2008
- Legend of the Motorcycle: Pebble Beach without Posers May 5, 2008
|
|
|
|