How to make energy independence happen - an example

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I hope you understand that the point I was/am trying to make is that the US likes to promote itself as a global leader but it seems that we're quite content to not only be a follower WRT mass transit, alternative energy and sustainable lifestyle but that we insist on being dragged along, kicking and screaming away from 100 year old technology.

Our circumstance is very different from most - human nature is to blame in large part for our predicament, along with the lack of leadership.

European countries evolved long before the car. Same with Japan. We, otoh, evolved mostly after the car and with plenty of open space and cheap oil, so we built up the country post the Model T with this in mind. China wasn't wealthy enough to take this approach.

Mass transit doesn't solve LA. Or Phoenix. We built up this mass of suburbs separate from where we built up the job base. So either we start rezoning dramatically, or engaging telecommuting on a large scale.

But we can get substantial gains in energy efficiency via better mileage cars and more efficient applicances. We'll still use more than most countries, but 50% doesn't seem that hard to reach in the next couple decades. But given our mindset, only if we collectively agree to let someone make us do it.

[rasmack 0]

As the resident Dane here I have a few comments. A lot of what you write is true but a few comments need to be made to put this in context. Sorry to enter the discussion a little late.

Quote

- Heavy taxes on inefficient cars. Today some cars are taxed at 105% of their cost.

More like 180% tax + 25% VAT. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Quote

And they're not stopping there. Right now almost half their electricity comes from distributed sources.

Part of the story is where the rest comes from. All these small power/heat plants that you write about run on coal. Not particularly friendly to the environment. This is a consequence of the oil crisis of the 70's. We have large supplys of oil in reserve and for export but we try not to touch it for daily electricity production. The conventional part of the grid is also not geared for anything but fossil fuels. Wind and solar power won't provide for the heat and the heat distribution also requires many small power plants which excludes nuclear power. IOW, to some degree we have painted ourselves into a corner wrt our power/heating grid architecture.

I realize that things may look a lot bleaker in other places but I though it only fair to point out that not everything is as rosy as your post would seem to suggest.

That being said it is probably a fundamental difference between Europe and the US that taxes are used as a behaviour-regulating tool here and this is an accepted practice. For example the gas price in Denmark is above 8 $/gallon. What would happen in the US if the gas prices rose to that level?

HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

[riddler 0]

Quote

Corporations didn't make a majority of Americans choose an SUV over a more fuel efficient car. Given the choice, the consumer clearly choose bigger over smaller, more powerful over more fuel efficient. And that's a big reason why the CAFE standards didn't move.

Corporations do decide that all cars will be gasoline powered, when there are clearly other viable choices that are better for the environment. Who cares if a really efficient vehicle gets 30 MPG vs an SUV that gets 15 MPG, when people drive 25,000 miles a year and have three cars per family (one has good gas mileage, one has poor, and one is in-between), and they're all burning gasoline?

That's like saying we're going to force everyone to drink used toilet water, but you get a choice between the regular toilet or the low-flush toilet, and most families have two or three bathrooms anyway, with different toilets in each one.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Our circumstance is very different from most - human nature is to blame in large part for our predicament, along with the lack of leadership.

European countries evolved long before the car. Same with Japan. We, otoh, evolved mostly after the car and with plenty of open space and cheap oil, so we built up the country post the Model T with this in mind. China wasn't wealthy enough to take this approach.

Mass transit doesn't solve LA. Or Phoenix. We built up this mass of suburbs separate from where we built up the job base. So either we start rezoning dramatically, or engaging telecommuting on a large scale.

But we can get substantial gains in energy efficiency via better mileage cars and more efficient applicances. We'll still use more than most countries, but 50% doesn't seem that hard to reach in the next couple decades. But given our mindset, only if we collectively agree to let someone make us do it.

Nice post. I don't know that it's a lack of leadership or more that we've been subjected to leadership in the wrong direction. GM is a good punching bag for this point. Not only did they recently "kill the electric car" with the help of the Bush administration and oil lobbies, over a half a century ago they killed the electric street car as well. They, along with Firestone, Mack, Phillips, Standard, et. al., used their financial leverage (including bribery) to systematically dismantle electric rail systems in favor of bus and automobile transportation. We used to have a thriving electric transportation system but our business leadership along with our political leadership have allowed the US to become dependent on automobiles. Now those poor decisions are really coming to bite us in the butt.

I also agree that with your assertion that human nature is also to blame but I don't know if it's so much, in this case, driven by a natural desire to drive large vehicles as single occupants as it is that we are severely vulnerable to marketing influences. The "pet rock" comes to mind as an example.

[billvon 2,400]

>Corporations didn't make a majority of Americans choose an SUV
>over a more fuel efficient car.

They sorta did. (More accurately, the government did.) Since the CAFE standards are dramatically lower for SUV's, manufacturers could skimp on efficiency, thus making the SUV's cheaper to manufacture than they would otherwise be. This also led them to classify everything they could as an SUV, to lower their production costs.

Both these factors created a price incentive to buy SUV's over more efficient cars. Not the only factor by a long shot, but one of them.

[billvon 2,400]

>Countries are really, really good at pulling together for a
>commonly-perceived good; look at USA during WW2, and pretty much
>everyone associated with teh space program in the 1960's -- not every
>single person, but a large preponderance of people did feel as though
>there was a common goal. The key is to make people feel like part of it.

Yep. And I still think the US is a place where that can happen, as long as you educate people so they can see what's at stake and what they can do about it. I think Lincoln said it best:

"I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts - and beer."

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Corporations do decide that all cars will be gasoline powered, when there are clearly other viable choices that are better for the environment.

What clearly superior, viable choices are you referring to? The electric cars of the 90s had short ranges. Appropriate for some, or just as a commuter. If you can't afford two full price cars, you pick the one that meets all your needs. Even now, most of the alternate options involve compromise. Tesla might soon actually ship a car using the better battery options of today, but will cost you 6 figures.

We had several cars in the 80s and 90s getting mpg in the 40s. By and large, they didn't sell greatly. Diesel options will also do it, but there you have the pollution and relative scarcity of the tool.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>Corporations didn't make a majority of Americans choose an SUV
>over a more fuel efficient car.

They sorta did. (More accurately, the government did.) Since the CAFE standards are dramatically lower for SUV's, manufacturers could skimp on efficiency, thus making the SUV's cheaper to manufacture than they would otherwise be. This also led them to classify everything they could as an SUV, to lower their production costs.

Both these factors created a price incentive to buy SUV's over more efficient cars. Not the only factor by a long shot, but one of them.

I don't see the price incentive as a big factor - SUVs have never been 'cheap.' In 1998, when I chose the Outback over the 4runner, the latter was at least $5000 more. Most SUVs run in the 30s and up, and people were willing to pay even more for the more exclusive Land Rovers and Hummers. Also, I recall reading that the higher profit and lower mileage of the SUVs were balanced in part with cheaper 4 cylinder compacts, so at least some people benefitted there on the car side.

The CAFE standards are the key evidence I point to on the lack of leadership, though everytime that came up, enough Americans bitched about the idea that it quickly got shut down. Like discussions of lowering the speed limit. Only now might America accept these.

[billvon 2,400]

>The electric cars of the 90s had short ranges.

Well, if 120 miles was "short range" I'd agree. (EV1 gen 2, RAV4-EV.)

>Diesel options will also do it, but there you have the pollution and
>relative scarcity of the tool.

Did you mean "fuel?" Just about every gas station in California has both gasoline (3 kinds) and diesel. Diesel, though, isn't much of a long term solution; it all still comes from oil, and you can get a lot more gasoline from a barrel of oil than you can get diesel.

[billvon 2,400]

>SUVs have never been 'cheap.'

Not cheap, just cheaper than they would have been otherwise.

The CAFE standard/loophole is a good example of how any company will do the absolute minimum they have to to sell their goods (which is basically what capitalism drives them to do.)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>The electric cars of the 90s had short ranges.

Well, if 120 miles was "short range" I'd agree. (EV1 gen 2, RAV4-EV.)

Yes, it is short range. It would do fine for daily commute with a nightly charge (not really an option in an apartment garage), but the DZs are 70-120 miles away from SF. And I stopped motorcycling to Skydance as soon as I had my own gear.

[billvon 2,400]

> but the DZs are 70-120 miles away from SF.

Get there and plug in!

>And I stopped motorcycling to Skydance as soon as I had my own gear.

A team room works well for that.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

> but the DZs are 70-120 miles away from SF.

Get there and plug in!

This isn't Perris. Some of them don't even have permament bathrooms!

There are always ways to make it work, but the more onerous, the less likely it will be done. I think the Tesla's target of 200 miles shifts the thinking dramatically for all electrics. Still doesn't get you to LA, or round trip from Monterey, but the limitations drop substantially.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Yes, it is short range. It would do fine for daily commute with a nightly charge (not really an option in an apartment garage), but the DZs are 70-120 miles away from SF. And I stopped motorcycling to Skydance as soon as I had my own gear.

Do you consider your needs typical? Many families have two vehicles, and many families live in houses instead of apartments. Many commuters do not have a need to regularly take trips over 120 miles round trip.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 2,400]

>This isn't Perris. Some of them don't even have permament bathrooms!

Hmm. Every DZ I've ever been to (with the exception of Otay circa 1995) had electricity. And at Otay I put in power.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Hmm. Every DZ I've ever been to (with the exception of Otay circa 1995) had electricity. And at Otay I put in power.

I don't see any power jacks in the dirt parking areas, nevermind the method of compensating the DZ.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Yes, it is short range. It would do fine for daily commute with a nightly charge (not really an option in an apartment garage), but the DZs are 70-120 miles away from SF. And I stopped motorcycling to Skydance as soon as I had my own gear.

Do you consider your needs typical? Many families have two vehicles, and many families live in houses instead of apartments. Many commuters do not have a need to regularly take trips over 120 miles round trip.

I think it's rather common for a family in SF to take a day trip to San Jose and back. Or Dublin or Napa. 60 miles one way (in the best of circumstances) is inadequete. Same would be true in the LA basin, which is slightly larger than the Bay Area.

[billvon 2,400]

>I don't see any power jacks in the dirt parking areas . . .

Extension cords are readily available. I carry one so I can charge my bike wherever I go, even if the outlet is 30 feet away. Electric vehicle owners also carry portable chargers so they can top off at friend's houses. It's quite doable.

>nevermind the method of compensating the DZ.

You mean other than giving them money? $1 would easily cover a charge.

Edited to add - of course, you can come up with reasons you can't do any of the above. "I can't run an extension cord through the grass; a dog might chew on it." "There are no GFI outlets and I just wouldn't feel safe with a regular outlet." "My DZO doesn't accept money." Whatever. It's not my intent to force you to use an electric car, or even prove that you could.

My only intent with this post (and the original) is to show that it CAN be done and that people are doing it. You don't have to.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I think it's rather common for a family in SF to take a day trip to San Jose and back. Or Dublin or Napa. 60 miles one way (in the best of circumstances) is inadequete. Same would be true in the LA basin, which is slightly larger than the Bay Area.

I have no doubt there are many people for which the first generation of EV's were not ideal, or perhaps even practical. I'm equally confident that for many people they were/are.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[riddler 0]

Quote

What clearly superior, viable choices are you referring to? The electric cars of the 90s had short ranges. Appropriate for some, or just as a commuter. If you can't afford two full price cars, you pick the one that meets all your needs. Even now, most of the alternate options involve compromise. Tesla might soon actually ship a car using the better battery options of today, but will cost you 6 figures.

I never said "clearly superior". I said viable. And yes, all options involve compromise, which is why I said viable and not superior. But driving gasoline autos compromises our only living space, which to me is a much greater compromise.

Electric cars are not nearly as good for the environment as gasoline-powered, primarily because most power plants in this country are fossil-fuel burning, so I would not consider them superior. Some day, we may change our electric-power infrastructure to cleaner sources, at which time, electric cars will be viable. But how many people do you know that have ever owned an electric car? I know one.

Hydrogen power is viable and clean, if generated from water using clean electricity. Even biodiesel makes more sense overall, considering it is slightly better for clean air than petrol. 100% of the cars on the road today are gasoline or diesel powered - I make that statement because it's really like 99.999-something, which is close enough. And there are hundreds of millions of autos in the US, none of which burn anything except gasoline. There's only one reason for that - corporate greed.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[billvon 2,400]

>Electric cars are not nearly as good for the environment as gasoline-powered . . .

Electric cars use far less energy well-to-wheel than gas cars. Even with the great increase in pollution you get with coal power you come out ahead in most emissions. In areas with cleaner power (the west coast) there's no contest.

>Hydrogen power is viable and clean, if generated from water using clean electricity.

Agreed. But if you have the clean electricity, it might make more sense to use it directly in cars.

[riddler 0]

Quote

Even with the great increase in pollution you get with coal power you come out ahead in most emissions.

The main advantage now to electric cars is reducing hundreds of millions of pollution sources to a few hundred (power stations). If you can accomplish that, then it's quite a bit easier to control the pollution sources (i.e. stricter requirements on power plant emissions). Ultimately, we may go really crazy and build a lot of nuclear plants to replace the fossil-fuel ones.

But for either of those things to happen, someone needs to tell them to do it. And that ain't gonna happen. The corporations tell the government what to do, not the other way 'round. Which was my original point.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[MikeForsythe 0]

Quote

Ultimately, we may go really crazy and build a lot of nuclear plants to replace the fossil-fuel ones.

And that is starting to happen. We are getting ready to start two new nuclear plants in south Florida alone. Also, the non-nuclear plants that we build now are combined -cycle and run off of natural gas so there is no oil or coal. If you look at the stacks you don't even see anything coming out of them the emissions are so low.

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[kelpdiver 2]

Repeating post #63: There are always ways to make it work, but the more onerous, the less likely it will be done.

Gas persists because it is by far the easiest, not because evil corporations prevent us from using it. Most of the examples cited here are 5% solutions, incapable of serving a majority of needs.

[billvon 2,400]

>Gas persists because it is by far the easiest, not because evil
>corporations prevent us from using it.

I don't think you meant that in quite the way you said it! In any case, the primary reason gas has been the primary fuel for so long is that it was really, really cheap. Ethanol is just as easy from a use point of view. Biodiesel is actually a little easier. (Less evaporation, less volume.)

>Most of the examples cited here are 5% solutions, incapable of serving a
>majority of needs.

Most of the energy sources we have NOW are 5% solutions. Nuclear power? A little over 5% of our total energy needs. Natural gas? Same thing. But add up 10 or 20 of those 5-10% solutions and you have your needs covered.