President-elect McCain offered a "prize" of $300 million to anyone who can develop an efficient electric car battery. He might want to watch the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car, about the combination of powerful interests and consumer antipathy that quashed the effort before. I know the senator "from Arizona" calls himself a computer "illiterate," who depends on his wife, whom he obscenely berates in public, to do the techie stuff. Maybe she can work the VCR, too.
Things like electric and hydrogen-powered cars fuel much of the American imagination because of the hope that we can merely retrofit suburbia to new-fangled technology and keep sprawling as before. It's not going to happen. Most of these projects are highly speculative, some outright frauds. Electrics and hybrids can be part of the solution, but they will be costly. We haven't gotten our heads around the idea that alternative energy will be much more expensive than the cheap gift of light sweet crude that built 20th century America and is now in decline. Many Americans will choose to live differently in the future. The senator seems either ignorant or hostile to this.
You only need to know two things about McCain's energy policy. First, as a senator he opposed raising fuel-efficiency standards and subsidies not only for alternative fuels, on which there is legitimate disagreement, but also on research in general. Representing, or not, his state, he tried to kill Amtrak and was hostile to metro Phoenix's first, long-needed, light rail line. He showed no leadership on commuter trains and is generally anti-transit. Interestingly, some insiders thought it just as well: McCain is so disliked in the Senate, his advocacy might have actually hurt the Phoenix project. But his is a 1965 mentality in a new world demanding transportation options.
Second, to gain contributions from the corporate base of the GOP, he must embrace offshore drilling (which will do nothing to lower oil prices), nuclear power and the elusive research for cleaner coal -- which is a stalking horse to merely build more coal plants on the hope that "someday" the horrendous pollution/greenhouse gas problem will be solved. Just as Arizona's highly suspect, selectively applied 100-year water requirement is based on the stoned-in-the-dorm notion that in a few decades elves will cast a spell to allow enough water for a vast Sun Corridor of 8 million golfers.
This is an extremely important topic. The new U.S. president will need to lead not just the U.S., but the world, on the issue of energy policy. It's also something to consider when one argues for replacement of oil-based fuels with electricity, since the question then arises, which method(s) should be used to generate all of that increased electrical output?
An AP item published today quotes a just-released Energy Information Administration (EIA) report suggesting that "world energy demand will grow 50 percent over the next two decades, oil prices could rise to $186 a barrel, and coal will remain the biggest source of electricity, despite its effect on global warming". (The EIA is a statistics and analysis agency of the U.S. Government.)
The report notes that without mandatory international agreements on capping greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide), the annual release of CO2 into the atmosphere will be 50 percent greater in 2030 than it was three years ago.
However, it also states that coal-use is expected to jump 2/3 by 2030, and that China will account for about 75 percent of that increase.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gUMV8UJoaN5q_kTW2qE60EkyYQZQD91H660O1
That's alarming, if you take the comments of NASA scientist James Hansen seriously. Hansen is director of the Goddard Institute of Space Sciences, and is also known as "the godfather of global warming science".
According to another AP item, Hansen recently testified to Congress that "the world has long passed the dangerous level for greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and needs to get back to 1988 levels," adding that "Earth's atmosphere can only stay this loaded with man-made carbon dioxide for a couple more decades without changes such as mass extinction, ecosystem collapse and dramatic sea level rises."
Not to put too fine a point upon it, Hansen said that "we're toast if we don't get on a very different path. This is the last chance".
The major culprit in manmade CO2 emissions? Burning fossil fuels (like coal to produce electricity).
Hansen said that "coal-fired plants that don't capture carbon dioxide emissions shouldn't be used in the U.S. after 2025, and should be eliminated in the rest of the world by 2030."
The AP item notes that "carbon capture technology is still being developed and is not yet cost-effective for power plants". Well, if it's not cost effective for U.S. plants, it certainly isn't cost-effective for Chinese plants.
Taking these articles together, we see that by 2030 such plants need to be eliminated worldwide; but it's also the year in which world CO2 emissions, led by an expansion in Chinese coal-fired electrical plants, will have increased by more than 50 percent relative to 2005 levels.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080623/ap_on_sc/sci_warming_scientist
So, not only will U.S. industry need to be convinced, but the notoriously recalcitrant and polluting Chinese government must also be brought on board via binding international treaties.
That's a tall order for any U.S. president, but the first step is electing a president who understands the issues and is prepared to act upon them -- if that's possible.
This is an issue that transcends market/government dichotomies. Clearly, the world, led by major economic and technological powers like the U.S., needs to invest vast resources, now, in the hope of replacing existing energy sources and production methods with economically viable alternatives.
Personally, living in Arizona, I think ignoring free, nearly year-round sunshine as a possible energy source is a mistake. Not that it's being ignored, exactly, but research and development is vastly insufficient and it isn't being exploited to take advantage of economies of scale.
I imagine vast, uninhabited desert tracts occupied by solar-generating stations, each covering hundreds of square miles. The conversion from a petrochemical to a solar based economy would also generate many new, high-paying technology sector jobs (in both the manufacturing and service sectors), which in turn would also stimulate the economy.
But it can't be done by a lone private company (much less one operating on the fringes of the energy industry), because the energy infrastructure is vast and such a conversion needs careful coordination at the federal level if it is not to founder and undercut itself and the rest of the economy.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | June 27, 2008 at 02:35 PM