Energy, post 4: Dissenting from Mr. Gore

Al Gore spoke at NYU Law School yesterday, laying out his latest ideas for applying Stick Economics to the project of saving the planet from atmospheric CO2 generated by USA residents. 

Mr. Gore thinks the top priority for our nation’s energy policy should be the reduction of carbon dioxide gases U.S. residents emit into the atmosphere.  (Even though North America is a carbon dioxide sink, not source, it might be important for us to become an even larger sink—to help offset some of the extra CO2 that China and India will soon be emitting as they grow their economies.  That tidbit wasn’t in the article, but does help remind me which part of the planet is doing what to the atmosphere, net-net.)   

Mr. Gore has his opinion about priorities; my dissenting opinion is this:

Our most pressing problem is not carbon dioxide emissions, it is the national security effect of energy sourcing.  CO2 emissions may or may not be a problem we need to fix.  Dependence on oil is a bigger problem for the USA right now.

The figure below shows today’s good-news-bad-news status for each of the five categories of energy sources mentioned in the first article of this series.  Nuclear power [see End Note] and renewables are the only two categories today that satisfy both the CO2 and national security goals (i.e., no emissions and secure sourcing within North America).  With some breakthroughs in carbon sequestration technology, coal and natural gas might get there as well.  But still, there’s one major drawback to all four of those non-oil categories: they are all used largely for generating electricity, which is primarily use-it-now energy.

Sure, we store some electric potential in batteries ...but not much.  Also, where the topology is favorable, we use some excess generating capacity to pump water uphill into reservoirs, to drive electric turbines later when the electricity is needed.  But the vast majority of electricity is of the use-it-now kind.  Look at this red dot. ->•<-  The electricity it took to light up those red pixels was generated by a power station less than 0.003 seconds before you looked at it (...unless, of course, it came from the battery in your uninterruptible power supply—in which case you’d better stop reading this article and fix your more pressing problem). 

The next figure, below, indicates the two most pressing energy problems we face right now—in my opinion, not Al Gore’s. 

First problem: Our dependence on oil for transportation energy, which drives world demand for oil.  When you think about it, our dependence on oil means that we are directly or indirectly funding both sides of the war on terror (taxes and petrodollars); just think for a second about how stupid that sounds.  Second problem: Our near-inability to generate electricity and store it in high-energy-density forms, for later use (e.g., in personal transportation vehicles). 

In fact, if science and technology could crack the second problem, we’d probably (and ironically) end up solving Al Gore’s top priority problem, CO2 emissions, decades sooner.  Reason: Al Gore’s government mandates (Stick Economics) would stop at our borders; that is, our government would not be able to mandate behavior in China and India.  On the other hand, if our science and technology, motivated by Carrot Economics, could come up with an affordable way to store 300 vehicle-miles of electric potential safely in a gasoline-tank-sized container for personal vehicles—thereby "making better quality of life more affordable to the masses"—oil independence would be right around the corner not just for US residents, but for every automobile owner on the planet.  Combined with more nuclear plants and carbon sequestration at the coal-burning plants, not only would worldwide CO2 emissions plummet, but it just might turn the USA into a net exporter of the new energy solution for personal vehicles. 

Technology breakthroughs displace old paradigms; I strongly prefer that to government-mandated tweaks of the old, entrenched paradigms.  Remember, just as the Stone Age didn’t end because we ran out of stones, the oil age won’t end because we ran out of oil.  Let's just be sure not to let Al Gore's Stick Economics get in the way of a paradigm shift that Carrot Economics is likely to bring about.  (Definitions.)

This is the fourth article in the series.  [See also articles 1, 2, and 3.]  Future articles in this series will cover more about the technology advances in progress, as well as some policy options that could speed things up (definitely under the heading of Carrot Economics).

==========
Here are links to all seven articles in the energy series:

• Article 1: Energy facts, certainties, and possibilities
• Article 2: Government spending and its consequences
• Article 3: Yes, growth DOES require more energy
• Article 4: Dissenting from Mr. Gore
• Article 5: The obstacle to oil independence
• Article 6: A tankful of electrons
• Article 7: A 21st Century “GI Bill”

--------
End Note...

Free Diction Lesson, a.k.a. "Steve’s Pet Peeve":

In case you have any friends who could use it, including any friends at the White House or on Capitol Hill, here’s a pro bono diction lesson for them:

Say these three words, one at a time:

1:“New.”  2:“Klee.”  3:“Ur.” 

Very good.  Now put them together, slowly:

“New; Klee; Ur.”

Very good.  Now take the pauses out:

“NewKleeUr.”

Very good.  Now say it fast three times:

“Newkleeur, newkleeur, newkleeur.”

Very good.  Now say it the same way, but spell it just a little differently:

“Nuclear.”

Congratulations! 

[Feel free to forward this as you see fit.]