[This is article six in the energy series. I plan to publish the seventh and final article later this week.]
In the last article we saw why oil independence will require a technological breakthrough in personal transportation vehicle technology, and that one of the major obstacles is our inability (so far) to store 300 vehicle-miles of potential electrical energy in a small, affordable, mobile, sufficiently-safe package. The diagram below summarizes our energy sources and uses. Because liquid fuels are the only practical way (today) of storing energy in high-density forms for end-use consumers, we’re hooked on oil; conversely, if we figure out how to store a sufficient amount of electrical potential in some kind of super-battery, we would no longer be hostage to oil for personal transportation. We could light up the dotted gray arrow below, and plug into the electric grid. The oil age would end, but not because we ran out of oil.
However, while we’re analyzing how we might achieve oil independence, it’s important to remember two additional constraints. (1) Whichever non-petroleum energy source(s) will win the race, we will need at least 3.3 billion automobile-tankfuls of it per year. (2) We'll need to start scaling-up the new infrastructure rapidly, within a few years; the sooner the better.
I’m not a big fan of planners picking which technologies should be the winners—I much prefer a large portfolio of small experiments—but those two additional constraints do help clarify the analysis. Currently, there are several non-petroleum technologies making headlines, including:
• ethanol (replaces gasoline)
• biodiesel (replaces petrodiesel)
• methanol (reformed to feed hydrogen to a fuel cell)
• hydrogen (directly feeds a fuel cell)
• stored electricity (powers an all-electric car)
Each of those has its proponents and its detractors. Frankly, I really don’t care which one wins, as long as one or two of them do in fact result in oil independence. But the two additional constraints—3.3 billion tankfuls per year, starting within a few years—help to separate the practical ones from the pipe dreams. Supplying 3.3 billion tankfuls of anything requires a gigantic production and delivery infrastructure, and if it’s not already in place, it will take time to build it. (The infrastructure we have today for gasoline took almost a hundred years to build, for example.)
To narrow the field, then, take the first word in each of those five bullets above, plug it into the blank below, then answer the question:
A few years from now, where will 3.3 billion tankfuls of _________ come from?
To answer that question, we also have to answer others, such as: How many acres of land will it take for the corn, soybeans, and switchgrass? Who will invest in that much ethanol, biodiesel, or methanol production capacity, starting now? Who will invest in the necessary hydrogen production capacity? How much new infrastructure will be required to move the hydrogen to the filling station as safely as gasoline is moved today?
I’ve researched those questions, and I’m not sure we could commit enough land area in the USA to growing 3.3 billion tankfuls worth of ethanol, biodiesel, or methanol. I’ve also figured out that the much-hyped hydrogen fuel cell is, for all practical purposes, a glorified super-battery—one that had better be easily rechargeable by the end-user, if 3.3 billion yearly tankfuls of hydrogen is to become a practical possibility within ten years. In any case, a “rechargeable” hydrogen fuel cell is just a special form of a super-battery, for use in electric cars.
And, by the way, how do you recharge a super-battery? By plugging it into the “grid”—the existing electrical transmission infrastructure.
I’ve concluded that cars capable of running on ethanol, biodiesel, or methanol are educational, small-scale experiments, but are probably not capable of scaling up to get us to oil independence. Cars with super-batteries, rechargeable by plugging into the electric grid, will be the likely pathway. I don’t know what the winning super-battery will be, but here are a few possibilities:
• a hyper capacitor
• a regenerative HFC (hydrogen fuel cell; also see this)
• an HFC fed by an easily rechargeable tankful of stored hydrogen (also this and this and this)
• some other super-battery technology
What if a super-battery is perfected? Will we have enough electric generating capacity to recharge them all? Well, fortunately we have quite a lot of unused capacity right now—at night and on weekends. Variable (hourly) electricity pricing would help us remember to recharge our car batteries at night, using existing grid capacity. Growing demand would drive electric utilities to invest in more capacity, and would also inspire newer, decentralized generating technologies for recharging our batteries with personal or localized windmills, solar collectors, micro-hydro, etc. Obviously, the demand for electric generating capacity of all types would get a huge boost if we all started needing electricity for our cars instead of gasoline, wouldn’t it? (For example, here’s an electric sports car that does 0-60mph in three seconds; the demand is already developing.) Expect entrepreneurs to jump all over the opportunities in decentralized power generation, once the demand starts ramping up.
Figuring out how to store 300 vehicle miles of electric potential in our automobiles' tanks would clear the path to oil independence—and the enhanced national security that goes along with it. But it would also clear the path to much wider use of renewables, which would no longer have to be so badly stranded far from the time and place their electricity is needed. By setting oil independence as our strategic national security priority, and then solving the technology hurdles with the help of some government-driven Carrot Economics, we might by accident succeed in fixing CO2 emissions as well. Zero-emissions power plants are on the radar already. Kum-ba-yah.
Here's a good way to finish this article; it's from an excellent article at CNET:
In shifting the energy burden from fuels to the grid, there are obviously challenges. Interconnection, grid reliability and generation capacity all come to mind. But there is also enormous opportunity for innovation, and these challenges are far more resolvable than the crisis we now face in the Middle East. Wind, solar, nuclear, biomass and even advanced coal can all provide cleaner, domestic and more economic power sources than petroleum.
==========
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”
----------------------
Next: The seventh and last article will be devoted to some Carrot Economics ideas I have for speeding up the arrival of oil independence day. I’ll also have a little fun comparing them to some of the Stick Economics ideas floating around out there. I’m selfish and impatient when it comes to improving national security for my family, friends, and countrymen. I do think the government has a role to play in giving the market some incentives to move more quickly in the right directions. I’ll finish up with that; look for article seven within the week.
