Transition Topic II: Energy Independence

Like a breath of fresh air, president-elect Obama clearly understands the urgency of climate change. Unlike his soon-to-be predecessor, a North Pole free of summer ice actually gives Obama pause. He intends to act appropriately to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He also speaks eloquently about the need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and increase investments in renewable energies. Those positions on climate and energy are fortunate, because one informs the other, and neither can be achieved alone. The times demand that we stop speaking of energy independence and global warming as if the two were separate problems amendable to isolated solutions. Each represents one side of a single coin, forever joined together by the demands of economy and nature.

Obama goes further than any president in his commitment to address these problems. But he does not go far enough if we take a truly long-term view, as we must. Based on what we can reasonably anticipate Obama will support in his first term, we can suggest how his agenda can create the foundation for more ambitious, but critically needed actions.

Obama's Program

From his campaign speeches and literature, we can plausibly assume that Obama will institute early on some form of cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. He knows that we must marshal market forces to the task if we hope to succeed. The stated goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050.

Obama rightfully opposes reprocessing nuclear fuel, or storing nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Until we solve the waste storage problem, nuclear energy is not a viable option, no matter how attractive the atom may be as an energy source free of carbon pollution.

He supports the creation of a $150 billion "green technologies fund" some portion of which he will devote to clean coal and carbon sequestration technologies. This fund will also support entrepreneurial advances in wind, solar and geothermal energy. His goal is to generate 10% of all electricity from renewables by 2012, and 25% by 2025.

In the transportation sector, some resources from the green fund will support research and development of cellulosic ethanol fuels. In addition, Obama will create a new $7,000 tax credit for purchasing advanced vehicles, and get 1 million made-in-America plug-in hybrids on the road by 2015.

He will promote conservation, energy efficiency, and credits to weatherize 1 million homes annually. Obama will institute a "use it or lose it" program for existing oil and gas leases to encourage oil companies to explore and drill in areas already designated for that purpose.

Beyond Obama's Program

All the elements embedded in Obama's energy program make good sense, and deserve our enthusiastic support. But wind, solar and geothermal energy are not the ultimate endpoint. All of these programs will, in the end, only be useful if viewed as transitional to a hydrogen economy. Yes, in the short-term, we absolutely must tap all available renewables, and natural gas, to bridge the yawing gap between our current dependence on fossil fuels and a future of unlimited clean energy.

We already see the ultimate solution to meeting the energy demands of a growing global population while eliminating greenhouse gases: using solar and wind energy to power homes and factories and to electrolyze water to create hydrogen, which will power our cars and trucks. When fully in place, this energy sector will be clean, with nearly zero emissions, limitless and inexpensive.

The technologies exist, but are not yet sufficiently developed to make widespread implementation economical. And that is precisely where the government comes into the picture. Moving to a hydrogen economy is a big task, but is on a scale no grander than what has been done before.

The largest public works project in human history was initiated by President Eisenhower in the early 1950s to construct a national system of interstate and defense highways, now more commonly known as the Interstate Highway System. One purpose initially was to ensure that the military could readily transport materiel and troops from one coast to the other. Civilians immediately became the dominate users. These nearly 50,000 miles of road transformed the economy and culture of the United States, and raised public expectations about an optimistic future. The net cost to the federal government was about $140 billion by the time the system was deemed complete in the mid 1970s. Compare this to the $700 billion package to bail out Wall Street, which will bequeath to us no infrastructure development at all.

With an investment similar in scope to the bailout, and an infrastructure program considerably less ambitious than Eisenhower's, we could shift our economy from oil to hydrogen within a decade. Consider the enormous national security and environmental implications.

The role of government is to overcome three significant barriers to success. The first is the question of who goes first. Nobody wants to install a national network of hydrogen filling stations if no cars are made to run on hydrogen. But no automaker wants to build hydrogen cars without a national network of service stations already in place. Solving that problem will require government guarantees and tax incentives. The second is the need, initially, to subsidize the price of hydrogen cars with tax credits to make them economically viable in small numbers as they first come off the line. Over time, hydrogen vehicles should be cost competitive with traditionally fueled autos when produced in large numbers. The third is to fund research and development to improve the efficiency and lower the cost of solar and wind technologies to enable the cheap production of hydrogen using these renewable and clean energy sources.

The government's investment to transform the United States into a leading green economy of the 21st century is rather small compared to the staggering benefits. Outside of direct expenditures on our military, nothing could be more important to our national security. We would wean ourselves from foreign oil, relegating the Middle East to nothing but a distant tourist attraction. We would nearly eliminate greenhouse gas emissions from the energy and transportation sectors, finally tackling the problem of global warming in a meaningful way. We would ensure that we become the primary exporter of green technologies to the rest of the world. We would have cheap abundant energy to fuel a growing economy.

We can do this, but must keep our eye on the ball. As Obama moves to implement his energy program, we should have in mind a hydrogen economy as the final objective. That goal clearly defined will help guide the energy decisions we make over the next 10 years.

Comments

[4EnergyIndependence]

Energy and environmental issues do converge in the issues of resource sustainability and environmental pollution, but otherwise energy independence is not an environmental issue.

Global warming is an environmental issue " energy independence and global warming are separate issues. It is important to understand the relative priority. Global Warming is a sustainability issue that must be solved as the world progresses toward complete global modernization. In contrast, global oil dependence is an immediate threat, a clear and present danger. Metaphorically speaking, the threat of greenhouse gas emissions is like the threat of cancer from prolonged cigarette smoking; In contrast, the threat of oil financed terrorism is like a coiled rattlesnake immediately on the path in front of a day-dreaming hiker.

http://www.AmericanEnergyIndependence.com

[Jeff Schweitzer - Huffpost Blogger]

I agree that the two issues have different time horizons, but both are clearly rooted in environmentalism. The solutions that lead to energy independence are those that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. One problem cannot be solved without the other.

[4EnergyIndependence]

Jeff, I don"t want to be agrumentative because I share your passion for renewable energy, but I have to take issue.

You said: "both are clearly rooted in environmentalism" and "One problem cannot be solved without the other."

I disagree.

Energy Independence is not rooted in environmentalism; its roots stem from the 1973 and 1979 Oil embargos. The http://www.AmericanEnergyIndependence.com website was created December 2003 in response to the Iraq war, to advocate for the development of alternative fuels as an effective strategy for limiting the flow of money into the hands of terrorist groups financed by oil rich Islamic nations.

Your assertion that "One problem cannot be solved without the other" is only half true. Energy independence does not depend on fulfilling environmental goals. USA heavy hydorcarbons are sufficient to give the USA energy independence for at least a century.

Clearly energy independence can be achieved now, with existing technology without regard to environmental concerns (a very disturbing thought), but it would not be sustainable based on heavy hydrocarbons alone. However, adding nuclear energy to the process, for thermochemical heat and hydrogen, would sustain heavy hydrocarbon liquid fuels for centuries more, and nuclear fusion could sustain the process indefinitely by converting recycled CO2 into liquid fuels (which would mimic renewable energy and achieve environmental goals).

Perhaps we could agree that the relationship between environmentalism and energy independence is more like what ethics is to stem cell research.

[Kache]

Energy infrastructure investments by the government might not take the paths we're all familiar with. Warren Buffet and Eric Schmidt (COE google.com) are on Obama's economic advisory team where infrastructure investments for stimulus are being considered. As reported in huffpost last month, Buffet and Google have been investing heavily in geothermal. Google has been lobbying the government for R&D on new technologies for geothermal since early last year, in particular a new technique called EGS.

Geothermal, geoshmermal you say? Not according to a new study released by MIT in July. "The recoverable heat in rock under the United States is the equivalent of 2,000 years-worth of the country"s current energy consumption."

With EGS, holes are drilled deep into hot rock and water is injected into the cracks. When pressure forces the water up other, nearby wells, it is hot enough to run a turbine and produce electricity. Engineers would, in a sense, be making their own geysers, and this opens up far more of the globe for geothermal energy development.

[Jeff Schweitzer - Huffpost Blogger]

I don't dismiss geothermal, but the track record to date is spotty. The one exception is Iceland, where I have seen first-hand their impressive use of one of their most abundant natural resources. But the situation in Iceland is unique and the lessons learned there are only partially applicable elsewhere. We should definitely pursue geothermal but I am skeptical it will ever be more than a minor player. I hope I'm wrong.

[23000Days]

This may sound very foolish, but in hydrogen electrolysis 1 oxygen atom is released into the environment for every 2 hydrogen atoms. Is the same amount of oxygen reused in burning the hydrogen? Taking the hydrogen scheme to the extreme, is there a danger of over-oxygenating the atmosphere? What effect will it have on plant growth?

[Jeff Schweitzer - Huffpost Blogger]

Does not sound foolish at all. I suspect lots of people have the same question. The impact, though, of a hydrogen economy on atmospheric oxygen would be negligible. At concentrations of 4% or more, hydrogen burns so that 2 hydrogen molecules combine with one oxygen molecule to produce 2 water molecules. Basically, the energy used to break water down to hydrogen and oxygen is later recaptured in useful form by oxidizing the hydrogen. The net effect on the atmosphere is essentially zero change in atmospheric chemistry.

[Jeff Schweitzer - Huffpost Blogger]

Because Iowa is a critical state in the election process; he is after all a politician. Concerning oil leases: yes, exploration is a process, with a long lead time. That, however, does not mean that oil companies should not be pushed to explore existing leases before being given others. But even more important, no matter how much oil companies drill off our shores, they will never supply us with anything close to enough to wean us from oil from the Middle East. We simply cannot drill our way out of this problem any more than an alcoholic and drink his way to sobriety. We need to change our ways. Expanded offshore drilling is not the solution, and not even a good short-term solution.

[mjt218]

And oil companies already are pushed to explore existing leases. All federal leases expire after 5 or 10 year periods if an oil company does not take steps to develop them. I work in oil and gas e&p in the Gulf of Mexico. And believe me, we work like crazy to hold onto and produce every drop of oil we possibly can economically.

I personally won't argue that offshore drilling is any type of solution for Middle East Oil addiction, but I think it's ridiculous for Obama to make his argument against new leases by implying that he'll create some type of "use it or loose it" policy, when such as policy is already Federal law.

This type of stance on oil leases by Obama is an example of political arguments that serve as a distraction. It does nothing substantive to address the issue. Obama arguing, as you just did, that more drilling is not the solution to our problems addresses the issue. In my opinion he should drop these distractive arguments and confront the actual issue (we need to get off oil before it gets way too expensive).

I hope you're right that Obama was smart enough and strong enough to drop the corn lobbies. I voted for Obama over McCain, based in part on my belief that despite either of their campaign promises, Obama had a better chance of working constructively to bring real change, rather than sticking completely to his party's extreme side.

[RedneckDem]

What would be really cool is the ability for individual homeowners to creat their own alternative fuel from the energy created from solar or wind. Solar creates hydrogen and the hydrogen is used to fuel the home and car. Whatever is more efficient and cost inhibitive...

[DaVinci42]

I don't actually see a current need to focus on Hydrogen Fuel. Battery technology is reaching the point where Electric Cars & Plug-in Hybrids are sufficient. I say stay Electric throughout the system(grid & car), b/c its a waste of energy to produce hydrogen when you can just plug in a battery.

[Ozarks]

Coal is still the best alternative. Utilities just don't want to use proven technologies existing for the last 30 years. Hold their feet to the fire. One option is Fluidized bed combustion where limestone and any kind of coal, even the dirtiest, can be burned on a "fluid bed" combined with limestone. Utilities just like to use tangential fired boilers because they been using them for decades.

[ChangeRequired]

With the problems of storage, volatility, transport, required compression and energy density, I have extreme doubts about the use of hydrogen as an overall energy strategy. New storage battery technology and excellent potential of super capacitors makes more sense to me, along with a quantum shift in transport. An Apollo scale program to put high speed electric trains along all our interstate highways (with existing technology) will give us the freight and human transport we need.

Combine this with a hub and spoke Wal-Mart type local distribution system and a way to easily dock freight and passenger vehicles to the rail system, make it electric, build a battery storage system along the rails and solar panels to charge the batteries. Think of the jobs in R&D, development engineering, software (for controls and scheduling), manufacturing, construction, management.

Think of the efficiency, the removal of dependence on oil, easy travel. I see no negatives to this except the effect on existing infrastructure such as trucking companies, airlines, oil companies, auto companies. Considering the current state of US auto companies, this could be a boon rather than a problem.

Put solar panels on every roof with DC->AC conversion (start with Al Gore's house), convert utility companies into energy management systems instead of energy generation systems, and we can shuffle energy to wherever it is needed, without carrying it in a tank.

[Jeff Schweitzer - Huffpost Blogger]

The problem with all of the above suggestions: none are zero emissions. Plug-in cars still require electric plants and require some form of fuel to create the electricity; coal exacerbates greenhouse gas problems. The issue of storage and transporation of hydrogen is not by any means insurmountable. Just ask Honda, who makes the Clarity.

[ChangeRequired]

Solar photovoltaic panels are zero emissions and electric trains powered by them are zero emissions. There is a very interesting analysis done at Caltech called "Powering the Planet"-- http://eands.caltech.edu/articles/LXX2/powering.pdf . It contains some discussion of the problems in scaling solar electrolysis to achieve the amount of equivalent hydrogen energy we currently consume. Not to say that we should continue to consume that much, but even if we cut by half the problem is still intractable.

[Semaj51]

The major problem of using hydrogen as a major energy source is the amount of energy needed in the first place to produce hydrogen. Another major problem of hydrogen is the storage/transferring of the gas. Compared to gasoline, hydrogen is much more dangerous for use and will require large, heavy tanks in future vehicles.

[Jeff Schweitzer - Huffpost Blogger]

That is why we need to use wind and solar as the energy source to electrolyze water. Storage is an issue, but not insurmountable.

[mjt218]

Three quick comments on Obama's programs . . .

1) I think he's right on with the focus on efficiency. This is the cheapest way to make short term economic and emissions gains in the US.

2) I do not believe that he intends to end tariff's on imports of ethanol, or end subsidies for corn based ethanol production. He, along with every politician at the Federal level most likely, has obligations to corn ethanol interests in the midwest (particularly in his home state of Illinois).

3) Oil and Gas companies are already subject to "use it or loose it" on all existing leases with the federal government. Most leases are set up on five year terms, and if undeveloped in that time, they are released. Some Gulf of Mexico Deepwater leases are set up on ten year terms and are released after that period if undeveloped. Either Obama fundamentally does not understand existing federal law, or he's playing politics (my guess is the latter).

Also, is hydrogen really a limitless resource?

[Jeff Schweitzer - Huffpost Blogger]

Yes, hydrogen is truly limitless, assuming you have an efficient means of breaking water into its molecular constitutents using wind and solar power.

Obama is smart enough to know that food-based ethanol production is a losing proposition; but celluosic ethanol could be a major source of tranportation fuels. We know of bacteria now that will use cellulose to produce fuels, but the technology for mass production is not yet mature.

His emphasis on use it or lose it is meant to send a signal that opening any new leases makes no sense while existing leases go unused.

[mjt218]

Then why does he not come out and say that on either point? I've read his policies and he does not make either distinction you reference.

Also, oil exploration and production is a process. You can't just start a new lease program every twenty years and expect oil production to be sustained or increased. You have to keep feeding new resources into the process. Secure lease, explore, find oil, build facilities, produce oil. Each step in the process is a specialized resource, for simplicity's sake, much like an assembly line. How efficient would a factory be if it just took one input, waited for the one output, and then started over again?