$45 Trill, eh? I’m thinking, I’m thinking….

Like it?

comments

Posted June 9, 2008 with 103 reads

Keywords: bev, coal, electric vehicles, ev, israel, oil, renewables, solar energy, solar power, transportation, Politics & Legislation

Subtitle: You worked for the government, eh, Joseph?

One of the posts at After Gutenberg, to which I most recently have added the greatest amount of commentary, has been the announcement that Carlos Ghosn was in bed with Shai Agassi. Metaphorically and politically speaking, that is (Video).

“Recent fault-finding flak comes from Karin Kloosterman,” who expressed concern that cost and available real estate could be problems with establishment of battery-swapping infrastructure.

The most recent comment came from an observation by Domenick Yoney that PBP “Project Better Place is starting to attract some critics.” And, while I expressed appreciation for the opportunity to comment, I respectfully (in the eye of the commentator) disagreed:

When you write, “While the coal used now may be nasty and ought to be phased out as quickly as possible, it is still cleaner than a multitude of new tailpipes,” you are not only wrong, but dangerously wrong in an assertion that continues to threaten life on the planet as we know it.

When you write, “if planned properly, the existing generation capacity may well be sufficient to power the first few years of electric-car influx, thereby reducing overall pollution and CO2 production and giving further impetus to cleaner future energy generation”, you fallaciously link clean energy with coal and omit recognition that Israel is a leader in solar, which, sadly the United States was years ago.

Breaking with standard ABG practice of ignoring the wing nuts not responding to comments, the ABG contributor clarified:

First of all, although I come from a coal mining family, I personally believe the best thing we could do with coal is nothing. Leave it in the ground. I’m not personally interested in using it to produce electricity and further poisoning the water and atmosphere.

[I am] Not interested in Syngas or even carbon sequestration for that matter.

Solar is great (as is conservation). In Israel it is used mainly to heat the water of about 80% of the houses. They have just announced a new 500MW installation to be finished by 2012 which, of course, is great.

From what I’ve read though, powering electric cars with coal-produced power is less CO2 intensive than using internal combustion engines. Check out the Sherry Boschert link provided by another commenter.

Add to that the fact that charging cars off-peak when there is excess capacity being generated allows more transportation miles on the existing amounts of fuel being spent. (See “Mileage from megawatts¹”

Then add to that the the energy mix isn’t 100% coal but also includes sources such as natural gas, etc.

To which, I replied:

Domenick, I agree with Simon* and you: using electric cars, even when the mix includes coal fired electric power generation, most often (but not always) will be cleaner.

I was taking issue with your statement that seemed to link coal-fired electric power generation with cleaning up the mess.

I was coming from somewhere other than Business As Usual and Above All Else and accepting stopgap measures that will suffice for now. Uh-uh. It’s too late, honey; it even may be too late if we employ heroic efforts, e.g., no coal. It depends upon who you read.

And, if you disbelieve that the “Syngas spin” is “ramping up”, you’d be better off writing more fairy tales to lull the kids to sleep, all snugly in their Titanic bunks.

*Note: Simon was an ABG commentator, who asserted that electric cars reduce overall pollution even if powered from coal and referred me to an essay on emissions by Sherry Boschert (PDF).

Another ABG commentator, Blackbird Highway, tentatively concurred. The first paragraph was particular concise in summarizing some of the issues:

Business as usual is not where we need to be right now. We need to get off both oil and coal ASAP. Waiting until the power grid is “just right” before switching to BEVs would be a mistake, as would waiting for BEVs to take off before getting out of coal burning for electricity.

It is evident, Rufus readers, that the United States Congress, despite the knowledge that they have, will continue to act counter to the interests of the people in the United States and the global community. The health and well-being of future generations is of no interest to them.

But, I had to chide the commentator for the other part of agreeing…: I see just a tiny handful of politicians willing to take anything beyond baby steps. A lot of them, and a lot of the population, don’t want to make any changes at all, other than drilling in ANWR (Alaska National Wildlife Refuge), which they somehow believe is the solution to every energy problem.; Well, BBH (BlackBird Highway), I agree and disagree w’ ya.

If you read Romm,* then you come away that there is some hope. OTOH, 99 of 100 senators voted against a Renewable Portfolio Standard, when it most recently came to a vote.

So, I would agree with you that it is fallacy to look to the politicians. They will follow along whichever way the wind blows, and more importantly, the way the campaign contributions flow. I would disagree with your assertion that the majority of people do not want such change.

* Note: I referenced when Climate Progress again recently repeated the warning that we must “act now with clean energy or face 6°C warming.”

When the normally conservative, IEA (International Energy Agency) agrees with both the middle of the road IPCC and more … progressive voices like Climate Progress, it should be time for the world to get very serious, very fast on the clean energy transition.

Romm felt vindicated that the IEA’s 450 ppm ’solution’ is quite similar to the one he proposed.

The International Energy Agency warns that:

Failing to act very quickly to transform the planet’s energy system puts us on a path to catastrophic outcomes.
The investment required is “an average of some 1.1% of global GDP each year from now until 2050. This expenditure reflects a re-direction of economic activity and employment, and not necessarily a reduction of GDP.”
The world is on the brink of a renewables (and efficiency) revolution.

Well, back to the banana farm…

P.S. The title comes from the IEA report and a Jack Benny sketch. No, I am not going to tell you which is which.