A New Electric Grid should be multi-purpose

In his major speech on the economy, President-elect Obama mentioned the electric grid as one of his infrastructure investment proposals. This is a much needed investment that could be made much more useful if it could be implemented as a multipurpose right-of-way as I first proposed in this blog on Nov. 13.

The two most important elements of the multipurpose right-of-way are the underground electric grid and the high speed electric powered passenger rail service.

With the exception of a few routes, passenger service in the United States is provided over rails designed many decades ago and most Amtrak trains are limited to 79 mph maximum speed. This speed limit severely limits the ability for rail travel to compete with airlines or automobiles. High Speed, environmentally friendly, electric trains would change this equation, and in my judgement significantly change preferred alternatives in favor of rail for travel of 500 miles or less.

Flying has become such a hassle. TSA delays, weather delays, luggage restrictions, and ground transportation all make us seek an alternative. I believe such an alternative may be rail, and we can began by coupling it to our planned grid infrastructure improvements.

Super Highway Corridor of the Future

Why not build a new kind of superhighway consisting of an integrated set of components.

1. An underground high voltage transmission line as a part of our next generation transmission grid.
   
   The underground transmission grid is already being proposed by advocates of a new grid system. The advantage of integrating the transmission grid with tracks and roadway are to take advantage of this proximity to massive power to make adding the infrastructure for the trains and the roadways significantly less expensive because of the power availability.
   
2. Tracks and supporting infrastructure for high speed magna-lev and / or conventional electric trains
   
   Inexpensive high speed transportation point to point could provide a quality alternative to air travel over short to medium distance hauls. For distances of 500 miles or less, high speed 'bullet' type electric trains or magnalev trains would likely be able to provide shorter total transit time from downtown to downtown than air travel.
   
3. Roadways for electric cars.
   
   The electric car roadways would both power and charge electric cars using this roadway. This roadway would be a limited access toll road providing not only and electricity supply to power and charge the cars using it, so that batteries would be fully charged on exit of the roadway. Toll charges would automatically be computed based on KW used. There could be automated lanes, similar to the HOV lane concept, that provided computerized control, such that, once entering the lanes, the cars could literally drive themselves along the route with drivers taking over again on exiting the automated portion of the roadway.
   
   This concept could work with any of the electric car designs currently in progress with the addition of electrical pickup hardware and control logic. The cool thing about this proposal is that once a pickup and charging standard were developed, there could be benefit even if the road segments were discontiguous as they would provide a 'charge on the fly' capability for whatever length they exist.

This is probably not an original idea. It may not even be a good one, but it seems so logical to me. It rolls a set of ideas and directions proposed by so many of our energy leaders into an ultramodern composite. It's the stuff of sciencefuture.

If the next administration is going to invest in a massive energy independence program, a massive jobs program, and a massive infrastructure rebuilding program why not build the future, not just more of the past. Integrate the ideas I say.

Politics and Energy - My Perspective

I have been a political maverick all my voting life. The first time I could vote was 1964, and I voted for Goldwater. In 1968, I voted for George Wallace, although it wasn't because I particularly liked Wallace, it was because I din't like Nixon and would never vote for as liberal a guy as Hubert Humphfrey. Since then, it has been mostly republican except that I voted for Ross Perot when he ran.

This year, I promised myself I would vote for the guy with the best energy policy, because it is my number one issue. Obama has the best energy policy, but I am shaking in my Texas boots because of his very liberal record and relative lack of experience.

I definitely was impressed by Obama's ranking energy as his number 1 priority, and equally unimpressed by McCain basically waffling on his priorities.

My issue is does Obama walk the walk as well as talk the talk? I am really nervous about that.

Energy Priorities of the candidates

With all of the obfuscation caused by the financial crisis, it's hard to figure out where the candidates are relative to energy priorities. If you look at the websites http://www.barackobama.com and http://www.johnmccain.com, you will discover that each has a well articulated energy policy.

Barack Obama would, on the surface, seem to be more agressive. John McCain's police is actually more believeable, having slightly more conservative but possible more realistic goals.

Here's the rub. With all of the recent economic calamities, where do each put their energy priorities? Reading their websites leaves me not totally clear on their priorities. Obama seems to put social issues first. McCain isn't clear at all.

Inquiring minds want to know where they stand on the energy independence/environmental issues exactly,

Energy is losing focus

With all of the developments in finance this week, energy is losing focus. In reality, energy is a major contributor to our meltdown.

The US is in a weak position. Minus 700B on oil, the other issues of our economy are heightened magnitude.

We must not lose sight of the main problem...major negative cashflow as a result or our dependence on foreigh oil is a significant contributor to our national problem.

Please don't lose sight of the issues. Despite the greed, lack of oversight and whatever ails the economy, we still need to focus on the balance of energy. We must not let the financial crisis divert us.

Oh! The perils of the energy alternatives

It's not easy being Green! Kermit was so right!

So very many of the alternatives are so themselves frought with hidden costs.

• Opponents of wind power claim it kills birds and bats.
• Opponents of Corn Ethanol claim it takes almost as much energy to create it you get from it, and that it uses some of the worlds food supply
• Opponents of Nuclear Energy claim we haven't solve safety and spent fuel disposal issues
• There are hidden CO2 production issues in making Hydrogen, which burns polution free in fuel cells
• Fuel cells themselves require elements and compounds which are in short supply
• Electric car batteries use materials we buy from China and may be in short supply

Issues, yes. That doesn't mean we should stop, it just means we have a lot of problems to solve before we can declare fossil fuels obsolete.

It's not easy being Green!

Drill Here, Drill Now! Pay Less?

I read a lot of opinions on the Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less forums today. There are a lot of people with very impassioned opinions supported by all manner of graphs, charts, references, quotes, projections, etc. They argue about how much oil there is, and how quickly we can get it out. They argue about whether it can make a difference or whether whatever oil we pump from new American sources will just get lost in the rounding.

Here's what I think.

We should drill here and drill now. Whatever we find will have two positive benefits. One, it will help delay the inevitable time when we cannot meet demand, and two, it will be some added insurance against supply interruptions as a result of future conflict. I don't see the pay less part being a significant factor because of the worldwide demand.

Whatever we do will help buy time to develop viable alternatives, but let's be clear about one thing: Drill Here, Drill Now, is in no way an alternative to developing renewable fuels. It is a delaying tactic to help us make the massive transition to a new kind of transportation infrastructure.

Drill Here, Drill Now is a necessary evil. It's a finger in the dike. What is most important is that no matter what we discover, there is no alternative to developing the renewable alternative sources.

Why is developing alternative energy fuels a crisis?

Everybody is talking about alternative energy investments. Yesterday (Aug 4, 08) John McCain, Barack O'Bama, and T. Boone Pickens all had their share of national attention. Each focused on various plans to move forward. Why all the attention? Did Al Gore finally win over their hearts and souls on Global Warming (aka Global Climate Change)? No! It's the money!

Ever since T. Boone Pickens started flooding the airwaves with ads about the $700B a year transfer to the oil producing states and the realization that over time this will bankrupt the United States, the nation, and thus the polititians, have started to focus on the real problem: The entire planet doesn't have enough fossil fuels to meet the growing global demand indefinately, and as the law of supply and demand drives prices up, we can't afford to meet our growing needs even if it did!

For a moment, put aside all of the global climate change issues, and focus on this fact: The US can't supply it's own needs for petroleum, and we must buy a significant part of our supply from others. Additional exploration and development of our onshore and near offshore resources may lessen imports somewhat, and postpone the depletion of petroleum resources, but we will eventually run out, some day, some year, in the future.

These facts alone mandate development of alternative sources. Whether you believe that mankind is causing global climate change, or if you believe the earth is simply near the top end of it's inter-glacial cycles, the economic facts are indisputable.

Pickens Plan: Importance of electrical infrastructure

T. Boone Pickens has proposed a plan to produce 20% of the electricity needs of the U.S. from wind energy in 10 years. There is sufficient wind power to do this using existing wind turbine technologies, but there's a catch. The places that are best suited for wind power are not near the existing transmission grid.

Both T. Boone Pickens and Al Gore agree that rebuilding the national electric grid is of the highest importance, and possibly the most difficult to achieve politically. T. Boone's 4000 Megawatt wind farm in the Texas Panhandle is in the boonies (no pun intended), as are many of the other premium sites in the Texas to North Dakota wind corridor. This is among the more remote areas in the nation, most of it 500 miles from the nearest major metropolitan area where the power is needed. Opponents of the Pickens Plan may see this as a reason why not.

There is no doubt that getting the electricity to the market is a big hurdle, but one that must be overcome. A new electric grid is necessary for all forms of alternative energy. Solar energy's prime location is in the Southwest, New Mexico, Arizona, and West Texas. These, too, are far from consumers. Further, no one wants the nuclear plants that McCain is proposing in their backyard either.

A major investment in electric grid infrastructure could enable all of these technologies to function efficiently. It would be like an interstate highway system for electricity. This above all needs national leadership and commitment for us to get started toward ending our foreign oil dependence.

No Silver Bullet?

Is there a Silver Bullet to solve the energy and global warming crisis? Not yet, but maybe some day. Sustainable Hydrogen Fusion might be, but it has remained elusive for decades now.

For now, and until this or some other Silver Bullet solution comes along, we need a comprehensive menu of solutions to address 4 issues:

1. Global warming and pollution as a result of burning carbon fuels
2. Financial impact of being a net importer of fuel resources
3. Exponential growth in energy demand
4. The reality of legacy investments in planes, trains, trucks, and automobiles

I admire Al Gore and T. Boone Pickens challenges and plans. We should work to implement both, as they are not contradictory. But there is much more that will have to be dones as well. I believe both of the proponents of change believe that too. In the recent book, "Earth: The Sequel", authors Fred Krupp and Miriam Horn outline many technologies which can contribute to addressing the four issues I outline above. This book should be required reading for everyone who is in a position to influence our leaders.

All efforts to change the status quo are expensive, but perhaps the most expensive of all in this case is to just try and maintain it.