Solution by Lunch (in 2030)

Sorry I am jumping the shark so early in the life of this blog. But I must rant about how we solve problems. Or rather, the lack of clear vision on how we solve problems.

I feel that government planning and funding is very disjointed. We have the best researchers in the world, just not a clear enough picture of just what innovation we are asking them to provide to solve the big picture problems.

This rant stems from the fact that alternative fuel technologies aren't being given the proportional attention for their relative potential to solve the energy security problem. What we need is a big consensus study much like what they do in the Copenhagen Consensus studies.

http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/

I am a big fan of Lomborg. For one, he is a big proponent of research. He says (or more accurately he cites others that say) that $1 of R&D gives $11 of payout in the end.

But in spending this money, DOE needs to be clear about what the desired outcomes should be so researchers have clear goals when they go out and innovate. But then most importantly, the overall plan must link all these outcomes into a scenario that achieves our goals at a very high level. Many DOE programs sound great all by themselves I guess. But none have done more than taking incremental pot shots at the mammoth problem of energy security. As evidence, the problem is still no more solved then it was back in the days of the Carter administration.

Let me give you an example of a linked, long-term, big-picture energy roadmap:

Supply: Phase the grid from fossil to renewables. But only at a pace that doesn’t break the bank. Invest the research into renewables (better wind and solar). But you are asking engineers to make things less expensive, what if this never happens (fuel cells come to mind).  We already HAVE solar and wind, just not COST-EFFECTIVE solar and wind. If initial installation costs can't be solved by engineering, then what if the total cost savings comes from longevity - engineering longevity is something engineers can do! That is, install, then have little or no maintenance costs for the next 30-50 years, all the while generating valuable electricity.

Policy: Government grants are wasteful. They assume the stuff is expensive, and so with no price signals pressuring lower costs, governments get what they pay for: wasteful renewable energy. However, what if governments bridge the gap between savings now and savings 30-50 years from now? Then government input is highly leveraged and less wasteful. Companies will not invest in technologies that pay out only after 30-50 years. So what if the government gives low-interest loans, but gets repayment over very long time-scales in exchange for private investment getting paid on more conventional time-scales?  The goal is to get companies to install robust, and long-life renewable generators. Hopefully in the long run, the business case no longer needs assistance. If not, then we need innovation from another renewable generating technologies. 

Demand: Find a suitable energy carrier for transportation that is supplied by the grid or by other renewables. Energy carrier? That's how transportation runs, it's what we have been doing all along, right? But I am looking for a rechargeable substance, probably a liquid. If we can make a fuel that uses the renewable supply - good. If we can develop a liquid electrochemical energy carrier, then we can have all the transient, renewable, energy generators we want and couple these two energy systems together. The "recharge" of the liquid energy carrier can be done regionally within grid networks harmoniously with grid demand. Furthermore, design some of the energy carrier recharging plants to respond very quickly to hourly changes in demand. The remaining "smartgrid" connected energy consumers can do the second and ms time scale grid load leveling. No need for storage in our renewable grid - what many believe to be the holy grail of smart grid. I say "Bah" on storage. I say "use", don’t "store"

As I said, don’t ask an engineer if something can be done. Ask an economist if something makes dollars and sense to do it in the first place. (this is basically what happened with fuel cells, no doubt the engineers did a remarkable job, but it never made sense, in the big picture)

And at the high level, fuel cells are a good idea. But not the hydrogen part of it, it was the refuel-able energy carrier part that was the attractive past. We just have to keep looking for better energy carriers, not better PEM membranes or higher-pressure tanks, or all the other myopic visions I see at the merit reviews...

If You REALLY Must Use Bio-Mass, Then Burn It!

Ok. so let us assume that we are on our way to solving the nation's energy security crisis. But then you ask, what about renewable energy and CO2? What about ethanol? Or, more specifically what about the 85% solution of using E85 which always has 15% conventional gaoline. Er, I mean after all the energy and fertilizer needed for corn to grow into crops used for ethanol... it seems this proposed "solution" has a lot of caveats to it. Yes, most good studies put ethanol as a net positive energy, but we cant congratulate ourselves with an energy carrier that only gives us 30% of the energy it took to make [no I dont have a source, I'm too busy right now]. Turning crops into transportation-grade IC engine fuel is an energy-intensive process - it may not always be that way, but right now that's the way it is. Remember, our rule about inventions, the plan to solve a problem can't have step 1 as "invent a solution to solve our problem." In order to solve this problem by lunchtime we need to apply known pathways or proven technology.

Mies van der Rohe described good architecture as having simple, elegant solutions. He asked, "if you have a scratch on the right side of your face, you wouldn't reach over the top of your head with you left hand to scratch it, would you?" (I have been in many buildings where many left hands were scratching right side faces).

So, if we want to use renewable biomass for our energy needs, forget about ethanol, throw the biomass directly into the burner and generate electricity!

This proposal is completely in line with the previous post. Essentially, don't use perfectly good transportation fuel in electric power plants AND don't take perfectly combustible biomass and inefficiently process it to make good transportation fuel.

Is this too simple a solution for people to recognize?

Lunch today: Taco Bell Chalupas while waiting to get my oil changed

First Problem: Domestic Energy Security

Oh my! That sounds like a real big problem, "Domestic Energy Security." Like a problem we may always have, like air pollution or, inflation... whoah, let's not get too ahead of ourselves, we can look at those later. Domestic Energy Security (DES) is a problem because the USA is addicted to imported oil. Oil is the main contributor to our trade deficit. Solving this problem would have so many positive benefits there should be no reason to leave this problem unsolved.

The reason this problem is addressed first is that falls squarely in my sights as a problem where a solution could be drafted by lunch. And its a growing problem where acting now will leverage much more benefits later. This is a big ship to steer, but there is very realizable solution to this problem.

A smart man once asked a simple question a few years ago, "given todays energy mix, what is the difference between driving an EV and a CNG vehicle?" They are powered by nearly the same feedstock - especially so in California.

Our by lunch solution is not too far from the actions proposed in the Pickens Plan, it is much simpler and has much less uncertainty, do not forget the Atkinson adage: "only one invention at a time." The Pickens Plan has the correct philosophical perspective: they recognize this is a transportation systems energy problem. Saying for example that we should all use ethanol to power our cars, or wind energy to power the entire grid ignores the total system challenge and the true scope of the problem. We should not heavily rely on wind until we have grid storage (more on that in later post). Pickens will not solve our energy security problem until a host of other problems are solved first - this is not one invention at a time! Thus, we can't solve the DES problem by lunch using Pickens, damn!

I remember in the early 1990's we had some momentum for CNG refueling stations. This completely lost steam. One good thing about that era, we know that CNG vehicles are feasible. Injectors robust, tanks are even more advanced from hydrogen tank R&D. We can do this. But this is a problem that the government must step up with realizable mandates and staged introduction.

Message to policy makers: stop throwing money at useless tax breaks for purchasing vehicles that are not yet competitive with conventional vehicles. I am talking about the $7500 break for the Volt and Leaf. These vehicles are in such limited supply all of these vehicles will be bought even without a tax break, that by any analysis is a dumb policy! Seeing a Chevy Volt on a car lot without a buyer will be about as rare as (......... insert politically incorrect joke here ...)

Message to policy makers: do provide a tax break to vehicles that are functionally equivalent, but are only a little more expensive than conventional counterparts. And only do it for vehicles that could be sold in the volumes that will actually solve the problem. 50,000 Chevy Volts or 100,000 Leafs will not make a dent in our energy security problem. Transforing 50% of our fleet to run on domestic fuel, that sounds like a bold solution to a serious problem. Do we have enough NG? Yes. Do we have enough ethanol? No. This is a low hanging fruit... pick it!

The time is closing in on 11:30AM, Thomas will be in my office in two minutes asking to go to Buena Beef. So, what am I proposing is...

The Solution

Staged mandates for vehicles and infrastructure.

I know people don't like the government picking a winner, too bad. We have one, it is natural gas. Why would we spend so much effort and energy making ethanol fuel or importing oil from unstable countries while at the same time send billions of cu ft of viable transportation fuel into our many power plants every year. Dumb.

Government mandates for transportation technology has shown time and time again that it is actually a good model to get things to actually happen. There would be no EV1, there would be no plug-in vehicles coming so soon. And to a large extent, the existence of the Prius and Insight was in direct response to the USA failed effort to get 3x MPG vehicles on the road.

Infrastructure Mandates

Just like only the top OEMs manufacturers were subject to the "ZEV Mandate" so too can the oil companies be subject to a similar mandate, this time to supply NG to vehicles. How many of the big companies is up for debate. Perhaps after lunch I see just how many oil companies are left these days to make the count.

A percentage of refueling stations shall have CNG available for sale according to the following schedule:

2013 - 1% (only in high vehicle population centers)

2015 - 5%

2017 - 20%

2020 - 50%

Vehicle Mandates

Sorry vehicle OEMs, on top of all the recent innovation, we are asking for some new product. Two types of CNG vehicles will be required. Dual-fuel and dedicated vehicles. We will need dual-fuel CNGV until we really get close to 50% CNG refueling availability.

2014 - 1% dual fuel, tax break

2016 - 5% dual fuel, tax break

2018 - 20% dual fuel, 10% dedicated, (*)

2020 - 20% dual fuel, 30% dedicated, (*)

* fuel price alone should make CNG competitive, but small tax break if still needed. Fund with gasoline tax.

Summary

People like to be able to target 2020 as a good signpost. Let's call this our Domestic Energy Security Apollo program - by the end of the decade, half of all personal transportation shall be powered by domestic natural gas. This is a big number solving a big problem. With biodiesel and ethanol nipping at the margin, this leaves us without an energy security crisis. Energy independence in a plan only a few paragraphs long.

Lunch: Popeye's chicken jambalaya

Welcome

This nation has big problems, for that matter our entire world. You may think our big problems are just facts of life. This notion is reinforced by the mainstream news media arguing day in and day out about these problems. However, the more I learn about the world the more I have realized just how many of our long list of problems are in fact completely solvable. Why is it we go hungry when all along around us are low hanging fruit?!

Engineers solve problems - no ambiguity, no energy trying to convince people. Facts and analysis are our guides. If we have so many problems, then a systems engineering approach dictates that we analyze all our problems and identify the ones we can solve first, once solved we can then move on and focus our energy to the more difficult ones. Why do we burden ourselves with such a long list of problems facing the nation and the world? Let's address the solvable problems.

This is the purpose of this blog, identify easily solvable problems. These problems are so solvable that we could design a valid solution in a matter of hours and still not be late for lunch.

So why haven’t these problems been solved? Political red tape? Whiny citizens? Why can't we solve tough problems? I define a tough problem as one that requires a tough solution. By tough, I don't mean complex or difficult, just "tough." They may require some sacrifice, but if the positive outcome is better than the solution sacrifice, then the only real choice is to pull the trigger and not wait. Why haven't we acted? What are we waiting for? Political will? The next mid-term election cycle?

I am expert at some things, I have a good understanding of many things, and things I don’t know about I will either ignore or study as much as I can before I even comment. The problem with many newbie activists is that are ready to act! Too many times they don't fully understand the problem, they want to face the problem head on. As if "to die trying" is somehow noble. I have no intention to keep pounding the wall, I am looking for the doors in that wall. I am looking for solutions. Let's find them soon..... I say perhaps even before lunchtime.

Yours truly,
LabRat