I have no doubts anymore that we now have the technology to eliminate most
of our use of oil. From wind to solar to geothermal to waste to energy to
advanced batteries. We could do it over a period of a decade or less with
the proper investments.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jed Rothwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 11:05 AM
Subject: How $1 trillion could eliminate oil
I wrote:
For $1 trillion we could end the use of oil completely. We could replace
it with something like wind-power generated hydrogen . . .
Of course that is a very rough approximation, but I think it is correct to
within 20%. It is not difficult to make a very rough estimate. $1 trillion
equals $3,300 per person or about $10,000 per household.
Taking into account all forms of energy used by corporations farmers and
at home, the average household consumes about 3 kW continuously, I think.
$10,000 would buy you 1 kW of nuclear power plus 2 kW of wind power, which
would be more than enough to replace the energy used for transportation,
even if we used hydrogen generated at home, with plug-in hybrids. (That is
inefficient and expensive but it would not require much of a distribution
network.)
Actually I think $10,000 would be enough to eliminate 80% of oil and 80%
of coal as well. Natural gas still abundant and it does not generate as
much carbon dioxide so I would reduce it by, say, 20%. This would be done
over 20 years.
The $1 trillion would only be the cost of converting to new energy
systems; we would also have to spend whatever we plan spend on fuel and
new automobiles during this period anyway. When we finished, we would
still spend almost as much for energy on a daily basis as we do now.
In practical terms, here is approximately how I would divvy up the money
per household:
$4,000 for a plug-in hybrid cars. That is to say, $4,000 more than the
family would spend for conventional cars. I am assuming that in 10 years
nearly all cars will have to be replaced anyway, so the family would have
to buy two cars in 20 years. The first plug-in hybrid car would cost
~$3,000 more than a conventional car, in the second one only $1,000 more.
As I said earlier, for the average commuter a plug in hybrid car would
reduce the use of gasoline by 90%. Delivery trucks and long-haul trucks
would be a problem, and aircraft would still consume petroleum.
$2,000 for conservation: improved insulation, compact fluorescent lights,
better refrigerators, and so on. This would greatly reduce the need for
additional generator capacity. We would still need additional generator
capacity for the plug-in hybrids, but not as much.
$4,000 for additional generator capacity, split between wind and nuclear
power. Wind would be ideal for recharging automobiles at night with power
supplies that could be controlled by the electric power companies remotely
via the Internet, as we discussed here earlier. Nuclear power would be
needed in places which do not have much wind, and during periods when the
wind is not blowing much. About half of our electricity now comes from
coal. I hope this can be reduced to 10%.
As I said, this estimate might be off by 20%; it might take an extra $2000
per household (1 kW of wind capacity). On the other hand it might be
substantially cheaper because this plan would call for roughly 200 new
nuclear power plants, and I think the cost of nuclear power would fall
substantially if we build that many plants. Nuclear power now cost roughly
$6,000 per kilowatt of capacity; it might fall to $2,000 or $3,000.
Uranium fuel is very cheap and abundant. Cleaning up spent fuel is
reasonably cheap, but of course it is a huge political problem.
Generally speaking, conventional alternative energy cannot compete with
fossil fuel for two reasons:
1. Fossil fuel benefits from enormous subsidies, both direct and hidden.
Hidden subsidies include the cost of war to secure oil supplies ($1
trillion), and the death of 20,000 people a year from coal pollution.
2. The startup costs for alternative energy tend to be higher, although
the incremental fuel costs thereafter are lower for things like wind and
nuclear power.
The $1 trillion I am discussing here would only be used for the startup
costs, not for ongoing costs such as fuel and maintenance. The most
extreme example of high startup costs followed by low operating costs
would be for space-based solar power. The initial startup cost would be
astronomical. A small space elevator costs $6 billion and I suppose an
industrial scale one would cost $200 billion or more. However, once the
system is in place you can add another square kilometer of photovoltaic
collection panels and microwave transmitters very cheaply. A space-based
collector would be in sunlight nearly all the time. Transmission back to
earth would be about 80% efficient, so overall this would be about 5 times
more effective than ground-based solar, and it would be impervious to the
weather, seasons or diurnal cycle. See:
http://www.bookrags.com/sciences/astronomy/energy-from-space-spsc-01.html
Cold fusion is far better than any of these alternatives because instead
of costing $1 trillion for the transition, it would cost only a few
hundred billion. The biggest cost would be to convert factories and retire
manufacture equipment. All manufacturing equipment has to be retired
anyway after 10 or 20 years, but cold fusion would make it obsolete, and
it would be retired ahead of schedule. After the conversion is complete,
individual machines such as cars and water heaters will be cheaper than
present-day models, and fuel costs will be virtually zero. I describe this
in considerable detail in my book.
This $1 trillion would only be enough to convert the U.S. I suppose it
would cost another $1 or $2 trillion to convert the rest of the world. It
would be good for the US to go first because we could develop the
technology, absorb the cost of the development, and later make a large
profit selling the equipment to other countries. It seems extremely
unlikely the US will do anything like this, but Japan and China may well.
As I mentioned, China is now developing a 40 to 50 mpg car they hope to
sell for $6,000 in the U.S. I saw a photo of a prototype. It is not a
micro-sized car like the ones you see in Japan and Italy, or a Mini Cooper
but more like a small Corolla. If the Chinese succeed, than within 30
years this car will evolve into a plug-in hybrid, while the cost of
gasoline rises to $10 per gallon, and the Chinese will drive both Ford and
GM into bankruptcy.
- Jed
