Hi Frank - On re-reading my quick response to Groves' article, perhaps I should clarify.
The thrust of Groves' article is correct: massive electrification is required. But as much as possible, generation should not rely on fossil fuels, particularly coal. There'll be some tough decisions in that area pitting need and pragmatic decisions against long-term goals.
So Grove isn't wrong, but could have alluded to the question of carbon emissions from generation, as well as motive power. Perhaps he chose not to address the issue, but the matter, though controversial, is important.
On hybrid vehicles, I was fortunate to be physically involved with the first Ballard PEM fuel-cell buses, then at BC Transit. I was also an early investor. I say this because at the time, research indicated the probable arrival of the hydrogen fuel cell was neither imminent, nor as certain as the market believed: first would come the hybrid. As a consequence, I sold at $107. Needless to say, the stock went on to ~$155, split 3-for-1, and climbed again before falling to its present level :(
The point here is that the interim dominance of hybrid power was well-recognized, even in the early 90's; the secondary point is that production of sufficient hydrogen for motive power argued the need for massive increases in generation.
How much of an increase? The exercise at the time was a back-of-the-envelope calculation: roughly, the number of vehicles x estimated horsepower usage per day, converted to generation in watts.
The result? At best, scary. Astonishing. Almost impossible.
Which argued again, for an interim, evolutionary step: hybrids.
The point: there's fractional equivalence for recharging hybrids, and those numbers are pretty scary too.
---
About a year ago, we discussed the adequacy of forecasts for generation and electrical demand. (The "advanced search" function isn't working, so I can't get links). At the time pltdoms was a participant, I believe.
We discussed some shortcomings, then and later, in public and PMs.
The point is that demand is being grossly underestimated. In a PM to you a couple of weeks ago, I suggested a national energy policy equivalent to, and as demanding as the Manhattan Project, and led by a commitment equivalent to Kennedy's revitalized space program.
Grove states: "We have an urgent need for a strategy that can deflect our march toward this “persisting conflict” by strengthening our energy resilience. A policy that favors sticky energy with multiple sources and that aggressively moves vehicles first toward dual-fuel mode and ultimately to running on just electricity provides the answer."
Again, he's not wrong; he's right. But I don't think he properly understands the extent of the problem, or future demands. Simply put, we won't be able to satisfy demand; we'll need to change the way we live.
He's also correct that we can't eliminate fossil fuels entirely... after all, it takes a long extension cord for a transAtlantic flight ;)
---
In my opinion, the most contentious points in the article were here:
[A] "In fact, we may be at a critical juncture, the kind that can creep up, in a gradual and insidious way, on companies and industries, and even on societies."
--- Not "may be", Andy: "are"; more properly, "were", ~10 years ago.
[B] "Energy independence is the wrong goal."
--- This is a Straw Man argument. No reasonable person expected Nixon, or any subsequent President to achieve that mystical goal: it was nonsense. Independence was a misnomer for decreased and decreasing reliance.
Thus France's example: they took action in the 70's. Obviously, they still need fossil fuels - though not to the damaging extent that the United States does.
There's no such thing as "independence" in our near future, and we'll need fossil fuels, to decreasing extents, for years to come.
As stated, it takes a long extension cord for a transAtlantic flight.
Jim |
