My friend Peter Jones sent along a pointer to the work at Princeton on “Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies.” See also the Carbon Mitigation Initiative site.

I think this is an interesting idea, but it is badly flawed for several reasons.

1] Nuclear power is a very bad idea. No civilization has lasted 10K years and nuclear waste is hot for more than 20K years. (George Kamburoff points out that “plutonium has a half-life of 44,000 years, and it takes about 10 half-lives to reach relative safety.”) We must insist on an accounting of ALL expenses for the full life cycle of the nuclear power system — no externalities allowed. If we do, the true price of nuclear power is horrific.

2] Ethanol is a hoax. Hydrogen probably is too. See the note on Ethanol below.

3] It is better to BURN solid biomass directly, than to waste time and energy converting it to liquid fuels. Corn kernels have about a 6:1 net energy while corn ethanol is in the range of 1.2-1.5:1 The goal has to be to maximize and preserve the highest levels of net energy in the biomass. Reducing it to a liquid form is a disaster from a net energy perspective.

The real test of the seriousness of our intent and the depth of our commitment is this:

1. Will we demand an electrical system that is 90% efficient? Our current system is about 10% efficient. To achieve 90% levels we must adopt a distributed and edge based power paradigm with combined heat and power units at the points of demand. This rules out any grid based system as the grid wastes about 67% of the electricity put into it at the head end. Another reason nukes are a bad idea: they are grid dependent. BTW: Austria now gets about 75% of its energy from renewables. They have adopted a distributed power model based on 3,600 biodigesters. Germany is so impressed with this that I am told they plan to adopt the Austrian model and then shut down all of their nuclear power stations. Austria built one, but never fired it.

2. Will we demand that we adopt an abundance model for spectrum? Today’s scarcity model grossly inflates transaction costs and makes it far too difficult to use communications to “Get the Miles out” of our lives. See the essay on Open Spectrum.

3. Will we demand that we put a premium on getting the miles out? To truly address global climate change, we must Get the Miles Out of or our food system, education, employment, healthcare, entertainment, and so forth.

The folks at Princeton appear to be clinging to the notion that we do not have to make significant changes to our culture and the unsustainable and wastrel modalities of the 20th century.

What we really need is a 21st century wedge that, as Jim Merkel at Dartmouth says, begins with an 8 fold reduction in demand: cut your demand in half, then in half again, and then in half one more time. And then figure out the wedges to support that level of energy use. And require that the technologies for the wedges be proven, not pipe dreams.

Note on the Ethanol Hoax

Friends,

I would like to suggest we ask if a policy of replacing liquid fossil fuels for transportation with ANY form of ethanol makes any sense at all? Does this strategy yield the greatest degree of energy independence? The strongest triple bottom line?

Consider, even cellulosic ethanol at 5:1 net energy will be burned in an ICE with only 30% efficiency. As a result, the true net energy of the ethanol ICE system is a mere 1.5:1

[ICE = Internal Combustion Engine]

Given that buildings are the source of 48% of climate changing gases, perhaps we should look at a displacement strategy. That is, if we use solid biofuels for space conditioning we can re-allocate or repurpose the displaced fossil fuels to transportation.

Our grass-based pellet fuels have a net energy of 14:1 and are combusted in systems with at least an 83% efficiency [USDA FS & PFI data]. As a result, the true net energy of grass fueled space conditioning is on the order of 11.6:1. This is a 673% increase in net energy of the system compared to ethanol.

Clearly a displacement strategy will yield much better returns on investment on many
levels.

Lastly, consider the disastrous impact of the $6.60 per million BTU ethanol subsidy on the Ag commodities market. This market had been relatively stable since 1996. Today, thanks to the ethanol mania, it is explosively volatile. Soy beans are heading for a 19 year high — perhaps as high as $12 per bushel.

If my company got the same subsidy per million btu produced as ethanol gets today, I could sell my fuel at a very nice profit for a price that would provide space conditioning energy for the equivalent of about $1.00 per gallon #2 oil. This is less than current prices for #6 oil. Do you think you might find that price attractive for heating your building?

Why, then, are we allowing the government to pick winners and losers with the grossly unfair subsidy that is limited to ethanol? There are many biofuels. Why not treat them all equally? I thought the idea was to create a level playing field and let the market decide? Here we have another example of the bogus nature of the myth of the all powerful magic of the marketplace.

Today, however, the ethanol subsidy is a powerful reality distortion field that is badly corrupting the market place.

Very curious.

Trackback this Post | Feed on comments to this Post