As
the previous post indicated, my decision to file as a candidate for governor (and
pay the requisite $1718.98 filing fee), while primarily to attract viewers to
this blog about Sound Transit and WSDOT failure to deal with the areas
transportation problem, was also to “question” the efficacy of limiting CO2
emissions to reduce “climate change” and “renewable energy” to meet future
energy needs.
This
post, in response to a May 16th Opinion page, “Climate change demands an
electrifying solution,” is the first attempt. The “Special to the editor” was submitted by
Spencer Reeder, one of the “panel of experts” in the recent Seattle Times
Livewire forum about “the high cost of climate change”. He opines, “we must electrify the
transportation system on a grand scale” to “prevent the release of carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere in such quantity as to disrupt the Earth’s energy
balance”.
Electric
powered transportation would apparently reduce the anthropogenic (man-made) CO2
emissions in this country by 25%. It’s not clear how that reduction would
affect total CO2 emissions. However, since anthropogenic emissions make
up only about 3% of all CO2 emissions, the reduction for electrifying this country’s
transportation on the “Earth’s energy balance” would seem to be “minimal”.
Presumably “electrifying transportation” requires
replacing gasoline tanks with batteries (or some other storage device) for
vehicles not tethered to some power lines. Unfortunately batteries lack the ability to store the energy and power of gasoline. Gasoline
can store approximately 12,900 watt hours of energy per kilogram (Wh/Kg)
and100,000 watts of power (W/Kg).
The
most promising batteries, Nickel Metal Hydride (NMH), are projected to have
only 120 Wh/Kg of energy and 220 W/Kg of power (lithium-ion batteries are similar). While electric motors are more efficient
than gasoline engines in converting energy into motive force, battery-powered-vehicle
range will be severely limited or the vehicle weight substantially increased by
added batteries.
The
other rather “dubious” assertion is the city has “an ample supply of near
carbon free electricity”. According to “Washington Energy Facts”,
while more than 70% of the states electricity is supplied by hydroelectric
power, fossil fuels still provide nearly 18%, nuclear 6.3%, and 5% from non-hydroelectric
“renewable sources”. The state also exports substantial
amounts of hydroelectric and wind turbine generated electricity to California
and other areas.
Current
legislation purportedly calls for increasing renewable power, likely from wind
turbines to 20%, presumably to replace fossil fuels. Thus providing an “ample supply of near carbon free
electricity” either requires slashing the amount sent to other states or adding
even more wind turbine power. (Its
unlikely the other option, more dams or nuclear power plants will be
considered.) However,
increasing dependence on wind turbines is fraught with the problems of storing
the energy needed to accommodate the times when the wind doesn’t blow. (The "Achilles Heel" of the entire renewable energy "movement" is, at least currently, the inability to store energy for use when the "wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine".) Even worse, our state’s problem
pales in comparison to the rest of the countries ability to provide the needed
carbon-free energy.
The
bottom line is electrifying the transportation system as the way to reduce
climate change relies on three “dubious” assumptions. The first is sufficient “carbon free” electricity can be
achieved with renewable wind and solar power to replace gasoline or diesel fuel
as the energy source for the country’s transportation system. Second, that batteries can be
developed to provide the needed range without adding excessive
weight. And third, that the
resultant reduction in anthropogenic CO2 emissions will end the “disruption of
the Earth’s energy balance from CO2”.
It reminds me of one of my favorite Peanuts cartoons where Snoopy
opines, “Birds have been known to fly to the moon and back”.
No comments:
Post a Comment