Restoring the U.S. battery production capability. Most battery production facilities are in China and Japan. The U.S. must rebuild its local battery production industry for the batteries that will power the 21 century vehicles. Special government incentives should be designed. The electric battery car is the (very near) future and will be for most of the 21 century. It is one of the critical industries that must stay/return “home”.
Battery patents. The development of new generation of batteries has been slowed down considerably because of patent disputes. We need special legislation that will allow for faster resolution of battery related patent disputes. We cannot pretend that we can “continue as usual”. Certain critical technologies that are essential to our energy policy should receive special legal procedure so they can be implemented much faster.
Rare Materials. Part of our energy policy, defense policy and foreign policy should make sure that we have access to the rare materials that will be required for our transition away from oil. We are already running into battery production bottlenecks because of shortages of rare materials. It is already delaying the transition to plug-in hybrids and electrical cars.
Eliminate Oil influence on public opinion and public policy. Oil producing countries (many of which wish us harm) and to certain extent oil companies have a clear interest to maintain our addiction to oil. They have been using their financial resources to influence both public opinion and our legislature, to move in directions that will prevent us from eliminating our dependency on oil. We should find ways to stop these activities. It will require specific legislation and strength of character from our president. A sad example of such influence was the recent public campaign against bio-fuels that was largely financed by oil interests. Did they violate the law?
Create an international consumer cartel. Fight suppliers’ cartel (OPEC) with consumers’ cartel (OPIC). The effect will be reduced prices.
PTO should “fast track” patents related to energy efficiency/renewable energy/green utility standards/green cars….
What are the smaller things, perhaps, that are very effective and could be pushed in a bi-partisan way?
-> from “The Health of US Energy Policy,” a briefing on Capitol Hill on January 28th, 2010.
A: “Something we started two years ago in the city of Berkeley – of 100,00 people – was to loan money to property owners so they can then install energy efficiency and renewable – not just solar, not just tanks and water heaters… Now it is part of Waxman-Markey, ten states have passed enabling legislation, Vice President Biden is now the national spokesman for the PACE Program… We need a federal fund to be loaned out in a revolving credit scheme to cities and states. And we need individual municipalities – cities, counties, or states – to work out the individually detailed and different tax laws so that one can make this happen. That’s actually about a half page. And if you want to flip the world of energy on it’s head – certainly in the stationary power side – making it so there’s no upfront cost to go green is a game changer.”
-> from “The Health of US Energy Policy,” a briefing on Capitol Hill (Jan 28th, 2010).
A: “The first is, we need what folks have been calling a Green Bank, there’s versions of it called an Clean Energy Development Administration in the Senate and the Waxman-Markey bills. At CAP we believe that would be a lending institution that is somewhat independent from an agency so that you would have enough inter-agency involvement in it to look at a variety of projects. You wouldn’t just be focused on traditional energy projects, you could also look at agriculture projects, maybe defense projects, but some kind of a lending institution, semi-independent, that would be focused on a place where we have lost a lot of focus in this country, which is that critical stage between pilot and commercialization of a technology…What’s happening is that China and a lot of other countries are lobbying extremely hard to commercialize that stuff we’re inventing and we aren’t doing a lot of government support to do it here. That has been a pretty bi-partisan idea and I think we could do a lot more with it.”
-> from “The Health of US Energy Policy,” a briefing on Capitol Hill on January 28th, 2010.
There is quite of bit of new, clean energy technology that is stalled. It has been proven in the lab and has attractive economics, but final commercialization at large scale has not been attempted yet. Businesses won’t invest because there is still significant risk, particularly for deploying new energy technologies at scale. We need better mechanisms for bridging this so-called “Valley of Death”, for de-risking new energy technologies, if new clean energy sources are to be rolled out quickly. The Green Bank mentioned above is one mechanism that could work.
(Bruce Dale, Professor of Chemical Engineering, Michigan State University)
A: “The first thing I think is most important to get done is the Open Fuel Standards Act. This is a bi-partisan bill in both the House and Senate. If you want to look up the language in the House I think the number is H.R. 1476. It’s a bi-partisan piece of legislation that would essentially say: new cars sold in this country need to be platforms on which liquid fuels can compete. That’s bare minimum and fairly inexpensive. If it’s a gasoline vehicle, it needs to be able to run on gasoline and a variety of alcohol fuels, not just ethanol. Methanol also. Methanol is the most corrosive of alcohols, so that opens it up to a whole panel of fuels. If it’s diesel it needs to be warranted to use biodiesel, which became possible when biodiesel specs were finally put into place last year. But this costs auto manufacturers well under $100 per car and what it does is make vehicles platforms on which fuels can compete. And its effects we can understand by looking at Brazil. Brazil went from zero to seventy percent of new cars being flexfuel vehicles in three years. They were 90% of new cars last year. So when oil prices spiked in Brazil last year, people were actually able to play the commodities against each other at the pump and they actually made gasoline an alternative fuel.”
-> from “The Health of US Energy Policy,” a briefing on Capitol Hill (Jan 28th, 2010).
We should pass HR 1476 and corresponding legislation in the Senate. Requiring that every new vehicle sold in the United States be flex fuel, capable of running on any combination of gasoline and alcohols, would cost very little and would overcome much of the chicken and egg problem with new fuels. If the US adopted this standard, new vehicles sold throughout the world would also become flex fuel in short order. This would tend to increase the supplies of alternative fuels throughout the world, keeping a lid on oil prices and reducing the power of the oil cartel. As alternative fuel production increased in the world, this would also allow more exports of such fuels to the US, improving our national security while at the same time helping other countries break free of oil’s stranglehold.
(Bruce Dale, Professor of Chemical Engineering, Michigan State University)
The ten most efficient states in the US used only 7,774 kWh per capita in 2005, compared to 13,947 kWh per capita for the 40 least efficient states. The efficient states use electricity at similar levels to Japan, Germany, Korea, France, and other major industrial nations. If we adopted the policies, incentives, and regulations of the 10 efficient states at the Federal level, we would see consumption fall faster than population increase, and so it would be possible to close coal burning power plants, which are a major source of US emissions. One of the most important policies that should be adopted at the Federal level is decoupling, where utilities can profit from negawatts more than megawatts, changing from opponents of efficiency into the greatest advocates of it.
The smallest action that is required is to split the energy policy discussions into two: electricity and transportation. There is no overlap between these two energy uses but for some reason they are all bundled together. It is hard if not impossible to get the utilities, car makers, oil companies, railway operators, coal producers, corn farmers, windmill makers, the Pentagon, etc. etc. all on one table to agree on anything. Moreover the confusion between what really decreases our oil dependence on one hand and the fear of blackout on the other, actually causes a grid lock which prevents reform on both topics. This plays to the hand of parties that would like to keep the status quo. For example, if you bash alternative fuel enough on the grounds of their green house gas emissions and you bash CO2 sequestrations by coal power plants for being dirty, and you bash nuclear for being dangerous, you end up with “nothing works let’s just keep the status quo or we risk an economic collapse.” If we want real achievement on the energy policy front we need a divide and concur approach. We need to have staggered goals, (i.e. let’s all fight to get this first, then move to fight to get that, etc.). The easiest first priority to achieve is “oil first” approach to reform. It is bi-partisan, will improve the US economy (less money leaving the economy to pay for oil imports), will significantly reduce green house gas emissions, will also be acceptable by our friends overseas as all non-oil producing countries would love to reduce their oil intensity.
Your reply suggests that there is a conflict between electricity generation and electrification of transportation (e.g. your “blackout” comment). That is not the case. Indeed, these two are highly synergistic, and separating fails to highlight the important synergy. First, studies suggest that we can electrify transportation without building new power plants because EVs would charge at night, when power plants are underutilized. Second, EVs allow much higher levels of intermittent generation (e.g. renewables) on the grid. For example, U. Delaware estimated V2G from EVs could raise the grid tolerance for renewables from 20% to 50%. There are scenarios that work on multiple fronts (e.g. efficiency + EVs + V2G + renewables), so suggesting that we’ll get the status quo because “nothing works” is misleading.
Whatever happens to legislative bills in the bushes, Congress should approve a number of bipartisan bills at hand H.R. 2600, H.R. 4399, H.R. 3367/S. 2854, and H.R. 1476/S. 835. Of course, OPEC would benefit from continued failure by the Congress to break the monopoly of oil for American transportation. However, the NJ and VA gubernatorial elections and MA Senator Scott Brown signal that all incumbents are endangered unless voters, particularly independent voters, see that their elected representatives have taken actions to strengthen Americans’ competitiveness at home and abroad.
–> excerpt submitted by the Offices of Rep. Roscoe Barlett. Op-Ed, “OPEC would benefit from ongoing failure by lawmakers to act,” published in The Hill on 2/22/2010. Read the full text here: http://thehill.com/special-reports-archive/757-energy-a-environment-february-2010/82917-opec-would-benefit-from-ongoing-failure-by-lawmakers-to-act
Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md-6) is Co-Chairman of the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Caucus as well as a member of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee of the Committee on Science and Technology.
Bills HR 2600, HR3337/S 2854, hr 1476/S835 AND HR 4399.
These bills appear to be OK as far as they go, but need to be part of an overall integrated effort to reduce the nation’s dependence on imported oil. The integrated efforts should include:
Electrification of transportation as much as possible. This includes
Hybrids or, preferably, plug in hybrids for mail and other local deliveries.
Electrification of rail between population centers closer than about 500 miles apart. (Air travel would still be the dominant form for longer trips.) Long distance rail freight may remain driven by diesels if economic issues demand this option. Cost of right-of-way is so expensive that present right of ways would need to be preserved and possibly used for multiple purposes, such as transmission lines.
Construction and upgrades of transmission lines to support the additional electrical loads due to electrification of transportation.
Increased use of natural gas for transportation related uses and for other uses such as chemical feedstocks and space heating. Reduced use of natural gas for electrical power generation.
Increased use of nuclear power to provide the additional electrical power needed by the above actions. Limited development of wind power and solar power to those areas where they are economically feasible.
Research on alternative fuels such as hydrogen, (e.g., for direct electrical conversion cells or combustion engines) natural gas, in addition to a smaller role for corn based ethanol.
Improved conservation.
Gary Vesperman asked me to add my comments.
I’m very surprised that Gary Vesperman, of all people, hasn’t addressed the elephant in the room.
He is one of the few people I know that has been gathering evidence about the suppression of energy innovation in America specifically and around the world generally.
I did not see anything in the discussions or comments that actually addresses the REAL problem…
Capitalistic Politics (aka Vested Interest Control).
It is a FACT that there are many practical technologies already proven and existing that could solve our energy problems in a very short time, at minimal cost. It’d also put a LOT of people to work. This includes both interim technologies (to assist phase-over) and long term eco-compatible technologies.
We could be 100% energy independent for a fraction of the military cost of ‘maintaining’ present fossil fuel policy and infrastructure. We’d also stop making enemies faster than we can kill them. How much blood are we willing to exchange for oil?
I personally have several fuel saving technologies (in use since 1984) that could cut the use of fossil fuel by 50%, with a payback time between 6 months and 5 years depending on the application; this is assuming that people retrofit the technology… it would be MUCH less expensive (and potentially more efficient) to simply incorporate it OEM.
There are over 3000 fuel-saver patents that are NOT incorporated into any vehicle. There is no question in my mind that, with EXISTING technologies, the USA could reduce oil imports to accept oil only from ‘friendly’ countries (like Canada and Mexico) within a couple of years and be totally oil independent within 5 years; just with fuel-saving technologies that I know are practical and inexpensive. (Cutting down the military use of oil would be a tremendous help).
I have several other energy saving technologies too, like my capacitive power supply (that could be incorporated into smart-grids and appliances). I’m no genius (as my wife can attest), I developed all of this with only the resources available to the average homeowner and using technology available nearly 100 years ago.
I have felt the sharp edge of Vested Interest suppression… I have many stories about that.
I believe: Talk (and presentations) about energy policy won’t change anything until suppression is removed. NO progress will happen as long as government energy policy is influenced by Vested Interest. NO progress will happen as long as Vested Interest is allowed to directly suppress innovators.
The USA government itself is a beneficiary of the Vested Interest, receiving up to $0.70 of every fossil-fuel dollar via various taxes (starting with wellhead tax and including income tax from industry employees).
Virtually all energy policy is more political than practical and what is practical is ignored or bypassed (for example: car companies receive minor fines for not meeting fuel efficiency mandates or they bypass the law by creating an entirely new class of automobile like SUV).
REAL energy-saving and energy-producing technologies have been suppressed for over a century. The USA government has, hidden in secret, several free-energy and anti-gravity technologies, withheld from the public under guise of National Security. Just release them and our fossil-fuel issues are over. Bring the military home to help re-build America. Help the world with their energy issues and rebuild our National reputation. But none of this will happen as long as Vested Interest controls the government.
Capitalistic Politics, supporting the Vested Interest, is like a Cancer in our Republic. I think it has metastasized, adding Capitalistic Socialism, which encourages entitlement mentality and is skewed to allow the rich to get richer at the expense of the public, with the government taking ALL of the risk.
Solve Capitalistic Politics in a way that releases the innovative capability of the American People and we’ll automatically solve the energy crisis. American innovators have ALREADY solved the problem many times and in many ways; and every real answer has been suppressed!
Any ‘energy policy’ discussion that doesn’t first address Capitalistic Politics is, in my opinion, futile. That’s why I take my innovations directly to the people.
Solve Capitalistic Socialism (stop government from ‘taking care of us’ for the profit of Vested Interest) and we’ll regain the Constitutional rights and freedoms that made us great. We’ll also regain the essential element of being allowed to FAIL.
I appreciate that some very smart people are trying to address the USA energy policy and I think they’ll come up with lots of good ideas… but I firmly believe nothing presented to the government will succeed in any meaningful way unless the issue of Vested Interest is addressed first.
An extremely focused example is: President Obama won’t put the solar panels back onto the roof of the Whitehouse. President Carter put them there and President Reagan removed them. This is a simple and clear indication of the past and present administration’s agenda and intentions.
Making presentations to the fox in control of the henhouse is a waste of energy; bad energy policy in my opinion.
This is the elephant in the room.
George Wiseman