Chapter 7: The Alden Administration energy plan
Positioning U.S. Energy Resources for a Sustainable Future
“The
United States must
participate in the new era
of clean and sustainable sources
of human activity.”
- President Barnett Alden
National Energy Policy (1)
1. Goals
1.1. The United States operates in league with other
nations of the world.
1.2. We significantly boost our use of renewable sources
and accelerate Research and Development in these areas.
1.3. We phase out unsustainable, polluting and hazardous
energy sources such as fossil sources and nuclear.
1.4. We increase the resource productivity of all our
energy operations.
1.5. We consider the impact of our energy policy on
our environment, including greenhouse gas emissions.
2. Definitions (2)
2.1. Renewable sources
2.1.1. Fully sustainable
into the future
2.1.1.1. Therefore, no
connection with fossil sources
2.1.1.2. Likely, living
sourced (3)
2.2. Transition sources
2.2.1. Superior resource
efficiency than traditional oil and gas sources
2.2.2. Lower environmental
impact (including greenhouse gas emissions) than traditional oil and gas
sources
2.2.3. Transition sources
retain some connection with non-renewable fossil sources, thus cannot be
considered to be Renewable sources.
3. Policy
3.1. Renewable sources
3.1.1. Renewable sources are sources
which will remain fully Sustainable into the future. (4)
3.1.1.1. solar;
3.1.1.2.
wind;
3.1.1.3.
Cellulosic Ethanol;(5)
3.1.1.4.
biomass when it is pure combustion as contrasted with blends;(6)
3.1.1.5.
hydrogen when it is clean sourced, meaning it has been isolated using other
renewables to power the process; (7)
3.1.1.6.
tidal and wave energy.
3.2. Transition sources
3.2.1. Transition sources are the in-between
world. They are an improvement over fossil sources, however they will be
phased out eventually, because they are not truly Sustainable. (8)
3.2.1.1.
CNG and LNG;(9)
3.2.1.2.
LPG;(10)
3.2.1.3.
Biomass co-fired with coal;(11)
3.2.1.4.
Ethanol blends, because those include gasoline;
3.2.1.5.
Corn Ethanol, because of its greenhouse gas impact;(12)
3.2.1.6.
hydrogen when it is derived using petroleum to fuel the extraction process;(13)
3.2.1.7.
hydropower, because with rainfall unpredictable due to climate change, many
dams may fall short of adequate river flow to do the job;(14)
3.2.1.8.
Biomass from landfills, classified as a transition source because we will
not have the landfill sources forever.
3.3. Sunset sources
3.3.1. Fossil sources (15)
3.3.1.1.
Conventional oil, unconventional oil;
3.3.1.2.
oil shales;(16)
3.3.1.3.
coal;
3.3.1.4.
IGCC coal, because of serious CO2 sequestration issues;(17)
3.3.1.5.
No licensing for any further oil and gas exploration,(18)
3.3.1.6.
Program subsidies and tax benefits for oil and gas will end.(19)
3.3.2. Nuclear (20)
3.3.2.1.
Allow current licenses to expire(21)
3.3.2.2.
Implement Advanced Nuclear Waste Decontamination Techniques:
3.3.2.2.1.
There are so many possible solutions, each one appropriate for a slightly
different aspect of the radioactive waste issue.
3.3.2.2.2.
Brown’s Gas-Metal Matrix Process, ZIPP Fusion, RIPPLE Fission, LENTEC Processes,
PIT Processes - which are also known as HDCC, Kervran Reactions, the Monti
Process, Higher Group Symmetry Electrodynamics, and Photoremediation. (22)
3.4. Energy efficiency
3.4.1. We recommend reforming
and significantly strengthening vehicle efficiency standards.(23)
3.4.1.1.
Cars can be completely redesigned by reconfiguring design elements: making
the vehicles ultra-light, making them ultra-low-drag, making them hybrid-electric,(24)
and by improving the efficiency of vehicle replacement tires.”(25)
3.5. Energy Alternatives
3.5.1. We recommend a
program of citizen education toward a low-energy sustainable culture
3.5.1.1.
Local production
3.5.1.2.
Living source resources
3.5.1.3.
self-reliance and community networking
3.5.1.4.
new problem-solving approaches
3.5.1.4.1.
Permaculture Design Principles
3.6. Environmental impacts
3.6.1. Soil Sequestration
3.6.1.1.
5%-15% of global greenhouse gas emissions could be recaptured each year
using soil sequestration.(26)
3.6.1.2.
Sustainable farming practices:
3.6.1.2.1.
Water and nutrients management,
3.6.1.2.2.
no-till farming,
3.6.1.2.3.
composting,
3.6.1.2.4.
mulching,
3.6.1.2.5. use of legumes,
3.6.1.2.6. water harvesting,
3.6.1.2.7. agroforestry,
3.6.1.2.8. wisdom about use of chemicals.(27)
3.6.1.3. Carbon sinks
3.6.1.3.1. tree cover,(28)
particularly trees native to the planting area.
4. Nuclear Defense
4.1. “In Nuclear Defense, everything will
be subordinate to just three Assistant Secretaries: Nonproliferation, Environmental
Management and Legacy Management. With those titles as the umbrellas, it’s
clear what direction things need to be heading!”
Nonfiction portions of the Alden Administration Energy Plan:
(1) Formats are in imitation of the Bush Administration energy plan, created by the National Energy Policy Development Group http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/
In December 2004, the National Commission on Energy Policy issued an alternative proposal for U.S. energy policy in reaction to the Bush Administration’s fossil-fuel based policy of 2001. The National Commission on Energy Policy is “a bipartisan group of 16 of the nation’s leading energy experts – representing the highest ranks of industry, government, academia, labor, consumer protection and the environment.” The NCEP plan emphasizes “Policies that work together” and “Rejecting myths on the left and right,” the perfect mix for our Transition era. NCEP’s plan is available for free download at http://www.energycommission.org/materials/ entitled “Summary of Key Recommendations.”
(2) Character Ari says in Chapter 7 of Legacy: “The oil agenda of prior decades has muddied the definitions so that Big Oil can keep their grubby fingers in the pie. They came up with many blended fuels and energy sources where petroleum slips in behind the scenes. They called the whole hodgepodge ‘Alternative’ so that it sounds progressive. What a green-washing publicity stunt!”
When the Bush Administration uses the terminology “renewable sources,” beware: Under “Renewable Energy Technologies” in the Bush Administration’s energy plan, are included ethanol, biodiesel, biomass co-fired with coal, chemically converted biomass.” “Alternative Energy” to the Bush Administration includes reformulated gasoline and diesel, gasoline and ethanol mixes, hydrogen extracted with traditional fuels, natural gas, and fusion (i.e. nuclear). Per “National Energy Policy,” National Energy Policy Development Group, Chapter Six, “Nature’s Power,” http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/
(3) In the future the symbol of solar power will likely be a tree rather than a photovoltaic panel. Paraphrased from David Holmgren, “Permaculture Solutions Around the World,” workshop sponsored by the Santa Barbara Permaculture Network, Santa Barbara City College, August 2, 2005.
(4) “Significantly reducing and ultimately eliminating oil as our main energy source for ground transportation will not be done through a single alternative but instead through a competition of many fuel sources during a complex transitional process. … The near-term solution to our fossil fuel dependence will need to consist of : 1) improving the efficiency of the U.S. fleet; 2) creating policies that provide incentives for consumers to buy fuel-efficient vehicles and fuels that have reduced global warming pollution. … 3) using non-renewable alternatives such as natural gas, and hydrogen from natural gas as transition fuels.” Environmental Entrepreneurs Update, June 2004 www.e2.org/ext/document.jsp?docId=5444 accessed 4/4/05
(5) “While both corn and cellulosic ethanol are effective at offsetting petroleum consumption, cellulosic ethanol has the added benefit of substantially reduced greenhouse gas emissions.” Per National Commission on Energy Policy “Summary of Key Recommendations” http://www.energycommission.org/materials/
“Running Your Engine Green” by Susan Knapp http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dartfac/features/engine.html accessed April 5, 2005.
“Arguments against this approach are the need to plow back some of the crop waste to enrich the soil …” Environmental Entrepreneurs Update, June 2004 www.e2.org/ext/document.jsp?docId=5444 accessed 4/4/05
(6) as distinguished from biomass co-fired with coal.
“Biomass is also used to generate electricity. This is accomplished through the direct combustion of wood, municipal solid waste, and other organic materials; co-firing with coal in high efficiency boilers; or combustion of biomass that has been chemically converted into fuel oil.” This quote is directly from the Bush Administration’s energy policy, under the heading “Renewable Energy Technologies;” in other words, when the Bush Administration uses the words “renewable energy sources” they mean coal, chemicals, and municipal solid waste! Per National Energy Policy Development Group, “National Energy Policy,” Chapter Six, “Nature’s Power,” page 6-5.
(7) Green hydrogen is hydrogen derived using other renewable energy sources (as contrasted with fossil sources) for the isolation process. However society currently gets more environmental benefits by using electricity from renewable sources to replace coal-based electricity than it gets by using it to create hydrogen simply because old coal-based electricity is so much more polluting than vehicles. Environmental Entrepreneurs Update – June 2004 www.e2.org/ext/document.jsp?docId=5444 accessed 4/4/05
In 1997, Clean Air Now, Inc. designed, implemented and successfully operated a solar-based hydrogen refueling station for over a year at Xerox's El Segundo facility. This was the country’s first, fully-permitted direct hydrogen refueling station. In 1999 this refueling station was relocated Sunline Services Group facility, near Palm Desert, CA. per http://www.hygen.com/solar_hydrogen_vehicle_project.htm and http://www.aqmd.gov/hb/2000/00018a.html accessed 8/5/05
(8) The distinction of Transitional Fuels was made by Environmental Entrepreneurs Update, June 2004 www.e2.org/ext/document.jsp?docId=5444 accessed 4/4/05
(9) CNG and LNG are natural gas found in underground fields. Cleaner than petroleum (in both air quality and greenhouse gasses). (link to source, accessed 4/4/05)
(10) LPG is a by-product of oil refining. (link to source, accessed 4/4/05
(11) “used as they are today, on a very small scale, [biofuels] do no harm. … To run our cars … on biodiesel … even the EU’s more modest target … would consume almost all our cropland. If the same thing is to happen all over Europe, the impact on global food supply will be catastrophic; big enough to tip the global balance from net surplus to net deficit. If … it is to happen worldwide, then most of the arable surface of the planet will be deployed to produce food for cars, not people.” George Monbiot, “Biofuels would be a Disaster”, The Guardian, 23 November 2004.
“It might also be possible to turn crop wastes such as wheat stubble into alcohol for use in cars.” George Monbiot, “Biofuels would be a Disaster”, The Guardian, 23 November 2004. JP’s commentary: consider the implications of using crop waste for fuel, in the context of Millie’s talk in Chapter 2 of Legacy. Our soils need the biomass, not our cars.
(12) “While both corn and cellulosic ethanol are effective at offsetting petroleum consumption, cellulosic cethanol has the added benefit of substantially reduced greenhouse gas emissions.” Per National Commission on Energy Policy “Summary of Key Recommendations” http://www.energycommission.org/materials/
“Corn based ethanol production consumes .7 to 1.06 units of fossil fuel to produce 1 unit of ethanol (the variation depends on which study you use) ... whatever environmental benefits come from the fuels should not be at the expense of environmental damage caused by its production.” Environmental Entrepreneurs Update – June 2004 www.e2.org/ext/document.jsp?docId=5444 accessed 4/4/05
(13) “Hydrogen is not a source of energy but rather is a carrier of energy. If the energy used to create hydrogen comes from a renewable source, we refer to it as ‘green’ hydrogen, otherwise we consider it ‘black’ hydrogen as the process for creating it generates global warming pollution. … Without a source of green hydrogen that is price competitive with gasoline, hydrogen is not a long-term solution. … As Joe Romm points out in ‘Hype about Hydrogen’, society currently gets more environmental benefits by using electricity from renewable sources (solar, wind, geothermal, etc.) to replace coal-based electricity than it gets by using it to create hydrogen simply because old coal-based electricity is so much more polluting than vehicles.” Per Environmental Entrepreneurs Update, June 2004 www.e2.org/ext/document.jsp?docId=5444 accessed 4/4/05
(14) “Hydropower is classified as renewable, but the term is relative. The reservoirs behind the dams will silt up, in something like a century or two in eroding areas … Climate change enters here. The models agree that global warming will result in more concentrated and erratic storm systems and faster runoff from winter alpine snowpacks … that is bad news for hydroelectric generation: more erratic streamflows, more erosion into reservoirs.” Per www.energybulletin.net/3595.html accessed 4/4/05
(15) Projections by peak oil forecasters indicate that by the time characters Alden and Damek are in office, world oil and natural gas extraction will have passed its peak, and worldwide oil/gas fields will be in decline. Per Uppsala Hydrocarbon Depletion Study Group, graph, “Regular oil and natural gas liquids 2003 base case scenario” http://www4.tsl.uu.se/isv/UHDSG/ accessed 8/2/05
(16) Oil shales: “problem: the volume of wastes is huge. Like popcorn, the material expands as it is processed. And the air pollution and carbon dioxide releases have yet to be quantified.” Per www.energybulletin.net/3595.html accessed 4/4/05
(17) IGCC or Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle processing is touted as a clean method of utilizing coal. However a significant greenhouse gas problem remains, and sequestration proposals are dubious to speculative. “The IGCC process does not address the climate problem. It can use some carbon dioxide as a chemical feedstock, but not enough to significantly reduce the overall carbon emissions from burning coal. If we are to avoid compounding the human effect on climate, other ways must be found to achieve that reduction. … the present proposals call for injecting [CO2] as a gas into old mines or wells. I have yet to see an inventory of existing subterranean spaces, and CO2 takes up much more space than coal, so every ton of coal burned will generate hundreds of thousands of cubic feet of CO2. … As a gas, the CO2 will seek to escape, particularly if it is under pressure. If it does escape, sequestration will fail. Moreover, CO2 can be a silent killer. [cites examples]” Per www.energybulletin.net/3595.html accessed 4/4/05
“We will need a combination of national, state, and local efforts to slow and postpone decisions on these new coal plants until climate risks can be better appreciated.” James Gustave Speth, Red Sky at Morning, p. 227.
(18) Proposal made by Guy Dauncey, Stormy Weather: 101Solutions to Global Climate Change, p. 182
(19) Proposal made by Guy Dauncey, Stormy Weather: 101Solutions to Global Climate Change, p. 199
(20) “The collapse of nuclear power – once the great hope for displacing coal-burning – might at first appear to be a setback for climate protection. Actually it’s good news. Since nuclear power is the costliest way to replace fossil fuels, every dollar spent on it displaces less climatic risk than would have been avoided if that same dollar were spent instead on techniques to use energy more efficiently, because those methods cost far less than nuclear power.” Paul Hawken, Natural Capitalism, p. 249
(21) Current nuclear licenses are expiring. Over the next 50 years, today’s existing nuclear fleet will gradually be retired, if licenses are not renewed. By 2020 we will have retired 40% of today’s capacity. By approximately 2026 we will have retired more than 80% of our nuclear plants. Per graph showing Total U.S. Nuclear Power Plant Capacity by License Expiration Date, National Commission on Energy Policy, Summary of Key Recommendations, PDF, p.14.
(22) An analysis of each of these Advanced Nuclear Waste Decontamination Technologies was written by Mark Porringa and is available at many locations online. Each of the processes described by Porringa can be found online, if the reader is aware that the names change slightly depending upon whether the term is describing a generic physical process or a specific patented process. Photoremediation, for instance, is also referred to as photodeactivation, electron accelerator-based photodisintegration, and Hypercon ™ ADS (note: phytoremediation is altogether different!).
JP’s note: While I do not have the scientific ability to evaluate the validity of photoremediation as a potential solution to the nuclear waste problem, the writings of Mark Porringa, Gary Vesperman, Thomas Valone and overseas scientists seem to regard photoremediation as having true potential to solve portions of this toxic issue. See also K W D Ledingham et al, “Laser-driven photo-transmutation of I- a long-lived nuclear waste product,” 2003 J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 36 L79-L82, available online.
(23) Recommendation of the National Commission on Energy Policy “Summary of Key Recommendations” http://www.energycommission.org/materials/
(24) Paul Hawken, Natural Capitalism p.24
(25) Recommendation of the National Commission on Energy Policy “Summary of Key Recommendations” http://www.energycommission.org/materials/
(26) R. Lal says soils could sequester 5%-15% of our carbon emissions, in his article “Soil Carbon Sequestration Impacts on Global Climate Change and Food Security,” Science magazine 11 June 04. Guy Dauncey says 8%-17% in his book Stormy Weather, p. 127.
(27) The list of sustainable farming practices is from “Soil Carbon Sequestration Impacts on Global Climate Change and Food Security” by R. Lal, Science magazine 11 June 04
(28) The town of Enkoping, Sweden plants willow trees around their power plant to offset carbon dioxide emissions. Fred Pearce, “A Most Precious Commodity,” NewScientist.com, January 8, 2005