Every project has its risks and potential rewards, whether it is alternative or efficiency related. Each proposal really needs some significant discussion.

Often overlooked are the true capital costs of “alternative” approaches and all the ensuing environmental impacts of such when done on a large scale. When carefully considered some of the alternative approaches seem quite unreasonable. I try to look at the outcome of any plan as if it would be implemented on a large enough scale to have a real impact on the problem.

But I would suggest that efficiency measures should be considered, whether or not they absolutely free us of fossil fuel problems. The criterion is how much can they cut down on energy use.

I think there might be a difference in how much we think efficiency can accomplish. From my perspective, knowing of automobile concepts that can reduce energy use, from whatever source, by 90%, yet still satisfy current transportation needs, I see efficiency as the key to the solution. For example, if such cars used electricity from coal, thus cutting out all use of petroleum, then there would be a huge net CO2 reduction benefit. (What I take to be a problem is shifting to electric cars without changing our approach to the automobile from the present day inefficient pattern.)

Continuing on the subject of the car that uses 90% less energy, rather than using electricity from coal to power it, it can also be built using a hybrid system where electricity would come from petroleum, whether it be diesel or gasoline. The Toyota PRIUS does quite a good job of this, and the thermal efficiency they squeeze out of their small engine is said to get better than 30% thermal efficiency. (Your assumption of 12% is not unreasonable for some of the US automobiles of the past.) So the high efficiency car using a similarly efficient hybrid drive system could be quite an attractive solution. From my perspective, this could be quite easily implemented. And it would not require any investment, other than replacing current cars as they wore out.

Looking at the total CO2 from cars and “light trucks” (read SUV), you can see such a cut would be a significant fraction of US CO2.

Nothing is easy. Really efficient cars will look different, and such cars would require getting people to rethink their emotional attachment to the kind of cars we have been trained to expect.

My expectation is that nothing will really happen until oil gets quite a lot more expensive. Then GM will shift to electric cars (read “coal”). The range of offerings will look about like they do now.

In order to compete with electricity from coal, we need to have a way to make electricity a lot more efficiently. This is where cogeneration comes in. If it is done on a distributed system basis, where cars are parked next to households and are connected to natural gas that runs the heat engines in the cars, and households fully utilize the heat, then the efficiency of producing electricity from natural gas is doubled or tripled. There is no equipment cost, since the car engine is already owned (remember the high efficiency hybrid from above) This puts it in range to compete with coal fired power plants.

If we could get all this done, we would be quite close to meeting Kyoto responsibilities. And it costs nothing.

Try to figure out a plan for “alternative” sources that even makes a dent in the problem without a huge capital expenditure.

Your final target is simply not large enough. We need 100% fossil fuel replacement plus sequestering a great deal of the excess carbon already added to the active caron cycle. See the Hansen-350 thread, back a few. Also, we need to do this ASAP, it shood not take a century.

Joe,
In developing my plan, energy use is divided into transportation, electrical generation, heating and cooling, industry, agriculture and commerce. Is there a place where I can find the amount of energy these sectors use in both absolute numbers and as a percentage of the whole? Do you have a rough idea of the current state? Each sector has its own characteristics. Careful consideration of individualized solution is included in the plan. I see that I’ll have to really jump on a broad the learning curve to flesh this all out.

Here is the brief outline so far. There is plenty of space for anyone to add to it.
Targets
90% carbon replacement in 100 years
60% in 40 years
40% in 25 years
10 year plan
5 year plan
1 year plan
Day one
Eliminate capital gains taxes on carbon replacing energy investments
Install 5Kwatt solar on all appropriate federal properties.
Purchase hybrid for all non-military vehicles until none are available
Approval of the Bay Wind Project
Formation of a national fossil fuel replacement association

Any meaningful action to mitigate GHG emissions will need to involve all the major players.

I think, in answering your “key question”, our biggest difference is that you favor a top down approach while I look at things from the bottom up. They are not mutually exclusive. Efficiencies, for example are key in either approach. I ask you to be more specific about regulation because that is your area of expertise and I value your opinion. I wrote a beginning outline of what I would do were I in charge on another thread. I’d appreciate your comments on two things I would do on day one. 1)Eliminate capital gains taxes on investments related to fossil fuel replacement
2)Approve the Bay Wind Project off Massachusetts

I also think that beyond the activity of business and government, it is important that like minded people join in voluntary association to assist the consumer’s participation in the solution.

The problem with that is you’re just slowing down the car that’s headed off the cliff. We can debate all improving the efficiency of power plants (only 33% of the energy that coal produces actually goes to electricity, rest is lost to heat), vehicles (only 12% is for driving, rest is lost to heat), etc. But, the bottom line is that the money it takes to develop better efficiency is better spent on capital development for alternative energy. Why? Because, there isn’t a risk of extranality and because cogeneration or low horsepower cars still does not free us from the problems associated with natural gas (low supply, imported) and coal (mountaintop removal issues).

My question is not about what passable legislation I endorse — it’s what would you do if you were in charge of national and international climate policy. domestically I think I’ve been pretty clear that the Clinton or Obama plans are an adequate starting point. I do tend to agree with Hansen that we need a moratorium on coal plants without CCS.

If you’ve read my book, then you know I’m inclined to believe that beating 450 ppm requires a WWII-scale effort. I have 2 chapters in the book on most of the solution. Plus I have some new ideas. The energy efficiency stuff is detailed in the book and on scattered blog posts. I will do a post on it. I like cogeneration a lot. And wind and solar thermal electric and probably geothermal. We’ll probably build some nukes. Not sure how much coal with CCS, but I’d certainly pursue it more vigorously than this president. And, of course plug in hybrids. Plus, hopefully, cellulosic ethanol. And, lots and lots of fuel efficiency. Again, look at the Obama/Clinton plans.