A widely touted goal of the environmental movement: increasing American's percentage of renewable energy use to 25 percent by 2025. According to a report by the RAND corporation, meeting the so-called "25 by 25" goal without significant consumer cost will require "major technological developments." Green Car Congress reports that 9.5 percent of electricity and 1.6 percent of motor vehicle fuel currently comes from renewable energy sources. The RAND report identifies biomass and wind energy as the two greatest opportunities for meeting the 25 by 25 goal. But it also points out that both require significant improvement to make a low-cost impact on renewable energy usage. For motor vehicles in particular, biomass-based (non-foodstock) "second-gen" biofuels must become significantly cheaper and more prevalent. Reducing renewable fuel goals to 10 or 15 percent by 2025 would also disproportionately reduce consumer expenses. Then again, the higher the cost to consumers, the more competitive renewable fuels become. The preceeding was brought to you by the Energy Future Coalition of UAW Boss Ron Gettelfinger's "Marshall Plan" fame. Over to you, taxpayers.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
I just want to buy a melon.
If we can double the fuel mileage of the fleet by 2025, it will be much easier for cars to meet the goal.
As for solar, and especially wind, this will help reach the goal (forgive me if you’ve already seen this):
http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2007/115-7/innovations-abs.html
As for biofuels making a low-carbon contribution, there are significant hurdles:
http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2008/116-6/focus-abs.html
i wonder what would happen if…
A- every car sold after 2010 had start/stop technology
B- semi trucks were limited to 60mph and were not aloud to let the engine run for hours on end while parked.
C- all tires are filled with nitrogen
im sure all those seemingly little things would add up to a significant savings.
The ceiling is too low for technologies like biofuel and wind. Solar has been improving, but is still a quantum leap away from being relevant. Sure, all these technologies help, but none can offer the capacity needed to shoulder the country’s energy needs. Therefore, either America has to cut its energy consumption or another source of energy must be developed. The former is pretty much impossible; just keeping consumption the same would be a monumental achievement. The latter is where we must go, and I’d say nuclear energy is our best bet. Yes, it’s not technically renewable, but that’s splitting hairs. The environmentalists really need to come to terms with reality and get behind nuclear power.
The environmentalists really need to come to terms with reality and get behind nuclear power.….
Actually, many of the more progressive environmentally minded people have embraced nuclear, if only grudgingly because it really is the only primary “alternative” to fossil fuel at least for the next 20 or so years. However, energy solutions are going to require a multi faceted approach. First and foremost has to be a serious effort made on the level of commitment like that of the US during WWII. And that means much more than cars. Other areas of use are so strife with waste it is disgusting. So many commercial buildings leave lights on at night; very few people make an effort to shut off things when they don’t pay directly. Even homes are loaded with electrical “vampires,” electronic devices that suck up power even when they are off. Server rooms are cooled way beyond needed and equipment left on because the IT dude likes seeing all the stuff running even when it is not being used. The list goes on and on. With just real efforts at eliminating pervasive waste it would totally be possible to cut this country’s energy consumption by 20% with no drop in standard of living. Unless you consider waiting 30 seconds for the computer to come out of hibernate a drop in standards, that is.
golden2huskey:
Server rooms are cooled way beyond needed and equipment left on because the IT dude likes seeing all the stuff running even when it is not being used. The list goes on and on. With just real efforts at eliminating pervasive waste it would totally be possible to cut this country’s energy consumption by 20% with no drop in standard of living.
I think you underestimate the cost of system failure versus the (relatively) small marginal cost of cooling / leaving systems on. There are manufacturer studies regarding systems failure. Cooling and the start/stop cycle count are statistically significant metrics.
My brother has been in the power business for 30 years. He says that wind is priced at 90% less than coal or oil because it is unreliable and can’t be stored. Thus, solar is probably a better bet long term.
However, energy solutions are going to require a multi faceted approach.
That seems to be the common train of thought, no matter the person. (save T. Boone Pickens) Frankly, I don’t see how big a part wind will play so long as the initial investment scares people off those who can afford it and alienates those that can’t. There’s solar everything nowadays, and there are some relatively inexpensive small panels for charging electronics, which is nice. But once again, when you get to the “array of roof panels powering your house and heating your water” it’s a tough sell. Part of it is the short-term mindset of people, but most of it is just the pie-in-the-sky-ness of the technology in the energy sector. Short term, it’s oil. Medium and long-term…what? The Dems will make sure it’s not domestic oil or nuclear or coal i.e. the ones that could work. Nothing else is jumping out at me except algae biofuel, and I’m still waiting for the devastating catch on that front.
YourNameHere:
Most of the class 8 fleet in North America is governed between 62-68mph. This has been creeping down. The company I used to work for (Con-Way) turned down the tractors to 62mph late last year.
Allowing long combination vehicles on the entire Interstate system could dramatically increase the efficiency of the freight system.
Here in the Netherlands we have some big windmill parks (and, NO, I don’t mean classic windmills by that), in particular, there will be a big park off the North Sea coast that is under construction right now.
Costs are way higher compared to the traditional energy sources and IMO, it remains to be seen if that is really offset by environmental considerations.
Also, I should note that in essense we are a socialist country, seeing as though even the political party that is considered right wing by most of the people has a program that would be considered decideldly ‘left’ by the US democrats. Obviously, this facilitates money-burning projects while waiting lists in hospitals rise and rise due to ‘lack of funds’ despite of 52% income taxes etc.
>The Dems will make sure it’s not domestic oil
Not to harp on this, but what is the big deal about ‘domestic’ oil?
Can the US make enough oil to meet a significant portion of its needs for the next 50-60 years? (That is the only middle term worth discussing)
yournamehere :
June 25th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
i wonder what would happen if…
A- every car sold after 2010 had start/stop technology
B- semi trucks were limited to 60mph and were not aloud to let the engine run for hours on end while parked.
C- all tires are filled with nitrogen
Start/stop tech seems like a winner, but I’m not sure about the other two.
I would think that $4-5/gallon diesel should take care of the idling truck problem.
Can you explain the advantages of nitrogen? Tires hold their pressure quite well unless they have a leak, and pure nitrogen will escape a leak just as well as air. Since air is 80% nitrogen anyway, if the tire leaks the other gases and you keep topping up with air, you’ll soon have a tire that is pure nitrogen anyway.