The Deficit No One Is Talking About

World-wide, but especially here in the USA, we are running in energy-deficit.

Energy-Deficit? What exactly does that mean?

Okay, I made it up, or I think I did.

For billions of years, the Earth has been the beneficiary of radiated energy from the universe, and from the sun in particular. Once an inhospitable cold rock, later warmed via the accumulated radiated energy, water was liberated from ice, an atmosphere formed, living things came and went, mankind manipulated its discoveries into "progress" and, well . . . here we are.

Over those billions of years without energy consumption, it's no wonder the Earth has accumulated what to us seems so limitless, yet it is not. There will be an end. We are more focused on how energy is released, and changes to the climate than on the amount we release, and when there will be no more.

There is a calculable limit to the amount of energy the Earth receives from the universe, be it daily, weekly or annually, and that might suitably represent our budget for the consumption of energy. To my mind - and I'm not scientifically astute enough to do this - that budget could be defined, and be compared against the amount of energy we presently consume. I think that, in advance of seeing such a calculated figure, we can all agree that we are already deep in the red.

We need a meaningful target if we are to consume energy responsibly.

If we consumed energy in an amount equal to or less than what is absorbed by the Earth from the universe in the same time frame, we can probably feel confident that it will last indefinitely. If not . . . well yeah, the picture is pretty bleak.

An hour ago I was reading a different thread where some were adamantly pushing for total conversion of fossil-fueled cars to Electric Vehicles.

Yes, EV's can help, but they are not the answer to what ails us. All of this finger-pointing is merely shifting the blame onto others, rather than being honest with ourselves about the need to make sacrifices that would be uncomfortable.

We need to stop consuming so much energy in all forms, not just fossil fuels . . . wasted trips, long distance travel, air conditioning, loud music, powered conveniences, etc.

Banking on EV's, photovoltaics, wind power, geothermal or other solutions to bail us out of this situation is evasive, and dishonest. Let me put some eye-popping scale to just a couple of the foregoing "solutions":

​

Photovoltaics

It takes roughly 100 square feet of PV panel to produce 1KWh of electricity at peak solar exposure. Most EV cars will consume 30KWh traveling 100 miles.

Therefore, the area of solar panel required to support charging 100 miles of travel for one car in one hour is 3,000 square feet. If the panels are all 10 feet x 10 feet, it would require 30 panels to charge the car in one hour. If the panels get good peak exposure for 5 hours daily, one car might be supported by 6 such panels.

In addition, since the vehicle almost certainly would not be connected to the panels during peak exposure hours, a battery storage or back-feed system would be necessary. For reference,the national average cost for 6KW of solar panels is $18,500 plus peripherals. These are untenable expenses for most who would not quick charge at public charging stations.​

For those would need to quick charge instead, see next . . .​

EV Quick Charging Stations

Outfitting this nation with quick charging stations for EVs seems realistic for those wanting to make money on the charging stations. Private investment to make a profit is free enterprise, and there will definitely be some takers. That's about where the practicality of the vision stops dead in its tracks.

It seems challenge enough to wire this nation for all the low energy zeroes and ones that we exchange on the internet, but to wire the nation to deliver the necessary amperes for rapid charging of a 100% carbon-free transportation system is a fool’s errand.

I've heard some say the "experts" claim this is not so far off. Those experts are in WAY over their heads . . . They may understand something about climatic science, and probably about cars too, but they clearly know too little about electricity and safety.

The size of electrical power lines, connections, conduits, buried lines, the proliferation of substations necessary to support such a vision are far beyond our current comprehension.

Even if all of the harmonization of different vehicle charging standards, and design and engineering work had been done already (this is an enormous task), it is doubtful that we can timely and cleanly unearth and refine enough copper and lithium to build out enough EVs in time to meet replacement goals some have emoted, let alone for the construction of the necessary and largely overlooked infrastructure.

This technology will develop well, if left to do so organically. Forcing it will deliver many mistakes . . . some very serious.
​

Generation

The biggest obstacle to implementing a 100% carbon-free transportation system is power generation. It is mind-boggling to think that no one is even discussing how woefully unprepared we are to successfully deliver enough power to these vehicles.

There are 229 million licensed drivers in America.

The average driver consumes 656 gallons of gasoline annually.

The electric equivalent of a gallon of gasoline is 33.7 KWH.

The total amount of electricity needed to power EV's for those drivers would be an astonishing 5.06E12 KWH/year.

Right now, the total electricity producing capacity of the United States stands at a "mere" 9.8 TWH/year, which is 9.8E9 KWH/year.

5.06E12/9.8E9 = 516

In other words, we would need to generate 516 times as much electricity to power a nation of EV's than we already can generate FOR ALL OTHER PURPOSES.

Yes, my head hurts! . . . I'm only human, so please check my math.
​

While the above comments only address a few of the areas where we place so much emphasis on saving the Earth, my point is that it is not saving the Earth that should be our focus. Like getting good grades at school, our focus should not be on the grades . . . it should be on the learning . . . getting good grades is merely a by-product of learning well.

So it should be with saving the Earth. If we focus on using only our fair share of the available energy, we stand a far better chance of saving this planet than if we simply look for more ways to harvest the increasing amounts of energy we consume so thoughtlessly.

As small as it was, I did my part trying to conserve energy today . . . no trips in the truck, and 6 hours of purely manual yardwork . . . wheelbarrow, shovel, "Extractigator" (awesome tool) and rake . . . no gas or electric powered tools. Yeah, I have them, but I try to minimize their use.

I did however use the microwave, use electric lights, take a shower, watch the Bruins / Capitols game, and get on my computer . . .

​

 

You are a much better man than myself. I utilized my gas powered yard equipment several times over the weekend. And then recovered in my overly air conditioned home..... Yes, you might say I am an energy hog. It is difficult for a fellow that has grown up in a land of plenty to re-think the way he does things. Of that, I am guilty.

I have long said the only route to change is a natural course. Forcing change is a fools errand and is fraught with may traps. It disturbs me that a long range thought process seems a thing of the past. I have seen construction materials change over the course of thirty years from primarily solvent based products to water based products. It still amazes me that we cure concrete with what amounts to a wash of Elmers glue these days. Much has been gained on the environmental front, however the current push towards extreme "green" changes is not thought through and you make the perfect argument. What good is a national electric automobile push if we cause national black-outs trying to charge them?

I am all for doing my part to leave a world that my grandkids can enjoy. I didn't think that way as a young man. I simply am concerned that the lack of long range thinking will cause calamity for us all.

 

Does anyone remember when we transitioned from horse and buggies to motorized vehicles? I suspect not. Many of the same types of arguments were made about new noisy, smelly, undependable, contraptions way back then and many of those arguments were correct at the time. If we had stayed with the first models that came out, who would actually still be using them today? Not many I suspect.

We still use cars today because they have evolved way beyond the originally conceived models through competition and innovation. Your argument supposes that the current technology will not evolve. When has that ever happened? History is a valuable teacher if you care to attend the lessons.

 

We learned back in the 70s that we could buy smaller cars if we really cared about gas prices.
I wonder if these same whiners also complain about the mileage standards that Obama set in place and trump tried to remove?

 

Not quite old enough for the horse and buggy transition.... However, I was pumping gas when we made the transition from leaded to unleaded gasoline. If you remember that time, the fuel nozzles were modified so that a leaded nozzle would not fit into an unleaded automobile... We didn't just do away with the leaded pumps. The thing ran its course and ten years later, you couldn't find leaded gasoline.

I will tell you something about those tiny cars. Going home very late one rainy evening years ago when a full size sedan crossed the median and hit headlong the small vehicle in front of me. I won't be graphic, but there was no extracting the woman from that vehicle and all I could do was cradle her sobbing head while she faded away. The fellow in the full size care was just fine.... For that one reason alone, I'll not put my family in a tiny car.

 

so don't whine about gas.

 

why don't full grown adults know things?

 

I can’t watch a 59 Impala get smashed. Just can’t do it…… I’m not whining. I can stand it. It’s those that struggle from week to week that I am worried for.

 

Do you also want to lower CAFE standards? If we had them these folks would be getting 30-40mpg.

 

Hey JN & FD, did you guys miss something?

You already complain incessantly about damage to the environment. Paint me a picture of how we deliver clean & timely mining of lithium for the batteries for a transportation system with zero carbon footprint.

How about a safe and affordable EV battery recycling infrastructure?

You also always bellyache about how dependent we are upon coal to generate electricity. Paint me a picture of how we deliver on the need for more than 500 times the maximum amount of electricity our infrastructure is presently capable of generating. What other resources can practically meet that need any time in the foreseeable future?

Then paint me another picture of how that much additional demand will be met by our woefully inadequate electrical distribution system.

Yeah . . . that's what I thought. Even you might come to realize that Biden & Company are examining an elephant with a microscope.

So, what's the rush? What's the problem with allowing industry to do this organically, making fewer mistakes along the way, than would a bunch of over-enthused bureaucrats who think they know it all, and really don't?

 

I think you need to hire a professional painter.

In a word...INNOVATION.

 

I think that is a fine plan. Provided we don't shut the innovators down with huge corporate tax hikes and regulation...... Thing is, the doesn't fit in with the current plan the way I see it.

 

The fossil fuel junkies are worried about batteries. <snicker>

 

We are worried about sustainable change that doesn't put half the nation in the poorhouse.... You see, you radical liberals are like the hippies from the late sixties. Just change things coz I said so does not a plan make. There has to be an adult in the room that can reason out the long range impact of the change you would like to ram down my throat.

 

Corporations rarely innovate. Individuals do.

 

Radical hippies are running, Microsoft, Google, and Apple.

 

The reality is that fearing change does nothing to prevent or stop the process of change. It just gives some folks something to fret about.

Embrace it or be left in the dust.

 

So am I. I was firmly entrenched in that generation... Peace, love and flowers, man...... Yes, they were radical hippies but were also critical thinkers to be able to bring their dreams into the realm of the corporate mega giants that they have become.... All I am saying is yes, change is inevitable. Just think it through.

 

[in that whiny, nasal voice] . . . BUT WHYYYY?

 

Let's see . . . we can innovate electric vehicles which are feasible, but the whole vision is not yet practical.

Now we're supposed to blindly forge, full-steam ahead, trusting that nascent efforts at mega-scale lithium mining, power generation, power distribution and battery recycling will all just sort of land on their feet!

I've got breaking news for you. Innovation takes falling down . . . hard, and a lot. Innovation is not something you do full scale with a nation's resources at risk. Innovation is done small scale, and then gets validated with exhaustive testing before large scale implementation.

You liberals that impatiently demand immediate change are truly somethin'.