Forwarding from Dr. Werbos...

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Apollo Alliance and energy independence
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:13:08 -0400
From: Werbos, Dr. Paul J. <pwerbos@...>
To: Arthur P. Smith <apsmith@...>
CC: issues@...
References: <3F7B29A4.8050401@...>



At 12:49 AM 10/22/2003 -0400, Arthur P. Smith wrote:
>Have any of you heard of this group:
>
>http://www.apolloalliance.org/
>
>They propose a $300 billion 10-year project for US energy independence;
>it seems to have been around since early this year. Of the 10-point plan,
>item 6 is:
>
>6. Expand Renewable Energy Development: Diversify energy sources by
>promoting existing technologies in solar, biomass and wind while setting
>ambitious but achievable goals for increasing renewable generation, and
>promoting state and local policy innovations that link clean energy and jobs.
>
>8 of the other 10 points relate to energy efficiency; the last point is
>regulation to encourage "balanced growth and investment".
>
>Any suggestions on how we could work with such a group to get
>space solar power on the table as a major policy option?

As I look at their web site...

I am reminded of the folks who compare substantive issue politics to
a game of pinball. The trajectory which gets the ball to the next hoop is
often guaranteed
to cause disaster at the next hoop. The challenge is to plan ahead,
somehow, for a multistage trajectory... but that's easy to SAY...

I believe very strongly in the need for more urgent action to prevent global
dependency on OPEC from turning into a disaster 20 years hence. There are
those who would say our present relations with the Middle East are already
a bit of a problem both for us and for them, but it's scary to consider how
much worse
it MIGHT be in 20 years time. (See the presentation by Al-Shatti at
prospectivas21carmen.org.mx, and by Cavallo at www.agci.org/uploads.
They also have versions of my paper up.) But: results in this area will
depend MUCH MORE on how effectively
the money is spent than on the actual amount of money; $300 billion spent on
conventional thinking would be worse than nothing at all.

The present annoucement...
reminds me a bit of the time, maybe thirty years ago, when some
environmentalists
warned about CO2 problems, and a truly aroused and sincere public supported
programs
to encourage cub scouts to pick up more tin cans. "A more politically
PRACTICAL approach."

The goals of this "Apollo project" are certainly worthwhile and urgent. But
-- having
stood at the real front lines... I would say that the planning mechanism
sounds as effective as picking up
tin cans was.

But what IS a politically realistic way to move towards real progress here?

I have a paper on this, in the CD section of State of the Future 2003
(see www.stateofthefuture.org). Some extracts:

Speculation 1: if we try to do it as a crusade of oil consumers against oil
producers,
it won't work. It will end up as a kind of mutual waste situation, like the
situation between Israelis
and Palestinians today. In fact, there is already a lot of mutual defensive
behavior out there,
costing us a lot. Partisan crusades can be a recipe for snort-term glory
and utter failure on the political side.
(Nice Freudian slip here...) Balance, dialogue and compromise are essential.

Point 2: I don't think hydrogen cuts it. For the next century, we will have
lots of fossil fuel as such
(even as oil becomes tighter and tighter). In that regime, methanol simply
dominates over hydrogen
as a possible fuel, both long-term and near term.

Production and distribution, long-term and near-term:
I am very puzzled by the kind of thinking that talks about how hard it would
be to put a methanol tank in every gas station along interstate highways...
even as they assume away
the cost of putting in hydrogen tanks, which Roberta Nichols of Ford says
cost 10 times as much or more.
While DOE does research on high-risk ideas for someday being able to
produce hydrogen in a cost-competitive way,
detailed business plans are on the web for new methane-to-methanol plants
now under construction producing
methanol at $98/ton from remote natural gas otherwise being unused. And
laboratory demonstrations of new technologies
suggest we could cut that in half in a relatively short time, with
well-targetted research. The same DOE contractors who
are developing coal-to-hydrogen technology say they can produce electricity
and methanol as coproducts TODAY,
at a cost lower than conventional coal-fired electric power plants, if
given a market for the methanol; total
sequestration of CO2 from such plants would be cheaper and easier than from
others. That's the production side.
And it's well-known that distribution is far easier for methanol versus
hydrogen.

Consumption and distribution:
And on the consumption side -- fuel cell cars
carrying methanol in stainless steel gas tanks are every bit as efficient
as hydrogen ones; if we ever do deploy an
efficient affordable fuel cell car (consuming one-third as much energy per
mile as today's average), the combination here would allow
a factor of six reduction in CO2 in the transport and electric power
sectors, which account for the bulk of the CO2.
MORE IMPORTANT: there is a near-term transition path for methanol. Brazil
already requires that all cars sold
in the country be fuel-flexible... gasoline and ethanol. Back around 1997,
Ford sold thousands of Tauruses AT NO EXTRA cost in California, with full
gasoline/ethanol/methanol flexibility. This is not a $300 billion item! It
would cost far less for a few key regions to mandate
fuel flexibility, allowing methanol as well as gasoline. FOR POLITICAL
REASONS, it might be best if those were developing nations,
to serve as a kind of "pilot," and as reassurance that the EXISTING
gasoline markets will be allowed to make the kind
of gentle landing that allows prices to rise gently instead of fall; also,
the economics of methane-to-methanol would
be better in regions away from the very tight local US natural gas market.
There is no escaping that the oil industry will play a crucial role here.

IF HUMANITY SO CHOOSES, the methanol transition could be well underway in 5
years in large parts of the world.

And methanol is certainly the best hope for the oil industry in the future...

===========================================================

Now what about space solar power?

Objectively, there is certainly an opportunity there. But the "pinball
game" is incredibly complex.

Vis-a-vis oil dependence, space solar power mainly counts WHEN/IF electric
cars become a viable option.
Unlike methanol-capable flexible-fuel vehicles, electric cars are not truly
mass-market-ready today, and we don't know when they will be. Two years
ago, energy analysts were
justified in basically writing them off, because of costs and range and
other battery problems. But
the deep cost reduction in power electronics accompanying the hybrid cars,
the clear possibilities
for deeper cost reductions through research, and breakthroughs in batteries
tell me that the subject should
be revisited. (One example: see www.avestor.com and www.solicore.com.) So
far I see no technical show-stoppers,
but I don't see cars about to hit the market either. In a true "Appollo
project,"
one would assess the barriers and do focused efforts to overcome them ASAP.

I see no conflict with doing this and maximizing methanol, in parallel, as
separate ventures,
because the time pressures and global political risks are extremely acute.
(Also, the electrics would have to be focused on highly developed regions
of the world.)
And in any event, I don't see a use of $300 billion there right now anyway.
There is some challenge in how to decouple the methanol and electricity
politics, to prevent
"unstable coupled oscillators."

**IF** we could get electric cars to mass market in 10 years... then the
challenge is to upgrade the electric power grid
and raw electricity supply, in parallel, to make sure we can take full
advantage of this option.

That IS where SSP comes in. In my State of the Future paper, I propose a
new SSP option which shows serious promise
of costs on the order of 1 cent per kilowatt hour, for this utterly
renewable CO2-free technology. But we do need
to revisit the rectenna issue, and do more validation of present
best-knowledge about microwave power beaming and so on.
My guess is that $100 million per year -- including $30 million for a
renewal of the solicitation at www.nsf.gov document NSF 02-098,
with enough money to fund all the peer-reviewed recommended proposals --
would be quite ample for now, to
avoid losing precious time. (The remaining $70 million to places like JPL,
LLL , other NASA labs, big demos and the like.)
MORE SERIOUS: Ray Chase of ANSER, INc., has proposed a new "near-term
vehicle," which WOULD require $10 billion
to develop, that would be crtitical to our hopes of really making the
economics work, near-term or long-term; I am very worried
about what it takes to raise consciousness of how unique and important this
very specific new design option is.

====================

So those are my thoughts about what we REALLY need for a "Project
Independence." There are a few other options
that would go on the list in various places, but for that I refer to my
paper. This is alreday a bit long for an email..

Best of luck,

Paul W.


Footnote: Roberta Nichols has retired from Ford, but has kept up. See her paper
The Methanol Story: A Sustainable Fuel for the Future, Journal of
Scientific and Industrial Research, Vol. 62, Jan-Feb. 2003,
p. 97-105. My "if" regarding fuel cell cars is an oblique reference for
some advanced research possibilities
we are exploring at a low level, which also offer possibilities for
dramatic new directions and funding
far short of $300 billion.













> Arthur
>
>PS I have no idea how much political traction this particular project has;
>however it seems to have received a huge number of endorsements (from
>the "About" page):
>
>
>----------------------
>The Apollo Alliance is building a broad coalition within the labor,
>environmental, business, urban, and faith communities in support of
>good jobs and energy independence. The Alliance is developing public
>education campaigns and communications strategies to link allies and
>build a national constituency for a bold, broad based, and immediate
>program of public policy.
>
>The Apollo Alliance has received letters of support from the presidents
>of several major environmental organizations, including:
>
> *
> Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) *
> The Sierra Club
>
>The Apollo Alliance's Ten Point Plan has received the endorsement of 17
>major labor unions representing over 10 million working men and women,
>including:
>
> * Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU)
> * American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
> * International Association of Machinists (IAM)
> * International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW)
> * International Union of Electrical Workers (IUE-CWA)
> * Paper and Allied Chemical Employees (PACE)
> * Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
> * Sheet Metal Workers International Association (SMWIA)
> * Transportation Workers Union (TWU)
> * United Automobile and Aerospace Workers (UAW)
> * United Mine Workers of America (UMWA)
> * Union of Needletrades Industrial and Textile Employees (UNITE!)
> * United Steel Workers of America (USWA)
>
>The Apollo Project has been endorsed by the AFL-CIO Industrial Union
>Council (IUC) through a unanimous resolution, in addition to many of
>the unions listed above, the IUC includes:
>
> * Bakery Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers
> * Graphic Communications Industrial Union (GCIU)
> * International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT)
> * United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW)
>
>The Apollo Alliance is currently building endorsements and advisory
>committees that include strong voices from the civil rights and faith
>communities, as well as socially responsible and high tech businesses.
>
>If you are interested in becoming a member of this coalition, please
>contact us.
>
>The Apollo Alliance was founded as a joint project of:
>
>Institute for America's Future
>Center on Wisconsin Strategy
>Common Assets Defense Fund
>Americans for Energy Freedom
>Carol/Trevelyan Strategy Group