May 10th, 2017 · Comments Off on Three @GOP Senators put taxpayers, citizens, common sense, nation before Party: #Methane vote
Amid these very tense and troubled times — with the Arctic potentially passing a climate tipping point and U.S. Democracy at (hopefully not past) a tipping point — it is valuable to recognize and even celebrate hopeful signs.
Today, in something that surprised many, three GOP Senators (Collins, McCain, and Graham) voted with Senate Democrats to turn back a Republican Party priority to rip off the taxpayers and worsen our pollution situation.
Effort to overturn Obama’s methane rule fails in senate
WASHINGTON – Senate Republicans were dealt a blow Wednesday in their bid to overturn a controversial Obama-era regulation limiting the amount of methane that can be vented and flared from oil and g…
fuelfix.com
The Congressional Review Act (CRA) is a rather dastardly piece of law which has been rarely used prior to the Trump-ista Kakistocracy*. The CRA, in essence, is that Congress can reject an Administration regulation … and, in doing so, makes it essentially impossible for future regulation to be imposed in that arena. The Republicans have been going hog wild with the CRA, primarily on Obama Administration environmental-related regulations, in ways that will worsen our ability to tackle energy, environmental, health, fiscal, and climate challenges.
The Methane rule that this vote relates to, in short, tackles the reality that oil and natural gas exploiters have been allowing significant releases of methane in their projects on Federal land.
On federal and tribal lands alone, oil and gas companies waste more than $330 million of natural gas annually that could heat homes, power vehicles or generate electricity.
As Methane is, in the near (20-year time frame), about 80 times worse than carbon dioxide for global warming, that leakage is pretty bad from a climate change perspective. It also is a bad deal for the taxpayer: the rules around the leasing didn’t count that leakage for royalty purposes. By addressing that gap, the Obama methane rule created a serious financial and legal incentive for those operating on Federal lands to reduce their methane leakage and flaring. This will lead to increased payments into the Federal treasury and reduced climate impacts from these projects. All in all, a reasonably good deal for American citizens.
Of course, what oil company wants to pay more in royalty payments? And, of course, that put killing the Obama methane rule on the top of the agenda for Pruitt, Zienke, and other GOP eminences.
But after some key defections from Republicans ranks, including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., [and Susan Collins, R-ME] the vote was 51-49 to block the repeal from moving ahead.
In these troubled times, we should recognize and celebrate good news items … and, well, make the effort to recognize and thank GOP politicians when they do act in the public interest.
VP came to Capitol in hopes of casting tie-breaking vote on methane rule, but it failed 49-51 in huge win for our health & climate! #Resistpic.twitter.com/uZtnsn1MVM
Facing criticism for the hiring of Bret Stephens (who, during his time at the Wall Street Journal, established a long track record of attacking climate science and scientists along with other rather egregious statements/writings on other issues), The New York Times editorial page editor James Bennet of the NYT said: “I have no doubt he crosses our bar for intellectual honesty and fairness.”
Stephens chose, out-of-the-box, to write his first column on ‘uncertainty’ related to climate science and solutions. Knowledgeable people — including numerous experts … including top scientists — found error and distortion and misdirection after error and distortion and misdirection in that column. As one dissection concluded,
This bloke was touted by the NYT as a recipient of a Pulitzer, which was meant to justify their purchase. His first NYT article showed no sign of that. His article looked to have been dashed off in about five minutes with no thought, no research, no facts, and logical fallacy from woe to go. Is this really and truly why the NYT pays him the big bucks?
As to that bar …
Today’s article shows that NYT editorial page editor James Bennet of the NYT was wrong when he said: “I have no doubt he crosses our bar for intellectual honesty and fairness.” The only way Bret Stephens can cross the bar is if the NYT lowers the bar.
So many surprising things with what is morphing into The Stephens Affair. Like many established institutions, insiders rally to defend the (pretty much) indefensible and their spines go up in the face of further criticism. They will attack those questioning them, question motives, avoid dealing with the substance of challenge, and — all too often — dig the hole deeper and deeper. In the process, they can wreak ever more havoc than if there had been swift and serious action up front.
While many critics (okay, including me) might have wanted to see Gray Lady decide not to bring in Stephens, I had a seemingly reasonable expectation: that the New York Times editors would recognize the criticism as having some substance and spend serious effort in the editing process to avoid having Stephens spew distortions and nonsense related to climate change from the pretty huge soap box that a NY Times OPED position provides. As the first column showed, they utterly failed to do this. As Dave Roberts put it a few days ago:
It’s time for the opinion page to take climate change as seriously as the paper’s reporters do.
In the face of substantive, fact-based, expert criticism of Stephens’ ‘work’, the Times editors aren’t showing any signs — when it comes to Stephens ‘ that they plan “to take climate change as seriously as the paper’s reporters do.”
Today, Stephens published Climate of Unintended Consequences. This piece attacks corn ethanol as not achieving its objectives and hurting climate efforts. Okay, many of us never were too enthused about claims that this pork barrel system enriching the farm belt was a climate measure of merit. (There is some basis to lay down that it helped in ‘energy independence’, but that is a different subject than Stephens really focuses on.)
As one interlocuter put it to me,
You mean a pork-barrel policy turned out to not be so great after all?
STOP THE PRESSES!!
No seriously NYT, stop it.
With this OPED attacking corn ethanol, Stephens target isn’t corn ethanol but to (pretty explicitly) attack and undermine climate science as a basis for policy making. He opens this piece with a quote from a 1990s National Renewable Energy Laboratory pamphlet.
Converting biomass feedstocks to biofuels is an environmentally friendly process. So is using biofuels for transportation. When we use bioethanol instead of gasoline, we help reduce atmospheric CO2.
Stephens then — in a few short words of an OPED — takes us on a voyage from Brazil’s sugar cane ethanol to the upper Midwest’s corn ethanol to demonstrate the (seeming) fallacy of these words and that summary pamphlet.
Why ‘seeming’ … Stephens’ focus is on crops grown for biofuel production while that pamphlet, really, focuses on the potential from leveraging agricultural waste for fuel production. As per
Our nation’s biomass resource base is extensive (about 200 million dry tons of various waste feedstocks are available annually). Using a fraction of this resource could probably supply the equivalent of 350,000 barrels of oil in 2010, or 3.6% of the projected light-duty vehicle energy demand.
and …
working to improve government/industry cooperation with efforts to facilitate industry access to the Biofuels Program’s technologies, resources, and facilities. For example, it is working with BC International to construct a biomass-to-ethanol plant in Jennings, Louisiana. The primary feedstock will be bagasse, the waste product of sugar production from sugarcane. Also, OFD is working with Arkenol, which plans to produce ethanol by converting rice straw in California’s Sacramento Valley, and with Masada Resources Group, which is planning a municipal solid waste-to-ethanol plant in New York state.
and … well, you get the drift.
Stephens highlights in his OPED one study (of the many studies) that concluded that CORN ethanol actually leads to increased greenhouse gas emissions. Corn appeared once in the DOE report:
A CORNerstone of the program …
At best, charitably, this was a sloppy linkage — to peg an overview report focused on biomass waste conversion into fuel as the strawman for attacking sugar cane and corn ethanol to undermine climate science — that serious editing, concerned to assure honest engagement with its readership, would have caught and stopped. That it didn’t is yet another indication that The New York Times opinion editors are comfortable “lowering the bar for intellectual honesty and fairness.”
Of course, to be clear, that one OPED is filled with deceptive playing with ‘facts’ that are true but not truthful. Take a look at this paragraph:
There’s also been some acknowledgment that Germany’s Energiewende — the uber-ambitious “energy turn” embarked upon by Angela Merkel in 2010 — has been less than a model for others. The country is producing record levels of energy from wind and solar power, but emissions are almost exactly what they were in 2009. Meanwhile, German households pay nearly the highest electricity bills in Europe, all for what amounts to an illusion of ecological virtue.
So much packed in there, but lets point out several items:
Choosing 2009 for German emissions is like choosing 1998 for temperature comparisons. A ‘fact’ that is not truthful in use. 2009 was a low year in emissions (almost 8% lower than 2008, perhaps due to the 2008 financial crisis/economic crash, and 4% less than 2010) and there hasn’t been huge progress since … due, primarily, to one pesky little word: Fukushima. Fukushima drove a German decision to accelerate nuclear
Stephens carefully selected 1998 …
power plant retirements. Impressive that Germany, with retiring half its nuclear fleet in a short period, actually managed to continue to reduce emissions (even if at a slower pace). Yes, sort of flat fall since 2009 … because 2009 was low. Just like the cherry picking from climate science deniers focus on 1998, which is one of the hottest years in history, to falsely assert a ‘pause’ when 1998 was an outlier year by far.
Yes, Germans do pay somewhat high electricity bills. However, these are (a) right in line with average US bills, (b) roughly 1/4th of the bill is general taxes having nothing to do — per se — with energy nor with the Energiewende, (c) with subsidization for clean energy and energy efficiency, the bills somewhat cover real costs (externalities like cancer-causing pollution from coal plants) that are ignored in the United States and by ‘thinkers’ like Stephens, (d) etc …..
— @huntercutting.bsky.social (@HunterCutting) May 2, 2017
Monographs could be written on the direct and implicit of that one Stephens’ paragraph. And, well, for pretty much every other one he has published as a New York Times employee.
Not sure how The New York Times‘ judges its ‘bar for intellectual honesty and fairness’ but, when it comes to Bret Stephens, it sure seems pretty close to the ground.
Virginia Democrats face a real choice in the primary as to who will be the Democratic nominee for (and next) Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia: current Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam or former Congressman Tom Perriello. For those with an understanding of climate change’s challenges, risks, and opportunities, the choice is quite clear:
CRITICAL NOTE: While I expect to be helping get Tom Perriello elected as the next Governor of Virginia come November, I — and would hope this is true for all those concerned about climate change, clean energy, reality-based policy-making (as opposed to #AlternativeFacts’ dystopias) — will work just as passionately to get Ralph Northam elected if he is the nominee. While there is a meaningful difference between Perriello and Northam, as discussed after the fold, both of them are the light of day across a swath of policy/moral/ethical arenas compared to the dark dystopia and hatred that dominate the potential GOP nominees.
April 13th, 2017 · Comments Off on Earth Day and a t-shirt challenge
Searching for silver linings … the Trump regime has sparked a remarkably inventive t-shirt industry. Whether proclaiming support for immigrants rights, decrying Team Trump’s fascist sympathies, mocking Trump lies, or … well, a myriad of other issues and approaches, one could fill multiple wardrobes with political commentary and seemingly not even scratch the surface. Whether walking on the street (okay, too rarely), opening up blogs, ads next to my email (or forwarded in emails), or twitter items, it is hard to miss them …
With Earth Day nigh — and the March for Science the activity (okay, post coaching volleyball in the morning) for the day — the temptation is there to spend $s for some relevant sartorial splendor.
Temptation …
But, those three Rs …
Reduce,
Reuse,
Recycle …
So, come 22 April 2017, I will fight that temptation, reduce that purchasing stream by a few threads, and reuse a shirt from a previous Earth Day whose message, all too sadly, is recyclable to relevance today.
Comments Off on Earth Day and a t-shirt challengeTags:Energy
April 12th, 2017 · Comments Off on Townhalls unpleasant for @HouseGOP as constituents challenge them on #climate #science
Much has been made of how Republicans, writ large (not universally, but a very large share) have been avoiding face-to-face encounters with their constituents — their massively frustrated, angry, scared constituents. In many places in the country, billboards have gone up questioning whether their Representative will ever show up to have an honest engagement with their constituents.
Missing members of Congress are even showing up up milk cartons.
A large share (a majority) of Americans
fear that @TeamTrump will cause damage to their lives — whether due to undermining health insurance, removing governmental services, hurting the economy …
Those few Republican Representatives showing up to speak in front of (semi-)unscripted town halls open to all citizens (rather than limited to core supporters) are being confronted with demands for truthful engagement on issues like these.
Jason Chaffetz had, several months ago, a very contentious town hall — not surprising considering that the GOP House Government Oversight Committee Chair is steadfast in his refusal to guide actual oversight of and investigation into the myriad of almost certain Constitutional and ethical violations by Donald Trump and all-too-many members of Team Trump. One of those moments, when a young girl questioned Chaffetz’s science denial. Her simple — evasively (at best) responded to — questions:
What are you doing to help protect our water and air for our generations and my kids’ generations?
Do you believe in science? I do.
Chaffetz isn’t alone in being ridiculed and roundly booed for his recklessly dangerous climate-science denial.
Rep. Mike Coffman faced angry liberals from his suburban district right outside of Denver on Wednesday night, asking about everything from climate change to single-payer health care.
On at least two occasions, [NJ Republican Leonard Lance] was drowned out by standing ovations for speakers urging Lance to fight climate change and GOP healthcare plans.
Much has been made of how Republicans, writ large (not universally, but a very large share) have been avoiding face-to-face encounters with their constituents — their massively frustrated, angry, scared constituents. In many places in the country, billboards have gone up questioning whether their Representative will ever show up to have an honest engagement with their constituents.
Have you seen Representative Barbara Comstock?
If so, please call her constituents who would like to talk with her.
Missing members of Congress are even showing up up milk cartons.
A large share (a majority) of Americans
fear that @TeamTrump will cause damage to their lives — whether due to undermining health insurance, removing governmental services, hurting the economy …
Those few Republican Representatives showing up to speak in front of (semi-)unscripted town halls open to all citizens (rather than limited to core supporters) are being confronted with demands for truthful engagement on issues like these.
Jason Chaffetz had, several months ago, a very contentious town hall — not surprising considering that the GOP House Government Oversight Committee Chair is steadfast in his refusal to guide actual oversight of and investigation into the myriad of almost certain Constitutional and ethical violations by Donald Trump and all-too-many members of Team Trump. One of those moments, when a young girl questioned Chaffetz’s science denial. Her simple — evasively (at best) responded to — questions:
What are you doing to help protect our water and air for our generations and my kids’ generations?Do you believe in science? I do.
Chaffetz isn’t alone in being ridiculed and roundly booed for his recklessly dangerous climate-science denial.
Rep. Mike Coffman faced angry liberals from his suburban district right outside of Denver on Wednesday night, asking about everything from climate change to single-payer health care.
April 11th, 2017 · Comments Off on #TX21: Another sign of why @GOP is running scared … (w/serious #climate/#science element)
Today, Kansans are voting in an unexpectedly close race to replace now Trump CIA director Mike Pompeo in KS-04, which ‘is’ a R+30 district. [Update: The Republican won by 7% in what should have been a sleeper, blow-away vote … e.g., a massive swing toward Ds that suggests >100 GOP seats could be in play in 2018.]
Next week, Georgians are voting in the 6th district to replace now Secretary of (anti)Health and Human Services Tom Price. In the pent up passion of the (anti-)Trump era, the Democratic candidate John Ossoff might just pull off the shocker of getting a majority in this first round primary and be the first ‘@Flippable‘ step toward a Democratic-controlled (and, well, democratically-elected) Congress.
GA-06 is only a small indicator of the passion sweeping through the nation — across the nation, from local and state politics (like Virginia’s 2017 House of Delegates campaigns) to Congressional races, potential candidates are coming out in district after district around the nation giving a clear indication that 2018 might be a greater sweep election than 2010 Koch-funded “Tea Party” or the 1974 post-Nixonian era elections.
Texas’ 21st congressional district, part of horrific GOP gerrymandering to deny Austin-area Texans true Democracy and real opportunities for political choices, is one of those districts. Currently occupied by the rabidly anti-science Lamar Smith, who has either not faced an opponent or else coasted for victory, prospects are that Smith will face a very serious challenger come 2018. In addition to a likely effort by his 2016 challenger Tom Wakely, Army veteran and clean-energy advocate Joseph Kopser is (very openly) toying with throwing his hat in the ring. Kopser is explicitly making Smith’s maniacal anti-climate science crusade core to his messaging:
defeat one of the most anti-science politicians in Congress.
I want to help move this country forward, which means supporting science and business while taking climate change seriously.
While greatly appreciating that Wakely sought to hold #climate zombie Smith accountable and defeat him at the polls, the 2016 result doesn’t necessarily bode well for a 2018 rematch. Kopser, however, could be the sort of top-tier candidate (see after the fold) who would garner both national attention (and resources) and local support to oust Smith. If districts like TX-21 (and not ‘just’ those few traditional swing districts, like the candidates coming out of the woodwork in Virginia’s 10th) are truly competitive in 2018, someone who actually cares about good governance (unlike Jason Chaffetz — who is also likely to face a serious opponent in 2018) will chair the House Oversight Committee come January 2019. And, if it hasn’t already occurred, it will be reasonable to expect that Articles of Impeachment will be voted on by spring 2019.
March 25th, 2017 · Comments Off on Energy BOOKSHELF: Emancipate Slaves, End Climate Change?
Head-slapping moments liberate intellectually. A weltanschauung shifting moment is powerful, especially that sudden light bulb over the head event which seems so self-evident in retrospect.
Slavery fosters pollution
Slavers are operating outside the law already and thus typically have utter disdain for any form of environmental regulation and/or protection.
Slavers are despoiling humans for profit, why not despoil the planet.
Fighting slavery fights pollution — including global warming.
Where there are slaves, the environment is under assault, forests are being destroyed, endangered species are dying, and climate change is worsening – and all of this destruction is driven by profits from products we buy.
To provide the shocking scale,
we now know that if slavery were a country it would be the third largest producer of CO2 in the world after China and the USA,
“The third largest producer of CO2 in the world after China and the USA” and not a word to be found about this in the Paris Climate Accords …
A question to be asked, it seems, is whether ‘attacking slave labor’ around the world is something that can unite people who might battle at the corollary of ‘to fight climate change and reduce pollution’?
Bales’ makes a lot of sense and has convinced me that fighting slavery will also mean fighting against environmental damage. The question is: to what extent? Does eliminating slavery eliminate that ‘third largest producer of Co2’? Bales certainly implies this … yet, the roughly 40% of deforestration that Bales attributes to slave labor wouldn’t end if slavery ended. As another reviewer put it
where workers are so vulnerable that they can be pressed into modern slavery, and rule of law is weak enough to tolerate profound environmental destruction, free labor will usually be available to do the same bad work on marginally better terms. Bales knows that modern slavery is a symptom of complex social vulnerability, rooted in poverty, violence and ecological displacement. Turning around to propose that a new abolition movement would reverse these deeper problems may work as a homily, but it is unpersuasive as policy.
Blood and Earth is highly worth the read and, as this review started, it changed my thinking in a head-slapping moment. However, Bales’ assertions fall short as to what the environmental benefit would be from ending slavery and his work fails to provide a set of viable prescriptions for individuals, businesses, and societies as to how to move forward to eliminate slavery and its associated environmental destruction.
Kernan: Do you believe that it’s been proven that CO2 is the primary control knob for climate? Do you believe that?
SCOTT PRUITT (EPA ADMINISTRATOR):
No, I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do, and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact.
So, no, I would not agree that’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. But we don’t know that yet, as far as — we need to continue debate — continue the review and analysis.
Pruitt, as Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator, ‘owns’ some of the best climate science in the world and yet is rejecting perhaps the most basic and longest understood item in the field. As Professor John Abraham put it in an email
Scientists have known since the mid 1800s that carbon dioxide was a major greenhouse gas. This means Mr Pruitt is knowledge is close to 200 years out of date.
Now, Pruitt’s revealing statement is generating lots of buzz.
Within reporting, even ‘honest’ reporting seeking to make clear the #AlternativeFacts nature of Pruitt’s comments, the framing is all too often ‘normalizing’ and understating the outrageousness of the EPA directly holding such anti-science attitudes. For example, here is Tim DeChristopher at CNBC:
The statement contradicts the public stance of the agency Pruitt leads. The EPA’s webpage on the causes of climate change states, “Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas that is contributing to recent climate change.”
With his comments, Pruitt is displaying a fundamental disdain for and ignorance of science.
Etc … (see after fold)
The media norm creates a ‘he says, she says’ that understates the dangerous nature of the Violently Radical GOP Extremism (ViRGE) Trump regime.
Fossil foolish rejection of basic science runs rampant through the GOP and (climate) science denial is the norm for @TeamTrump as it is a critical tool to prevent ideologically-rejected action to mitigate climate change (primarily through moving off fossil fuels). Perhaps we owe #PollutingPruitt a thank you for making this so explicitly clear …
March 8th, 2017 · Comments Off on Uncertainty: one nail in #coal’s coffin
Mark Sumner, someone who made his career in the coal mining industry, has penned (keystroked?) a thoughtful “Open letter to America’s Coal Miners & America“. This very respectful missive lays out the powerful ‘team’ reliance reality of coal-mining, highlights that coal powered America (and the globe) for a century, and lays out that any attack on coal is perceived by miners (by those more broadly in the industry) as a fundamental attack on them and their self-worth. The reality that coal — essentially uniquely — powered America, Sumner discusses, is no longer the reality and is less true with each passing day.
This is the hard truth. In 2000, coal generated almost 53 percent of all the electricity in the United States. By 2009, that was 45 percent. In 2014 it was 39 percent. One year later, it was 33 percent.
Look at that last number. Coal’s contribution to the electrical picture dropped by 6 percent in a single year.
Sumner calls for miners to recognize that
you’re being used as props in a war that’s not just bad for the nation, it’s bad for you and your families. You’re being sold a bill of goods
Sumner lays out that mining jobs have been disappearing for a long time and that this atrophying will continue — whether or not Trump successfully destroys environmental policy.
The core element for coal’s fall from glory in Sumner’s narrative: natural gas, in particular: fracked natural gas.
It happened because fracking for natural gas has made that fuel extremely abundant, and generators of electricity would much, much rather deal with gas than coal.
Now, within that discussion of natural gas, he writes;
Better still, from the point of view of the people making electricity, gas generators are cheaper. You can buy them small and add on power gradually. Coal plants are big. They take a huge amount of money up front and don’t start making money for decades after construction.
This is an important economic argument and business case reason for moving away from coal toward gas that is also true for nuclear power (like coal) and for wind/solar (like natural gas).
First group (nuclear, coal)
requires large upfront investments,
take a long time (decade+) to develop/build, and
move from 0 to 1000 (from 0 kilowatts of production to 100s to 1000+ mw hour production) at a flip of a switch.
And, btw, are seen as at risk to changed public perception, protests, priorities, and regulation (such as climate) as they are under construction.
Second group, natural gas/wind/solar,
can be built & brought on incrementally,
have (relatively) shorter timelines; and,
are seen as having relatively minor other certainty risks.
These differences are huge for planners amidst a disrupted electricity marketplace — uncertainty as to future demand (think efficiency, economic turmoil), massive technological change (LED lights, solar panels, smart grid, electric cars), changing business models and relationships (such as increased ‘behind the meter’ generation and storage), etc. With such uncertainty, committing $billions to a decade-long process for adding a gigawatt of production to the grid suddenly is a risk that requires significant mitigation (locking in rate structures that likely will disadvantage customers) that might not be possible to secure.
This business risk is a too-often overlooked reason for why there businesses (including to utility) are looking to natural gas, wind, and solar while “why there are no new coal plants under construction anywhere in the United States. None.”
Comments Off on Uncertainty: one nail in #coal’s coffinTags:business practice · coal
March 8th, 2017 · Comments Off on Solar on the car, not the road …
The pace of global change accelerates with each passing year. Energy systems — which tend, even amid revolution (wood to coal, coal to oil, …), to change slowly — are struggling, globally, to adapt to how that pace of change is accelerating within them as well. Globalization combined with information technology reach combined with materials science explosion combined with business practice advances combined with the realities of climate change (and its risks/opportunities — even if denied by @TeamTrump/@GOP) … are all coalescing to create the circumstances for tectonic shifts.
Writ large, the average person (in the developed world, at least) doesn’t spend much time thinking about ‘energy’ other than concern over the gas tank level and paying bills (primarily ‘at the pump’ since electronic billing has removed even the electricity and gas bills from many people’s consciousness). Most energy-system change is occurring essentially invisible to the average person … with the (partial) exception of solar power, which has become perhaps ‘the’ symbol of 21st century energy and the technological potential for successful climate mitigation(again, with strong reality-denying exception of @TeamTrump).
Solar has seen massive price drops, continued double-digit percentage year-to-year growth rates, and expanded penetration into energy markets around the world. In the developing world, solar is providing a leap frogging out of energy poverty for literally tens (and soon 100s) of millions of people. Solar is emergent and increasingly dominate in off-grid (from highway signs to remote homes), industrial scale, and distributed grid-connected electricity generation.
In the public consciousness, something sparked mania
Do Solar Roadways stand up to scrutiny? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mzzz5DdzyWY
and went viral in 2014: Solar Roadways. While any decent analysis would show this an amusing dream that might merit some research/development work but that serious investment should put it in the back-of-the-line behind many simpler and more productive solar applications, that Solar Roadway mania seems to have taken root with multiple demonstration projects and even large-scale plans underway around the world.
A question to ask, however, is whether it makes more sense to have solar ‘on the road’ (solar roadways) or solar on the things using the road?
Solar car challenge (http://www.solarcarchallenge.org/challenge/)
The idea of directly powering transportation using solar power has a long history, with the oldest solar car race now over 30 years old. While capturing attention, this really has been niche rather than a serious near-term transportation option.
There have been uses for solar power in mobile platforms. For example,
Interesting, when talking to business people trying to sell them, it is rarely the electricity value that their customers are interested in when they but a solar option. It is the maintenance / staff implication: the cart driver who forgot to plug in a cart, leaving it w/out power after a few days, or the annoyance of having to go out and get a dead cart in the middle of the day. Having solar doesn’t necessarily provide 100% of the carts’ electricity requirements (though gives a true off-grid EV option) but greatly reduces ‘ran out of power’ annoyances and while extending operating ranges.
Aviation has been playing around with moving away from fossil fuels, including electrically powered aircraft leveraging solar on the wings. With light-weighting of equipment, including solar, this has moved from demonstration and experiment to actual applications starting with unmanned aerial reconnaissance/surveillance.
One option that has been explored by major manufacturers (such as Airbus) is installing solar power into commercial aircraft wings — not to power the aircraft but to power auxiliary systems, especially when on the tarmac, to reduce fuel drain to power them.
That last has been part of the automobile market, with Toyota offering a solar option for the Prius since the 2010 model year for powering the ventilation system. Think parking in the August sun — the solar would power the vents and reduce heat buildup in the Prius, both improving comfort and air conditioning loads when entering the car (think 30F or more reduced heat build-up). While enough to power a fan, that 50-watt panel couldn’t provide meaningful propulsion benefits and wasn’t hooked up to the car’s battery system.
Now, assuming actual achievement of 4 miles/day driving off the solar panel (an optimistic assumption, for multiple reasons: cars not driven every day, shading reducing production, etc …), this is less than 1,500 miles per year or under 10 percent of the average 16,550 annual miles driven. Again, however, this could provide a meaningful dent into the average driver’s use and enable some interesting enhanced range uses (such as ‘refilling’ the car’s battery while parked for an extended period parked away from a plug).
Now, the Prius solar roof isn’t going to revolutionize transportation and, for most, it remains “a better choice to put the solar panels on your house” rather than car roof, but it is a clear indication that integrating solar into mobile electric transportation has moved from ‘pipe dream’ into commercial reality.
