Choices: Fuels, Efficiency, Transit vs. Drilling

I keep writing that we as a society and a species have choices that we’re continually making today that will affect the climate of tomorrow.  Most choices involve spending some small outlay of money today in order to not have to spend much larger sums just to adapt tomorrow.  The choice I’ll write about today deals with one of the Republican Teabaggers’ favorites: gradually use less fossil fuels in our transportation sector or “Drill, bagger, drill!”  As usual, the Teabaggers are on the wrong side of the issue, as this chart from the NRDC, using data from the Energy Information Administration shows:

The black line on top would be the pathetically measly result of opening up new drilling areas to the dirty energy corporations: less than 1 million more barrels of oil per day by 2025.  Real energy independent, eh?  Aside from the fact that oil corporations will sell that oil to whomever will buy it most expensively (i.e., not in the U.S.), three of the other measures would prevent the use of the same amount of oil by themselves.   Combined with other measures, the total number of barrels of oil that wouldn’t have to be bought and used is 5x the amount made available by opening up new drilling areas.

The results of using 5 million fewer barrels of oil per day by 2025 can’t be understated: less environmental damage in all aspects of the drilling process; real steps toward energy independence; freedom to keep more money in Americans’ pockets (isn’t that what Teabaggers are supposed to be all about, anyway?); more efficient transportation system.  And on and on it goes.

Going the drilling route couldn’t be more stupid.  This choice, as is the case for others, is pretty simple.

[h/t MB @ dKos)

Scientific American – Polar Meltdown & Scrubbing Carbon Articles

The June 2010 issue of Scientific American had two climate-related pieces in it that I thought were worth discussing.

Polar Meltdown

The first dealt with 12 potential events, their likelihood of occurring by 2050 and some of their effects.  The front cover lists ‘Polar Meltdown’ last among the 12.  The article has ‘Polar Meltdown” as the 8th event, despite its likelihood; I don’t really understand how they decided to organize the events.  I mention these details first because more of the general public reads Scientific American than journals or even climate-related blogs.  Given the nature of the effects – vastly more negative than positive – I would personally prefer to see this listed first both on the front cover and in the article.  Interestingly, their online version has this event first, which is good news.

Another quibble: the picture accompanying the little piece is of Antarctica instead of the Arctic.  In terms of “Polar Meltdown”, Antarctica definitely presents the larger long-term threat of the two.  But the article is supposedly about events by 2050.  I’m a climate realist – which means I recognize that Antarctica won’t completely melt by 2050.  That will likely take a century or two.  And it’s not really even the Arctic ice melting that should scare us all – it’s Greenland.  Greenland’s ice has been land-bound for thousands of years.  When that ice melts, it will raise sea levels.  Similarly for Antarctica – it’s not the sea ice melting every year that presents a threat, its 8 times as much ice as exists on Greenland melting that will raise sea levels even higher.  There are plenty of graphics demonstrating the ridiculously fast meltdown that has already occurred in the Arctic.  They should have shown some of those instead of an Antarctica-shaped piece of ice in a punchbowl.  That’s a lousy visual on multiple levels – the most important being water-borne ice melting doesn’t change the level of the water.  Sheesh.

Okay – onto the science part of this potential event.  Scientific America’s author thinks this event ranks as “Likely”, or better than “50-50″ but not “certain”.  I’m glad to see the assessment at better than 50-50, because it is.  Given the speed at which Arctic and Greenland ice has already melted, I unfortunately think that Arctic sea ice in particular is within a handful of years of disappearing every summer, as this post details.  Arctic sea ice volume is plummeting towards an effective zero point much, much faster than any expert thought possible just a couple short years ago.  If you go to their online version and click on the ‘polar meltdown’ icon, it takes you to a page describing some effects of the event occurring – none of which appear in the print version, by the way.  There is also a place to vote on how likely you think this event is of occurring.  As of this writing, the highest percentage of respondents (36%) agree with the author.  29% of respondents think it is almost certain.  14%, 11% and 8% think it is ’50-50′, ‘unlikely’ and ‘very unlikely’.  There’s freepers everywhere, I suppose.

The American Power Act – First Reactions

The Senate’s version of climate and energy legislation was formally introduced yesterday.  Titled “The American Power Act”, the draft is 987 pages long and includes darn near everything.  Reading any substantial amount of the bill is going to take a while; understanding it will take even longer.  Of course, by the time activists read and understand it, it will probably be in the process of being modified.  Regardless, here are two links that I’m looking at.  The first is the full bill; the second is a section by section summary.

S1733- The American Power Act (pdf)

21 page Section by Section summary (pdf)

Surprise! Electric Cars Have Plenty of Range for Daily Driving

I’ve always found people’s reticence about buying electric vehicles because they wouldn’t be able to drive far enough to be based on uninformed opinions.  With a range of 100 miles, the vast majority of Americans would be able to drive to work and back home, with short jaunts for lunch and errands in between, on a daily basis without having to rely on public charging stations.  With a recharge time of 4 to 8 hours, a majority of Americans would simply be able to plug their cars in at home every night; no other shift in driving behavior would be needed.  Drivers would spend less time on a weekly basis plugging their cars in at home, and in the worst-case scenario in public, than they do at gas stations today.  Really, the only obstacle is likely to be psychological.  Most people don’t like to change their habits.  The fact that the cost to charge an electric vehicle is less than the cost to put fossil fuels in their tank is also largely lost on the public so far.

A new study supports my gut feeling:

Studies of drivers who already have electric cars are finding that they prefer the convenience of charging at home, and despite their vehicles’ limited range, most are able to avoid public charging.  The relative lack of these recharging locations could prove less of a deterrent to electric car acceptance than was expected.

Much like the community that formed around Prius drivers supporting each others’ attempts to maximize miles per gallon, communities which have been chosen as test markets have also coalesced together.

MiniE drivers posted their locations on a Web site they shared, so if one of them found themselves far from home with a low battery, they could head to another MiniE driver’s home for some electrons to get home.  This self-organized grass-roots support network that sprung up through the use of social media is an example of how electric car test drivers have communicated with one another and with carmakers even without organized surveys like Turrentine’s.

Unsurprisingly, it seems that corporations continue to underestimate the power that social networking can provide to boost their products.  They’re largely using it in unsophisticated fashions.

Now, this isn’t to say that public charging networks won’t be needed.  Market acceptance is likely to increase as people see charging stations in places where they normally drive.  But at the end of the day, real-world use has demonstrated that the “chicken and egg” question that too many thought existed simply doesn’t.  Electric cars aren’t solely dependent on public charging stations.  Public charging stations instead are more dependent on electric cars, as I thought would be the case.