 |
|
EV WORLD EXCLUSIVE ARTICLE |
The Arlington Institute envisions an 'all-electric-world' by 2050 where virtually all forms of transportation are electrically-powered. It proposes a 3-phase, fifteen-year plan to rapidly transition the United States away from petroleum to renewable fuels and eventually hydrogen or some-as-yet-unforeseen energy source.
|
How to Wean America Off Fossil Fuels in 15 Years
By EV World
The Arlington Institute Report: 'A Strategy: How To Move America Away from Oil'
Open Access Article Originally Published: March 20, 2004
America can end its dependence on imported oil in fifteen years, and do so without any significant technological break-throughs.
So argues a Pentagon-commissioned study authored by the Arlington Institute, a small think tank who includes on its board such disparate luminaries as Joe Firmage and Jim Woolsey. In their recently released report, "A Strategy: How To Move America Away from Oil" its authors argue over the course of some 264 pages that we have the technology to virtually eliminate the nation's oil dependence by 2018.
Their solution is both logical and pragmatic beginning with utilizing current technology and infrastructure. They recommend that fuel cell research be viewed and funded as a much longer-termed goal than currently envisioned, with funding shifted to several key areas including cellulosic biomass and research and development of hybrid and HyperCar(r) technologies.
According to their proposed strategy, by 2010, all new vehicles would either be hybrid-electric and/or capable of running on E85 ethanol (a blend 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline). Millions of vehicles on the roads of America today already are capable of burning E85, but the problem is a lack of retail outlets for the fuel. For example, Nebraska is one of the nation's largest ethanol producers, yet it just opened only its second retail outlet for E85. Funding and incentives would go into rapidly ramping up the production of ethanol derived by modern enzyme fermenation that enables all types of crop and plant residue to be converted efficiently into fuel.
Beyond 2010, the goal would be to find ways to run fuel cells directly off cellulosic ethanol and methanol, both renewable fuels. A recent breakthrough at the University of Minnesota has found a way to extract hydrogen from ethanol and Mitsubishi already has commercialized a methanl-to-hydrogen system in Asia.
Ultimately, the strategy would be to increasingly electrify more and more of the nation's transportation, residential and industrial sector, using both central and decentralized generation systems. The study sees ten key benefits to this approach.
- It uses existing infrastructure to move the U.S. away from oil in the most expedient fashion.
- It moves the U.S. to energy independence - fast.
- It uses the shorter-term solution - alternative biofuels with existing infrastructure - as a stepping-stone to the longer fuel cell and hydrogen solution.
- It uses renewable fuels.
- It is politically viable because of a strong agricultural lobby.
- It creates jobs in rural areas.
- It upends the U.S. trade deficit. (The U.S. currently spends $70 billion for imported oil, which is 40% of the current trade deficit.)
- It uses the newest technologies.
- It will contribute no net carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
- It is flexible enough to allow for new technologies and discoveries to arise in the next decade that will alter or accelerate this transition.
And what about oil producing countries? Wouldn't this destabilize these nations, many of them already impoverished despite their oil revenues? The study recommends that any strategy needs to come up with policies that prevent their destabilization, potentially worsening the poverty of their people.
Interestingly, the report also includes an appendix on what might be considered "exotic" energy technologies that -- if successfully commercialized -- could become "wild card" game changers. These include everything from over-unity devices to cold fusion to sonoluminescence.
As a concluding aside, we at EV World were both surprised and pleased to find a footnote reference to an article archived on our web site.
The report makes fascinating reading and lends credence to the notion that we are heading toward an "EV World."
GO TO NEXT PAGE >>
|
| Times Article Viewed: 6932 |
|
|
|
Reader Comments
31 comments so far...
29-Jul-2006
29485
| |
The most important reason for an alternative energy is to reduce global warming. Ethanol production and the tilling or our soils and accellerating draining of our wetlands is releasing significant volumes of sequestered CO2. Ethanol fails the test. Hydrogen, Hydrogen.
Posted by: Neal Lesmeister
|
|
22-Aug-2005
8970
| |
The World is addicted to Fossil Fuel and it is not going to get any better.We are what we use!.
I came across a company about a year ago,in fact it is a small group of companies.I have read both negative and positive reports on this group and now am convinced that this company has invented the World First non polluting Electricity Generator that use no conventional fuel to power it.The companies are Environ Energy and Enencom.
I with a small, but increasing band of Environmentalist are convinced that this company has indeed invented a machine that the HUMAN RACE
has been looking for.I would also like to invest in this company.Please go to their sites www.enencom.biz,www.environenergy.co.uk and www.the8000group.co.uk
Posted by: mathew johnson
|
|
25-Aug-2005
9050
| |
I have worked in the Nuclear Energy Generation business for over 30 years and I am quite knowlegeable about engineering.Looking at EV site I came across Mathew Johnson comments,on those UK companies,Environ Energy and Enencom.He mentioned that they have invented a generator that does not use any convention fue to power it.My first reaction was,let me have a look at this site.I have studied those sites for 2 days and I am convinced that this group of companies have indeed invented a unique Technology.I will be requesting some information from them,with a view to investing some money.I am not a very rich person,but I do have some funds that I was looking to invest for about a year.My three sons are all grown up and have their own businesses and my daughter is a teacher.I will be investing about $310,000.I am an ENVIRONMENTALIST.
Many will say how could someone working in the Nuclear sector become an Environmentalist,well growing older,you become wiser and your views of the world adapt to those changes,at least mine did.My experience and knowledge together with the power of applying them critically and practically allow me to conclude that this company invention will work.
Global Warming is here!
I too have seen the future and it works.
The experience and knowledge that I have obtained over the years in Engineering have allowed me to Judiciously concludeed that I want very much to be a part of it.
Well done Environ Energy and Enencom.
Well done!.
I too would like EV visitors to go to their sites at www.enencom.biz , www.environenergy.co.uk and www.the8000group.co.uk.
Posted by: Harry Hoffman
|
|
27-Aug-2005
9096
| |
What a refreshing,exciting,wonderful and exhilarating invention that Enencom have invented.I hope that non of the big oil companies along with other large vested interest does not try to put them out of business by spreading negative reports.Keep up the good work EV.I will be visiting your site again.
The world needs invention like this.
EV visitors,please their site at www.enencom.biz
The price of fuel is going up and up,perhaps there is hope for all of us,with this invention.
Posted by: peter mondale
|
|
24-Mar-2004
2071
| |
The problem with ethanol is it is dependent on nitrogen fertilizer, which is made with electricity, which is generated by coal, oil, or natural gas. We need to move to generating the electricity with PV. every house with a roof oriented in the southerly direction needs PV on it so we break the attachment of ethanol to the fuel source."
Posted by: Doug Brentlinger
|
|
24-Mar-2004
2073
| |
I think the most important key to this is to have an electric car built that people will want to drive more than the car they are driving. That way there is no need for subsidies. That car exists. It's called the Tango. 57% of the 284 respondents to a lengthy survey given at the LA Auto show said they'd rather drive a Tango to work than the car they are currently commuting in. Information on the Tango:
http://www.commutercars.com/downloads/brochures/brochureLA2004.pdf
The survey:
http://www.commutercars.com/downloads/brochures/LAAutoShow2004SurveyResults.pdf
92 million Americans drive by themselves to work every day. If 50 million drove Tangos it would reduce our need for petroleum by over 1 billion barrels a year, more than we've ever imported from Iraq. Comparison chart: http://www.commutercars.com/downloads/batteryCharging/energyICEvsTango.pdf . All we need to do is to start building the Tango, thousands have already expressed an interest in purchasing them at a price that they can be built for. The Tango solution not only solves fossil fuel dependence, but also traffic congestion, parking, and air pollution--and it does this by giving people more than they already have in convenience, mobility, safety, comfort, ease of driving and parking, and fun. Check it out.
That's my take on the subject.
Best wishes,
Rick"
Posted by: Rick Woodbury
|
|
25-Mar-2004
2082
| |
This is great news. We run an 86,000 square foot facility in San Diego that houses a Alternative Fuel Vehicle Showroom, a public fueling staton offering all 9 alternative fuels under one roof, a service center specializing in altnernative fuel vehicles, and an educational center for middle school children to tour, watch a video about alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles and participate in an interactive exhibit hall that teaches them about Hybrids, fuel cells, hydrogen, and transportation issues.
We are the only facility in the nation that pumps: Ethanol, Diesel, Bio-diesel, natural gas, propane, regular, super and premium. and 8 electric chargers.
I drive an electric vehicle and have for almost 3 years. I use it daily. I will circulate this article to everyone I know and as that they do the same. This is a start.
Judy Bishop
Executive Directror
RTC
4001 El Cajon Blvd.
San Diego, CA 92105
619-521-2469
www.rtc4afv.com
"
Posted by: Judy Bishop
|
|
25-Mar-2004
2083
| |
It's factory farming that is dependent on nitrogen fertilizer. Corn and other ethanol sources can be grown efficiently using organic methods. Our energy plan should include a transition away from energy inefficient, environmentally damaging, and unsustainable factory farming and towards sustainable agriculture. For more info, see http://journeytoforever.org/farm.html#farm_production"
Posted by: Michael Hauser
|
|
25-Mar-2004
2086
| |
If the ethanol were made from legumes, such as soy beans, then you wouldn't have such a heavy reliance on fertilizer in the supply chain. Pesticides are another matter entirely. Ultimately, I think the holy grail for energy production should take our waste stream as input, rather than relying on so-called crop surpluses, which cease to be a surplus the moment we become dependent on them. "
Posted by: Jason Marshall
|
|
25-Mar-2004
2094
| |
Every time I see this sort of discussion, I become frustrated, most so, with our North American Governments.
In both Canada and the United States Governements say what they are going to do but seldome follow through.
Though it may be an over simplification, I have never understood why legislation is not put forth
to restrict the production of vehicles unless they are capable of certain stipulated reduced fuel consumptions.
If the general public do not have the common sense to see what they are doing to the ecology when they purchase gas guzzeling SUV's and 12 cylinder luxury automobiles, then it is time for our governments to Govern - that's their responsibility.
Thank you for the site, and we can make a difference, if we prevail. "
Posted by: Doug Moulton
|
|
25-Mar-2004
2097
| |
The more progressive states, should lead the way.
Don't ask the federal gov't to do what states/provs.
can do. People of California, Ore., Mass., etc,
stand up."
Posted by: Menwith M
|
|
26-Mar-2004
2099
| |
Good comments all. Until we have the "cure", it seems logical that we take the easy steps first. Rick Woodbury's Battery Electric Car is a perfect example. Something like $20 million would put this proven prototype into production and be available to the public for about the price of a Prius II, and use ZERO gas, no oil changes and no pollution. $20 million when we hear estimates of Billions and billions with other FUTURE technologies. To me there is no down side to taking as many of these small easy steps as we can. If nothing else it buys time, would give the US a leg up on the developement and export of such techoolgies, and....it's the right thing to do. Marion Zaugg"
Posted by: Marion Zaugg
|
|
26-Mar-2004
2100
| |
So why not use Electrovaya? An EV car with
good RANGE. Click on
http://www.electrovaya.com/products_files/Maya.jpg
DOES ANYONE KNOW OF AN UPDATE AS TO WHEN THEY
WILL BE SELLING THESE TO THE PUBLIC?"
Posted by: Harel B
|
|
02-Apr-2004
2211
| |
Regarding Mike Swift's comment about the writer's credibility being damaged by mentioning 'over-unity device, cold fusion, etc', perhaps we shouldn't rush to judgement too quickly. After all we engineers are not much better at predicting disruptive future technologies than airhead English majors.
And, I believe one such writer, a certain A. C. Clarke, actually has a pretty good record of such predictions."
Posted by: Brent Bolton
|
|
02-Apr-2004
2214
| |
This is regarding Jim Beyer's comment about subsidizing emerging technologies, but not subsidizing entire energy plans. We have and continue to subidize coal ("clean" coal research); we subsidize the oil industry (it takes an awful lot of tax-payer funded military protection to keep the ships moving safely). We subsidize the energy prices that mining companies pay to extact the country's resources. I'm not saying that ethanol is an out and out solution, but I don't agree with with the point you made about subsidies.
Dan"
Posted by: Dan Kastilahn
|
|
02-Apr-2004
2215
| |
Mike Swift is right that you really damage your credibility when you include mention of over-unity devices in an otherwise good article. Nobody can predict exactly what people are going to invent, but we can predict what people cannot invent: and that is a way to get something for nothing. Everything in modern science says you cannot have an over-unity device, so to include mention of such a possibility as if it were no more difficult than fuel cells is a gross distortion."
Posted by: Chris Barnes
|
|
05-Apr-2004
2240
| |
I'm sorry, Mr. Barnes, but I have to disagree with you. The fact that you used the term Modern Science is just as hampering as the author's use of Over-Unity. Of course OU is impossible using modern science, because it sits outside the realm of it. Until we discover how (or to be fair, if) it works, it will remain there. Look at the last 100 years of science, and you'll find quite a few things that were impossible using the modern science of the day. And addressing Ms. Zaugg's comment about funding: It costs, on average, $2.1 billion to build a B2 Stealth Bomber. Kind of sad, isn't it, how far that money would go if it were redirected into something with a use, like alternative energy? "
Posted by: Colin Arnoldus
|
|
06-Apr-2004
2246
| |
Nuclear power could be used to generate electricity. Or fuel cells could produce the electricty. Or clean-burning coal plants. Or solar powered plants could be used. Also, bioengineering may be able to produce corn that uses much less fertilizer and water (another potential problem) while producing more ethanol."
Posted by: William Stigall
|
|
15-Apr-2004
2375
| |
About using the waste stream to generate energy. Check out a company doing just that.
http://www.changingworldtech.com/home.html
See also the corresponding story from Discover magazine. Note that many types of carbon containing waste streams can be used in the process, including something as ubiquitous as sewage. They have a test site in Philly for using sewage to make oil and natural gas.
On ethanol and methanol, Nobel prize winning chemist George Olah at USC has been working in collaboration with fuel cell experts to demonstrate a methanol fuel cell that can convert CO2 to methanol when energy is added or methanol to CO2 to generate power. This type of tech would skip Hydrogen completely and all of the associated storage problems and environmental impact with hydrogen as an energy storage for renewable energy sources.
As fossil fuels become less practical, I feel it is likely that a combination of many new energy and fuel sources will be explored and developed including using the waste stream and "food source" derived ethanol. We need to continue to develop multiple options and likely implement several strategies to overcome fossil fuel dependance.
"
Posted by: Chris Douglas
|
|
17-Apr-2004
2394
| |
I have a question..
if we continue to use fossil fuels when do u think we will run out of oil and other fuels of that sort.
Thanks,
Glenn M. Lovin"
Posted by: Glenn Lovin
|
|
06-May-2004
2766
| |
I have looked at wind farm and other alternative energy,but non come close to my heart like SPEGG. Environ Energy has invented a generator that is going to change our world.Anyone who say that this technology will not work does not know what he or she is talking about and clearly they do not understand engineering.Many people who are negative have clearly their own personal agenda to promote their web site or their own form of energy.Mark my word this technology is going to be big and the inventors will be able to hire Bill Gate as their BUTLER.The more I look at this technology the more I am amazed.Please vistit their site and ask all your friends to visit their site.www.environenergy.co.uk."
Posted by: paul jackson
|
|
25-Jul-2004
4025
| |
I have seen the future and it work.
I do not like to promote anything,but I must mention this site WWW.ENVIRONENERGY.CO.UK. This is the first machine that does not use any form of conventional energy that I have come across that will work.How do I know this I have studied mechanical engineering for over 10 years.The people who invented this machine should be given a prize."
Posted by: Ian Chamber
|
|
27-Mar-2004
2114
| |
Ethanol too $$$$.
These guys suffer from the affliction of believing Amory Lovins too much. :)
Both ethanol and carbon composites (hypercar's main way of making vehicles lighter) are too expensive for practical, widespread use. Is is ok to subsidize an energy experiment (ethanol) but we cannot subsidize a complete energy system. (Same with biodiesel, unfortunately; we cannot power the whole U.S. on seeds....)
It is possible that technological breakthroughs could occur, such as cellulosic ethanol, but one can't plan on such breakthroughs.
This energy plan has too many "and then a technology breakthrough happens" clauses in it to be either believable or viable. So it is really no better than the equally implausible "hydrogen economy" strategy.
Read the Keith-Farrell paper in 18-July-2003 "Science". I agree with 90% of that...
-Jim Beyer"
Posted by: Jim Beyer
|
|
28-Mar-2004
2119
| |
I want you to take a look at www.environenergy.co.uk . This is how to Wean America off Fossil Fuels in 15 years."
Posted by: Paul Jackson
|
|
28-Mar-2004
2122
| |
some people may be willing to buy a car like the Tango as a second or third vehicle for commuting, but for those who can only afford or want to own one car it is not very competitive. However, they would make excellent vehicles for a carshare or self-driven taxi system. "
Posted by: David McDonald
|
|
28-Mar-2004
2123
| |
Sure we should utilize our waste, but it will never be able to provide more than a fraction of our fuel simple because it is waste that is a secondary byproduct of primary consumption.
"
Posted by: D M
|
|
30-Mar-2004
2150
| |
As soon as I see the mention of 'over-unity devices to cold fusion to sonoluminescence' taken seriously I know that although the person writing may have an excellent bachelors degree in english he is an air-head when it comes to engineering or science. He destroyed any credibility he may have received from his 'good' writing."
Posted by: Mike Swift
|
|
09-Apr-2004
2294
| |
Hydrogen, Hydrogen, Hydrogen!!!"
Posted by: Rob Phipps
|
|
10-Apr-2004
2299
| |
Well First Off We Need To Stop Production Of These Big Gas Guzzling SUV's Like The Hummer They are driven For all Of The Glitz And Glammer I Dont Think People Relize That We Actually May Run Out Off Fossil Fuels Like Oil.Agree?I Also Think Hydrogen Would Be The Way To Go.Or the other alternative could be a different kind of oil like corn oil.Its a crop and it can be renewed.If we dont ween off oil we could be in big trouble with our planet.The atmopshere is polluted with carbin and other chemicals that are setting us up for global warming."
Posted by: Evan Roberts
|
|
13-Apr-2004
2317
| |
Second attempt to comment. Increase to 20%ethanol in pump gasoline from present level of 10% and extend use year around. Reduce oil imports now this way and as ethanol production becomes less costly increased percentages
of ethanol in gasolines will further reduce our dependency on those imports. It's worth a try!Thanks, Wally"
Posted by: Wallace Jackson
|
|
13-Apr-2004
2328
| |
In response to Rob Phipps...
EXPLOSION, EXPLOSION, EXPLOSION!!!
HINDENBURG, HINDENBURG, HINDENBURG!!!
DANGEROUS, DANGEROUS, DANGEROUS!!!
sorry : )"
Posted by: Eric Mix
|
|
|
|
|
