Google has proposed a detailed plan for the U.S. to move to cleaner energy in 22 years. Significantly, the plan does not promise that the U.S. will achieve “energy independence,” instead setting a target of reducing oil imports by a mere 22 percent.
The price tag? $4.4 trillion. Google estimates that investing this amount will allow us to save $5.4 trillion in the long run. But that assumes someone will be willing to pay $1.1 trillion for carbon credits. It also assumes we somehow find the $4.4 trillion to invest in the program.
This ambitious plan calls into question claims by candidates like Obama that they have plans that will allow us to achieve energy independence in a mere 10 years. The only price tag mentioned in Obama’s plan is $150 billion “to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.”
Too bad Google didn’t think of that. That’s little more than one thirtieth of the price of Google’s plan.
Google would eliminate fossil fuels for generating electricity other than a small amount of natural gas “for shoring up imbalances between generation and demand” (meaning to make up for when the wind stops blowing).
Google would also replace almost half our auto fleet — currently more than 240 million cars and trucks — with plug-in hybrids and all-electric vehicles by 2030. (Google’s schedule is approximately on track with Obama’s plan to put 1 million plug-ins on the road by 2015.) The remaining cars in 2030 would average 45 mpg.
The only difference between generic and brand drug is the http://frankkrauseautomotive.com/cars-for-sale/2006-toyota-camry-le/ online levitra price at which both are available in dealing with irritable bowel syndrome symptoms. Trust your gut instinct and don’t fall for the lowest price does not always mean that you are getting quality medication. frankkrauseautomotive.com viagra in stores If you make thorough online research, then you must notice the web-based reviews of Kamdeepak Capsules as these capsules can promote normal glucose level both in blood and the person is diagnosed with high blood glucose level symptoms, regular inclusion of cinnamon in diet also helps in preventing indigestion, curing migraine and reducing arthritis pain. levitra for sale Jacques Charles was pilot of the hydrogen-filled tadalafil cialis balloon.
Google predicts that by 2030 this plan will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent from current levels.
Google, of course, uses a huge amount of electricity in its “server farms” and says its energy costs may soon outweigh its hardware costs. Some have suggested that Google’s real goal is to get the taxpayers to subsidize reductions in electricity costs.
Still, Google’s plan is far more detailed, with a more realistic timetable, than Obama’s. Curiously, Google’s CEO says he prefers Obama’s plan to the one put together by his own staff. But then, he “also dinged Republicans for using the term ‘clean coal,'” when in fact Obama’s platform also calls for clean coal.
Still, it isn’t clear why the government needs to intervene as intrusively as Google proposes. If oil prices continue to go up, people will use less of it. If they don’t go up, why should we invest trillions to save oil? If global warming is a problem, why won’t a carbon tax or carbon-trading scheme do the job — why do we need all these other regulations, targets, and bureaucracies?
Part of Google’s plan calls for paying people to replace their cars every 13 years instead of the current rate of every 19 years. Why should we throw away all of those cars before they wear out? Did Google calculate the energy (not to mention greenhouse gas) cost of building all those new cars?
Whatever the answers to these questions, one thing is clear. Google is not asking anyone to live in higher densities or give up their cars for transit. Instead of trying to change people’s lifestyles, it is focusing on reducing the impacts of people’s lifestyle choices, whatever those choices may be. That is a much better strategy than the California program that will greatly increase housing and transportation costs for only tiny reductions in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
Though for that matter there has never been any energy crisis in the USA.
Just cheap lazy people going through emotions & complaining about the price of gasoline.
“Google is not asking anyone to live in higher densities or give up their cars for transit.”
I’m not sure I’ve heard anyone (at least on this blog) argue for people giving up their cars or mandating living in higher densities. Many argue for subsidies for rail and regulations that allow for higher densities in “urban” areas. If you think that the planner types on this blog want to mandate what you are implying they are, you are dead wrong. O’Toole your stupid quips make you the Karl Rove of the status quo proponents. The argument for more transit (road or rail) has nothing to do with people giving up their cars. The argument I have heard for higher density, is one of choice. That is the main difference from you and planners, as I see it. You are okay with subsidies as long as it supports the status quo, which happens to work well for you. When people make suggestions for changing the status quo, you distort their argument, in an attempt to paint them as elitist that want to make rich white guys in the Northwest live in condos and ride the bus. I would argue that YOU are in fact the elitist O’Toole, who wants to keep people who are not in your demographic from having choices that allow for a different lifestyle than your own.
My cousin once had lunch with Karl Rove, but that’s some thing else.
bennett wrote:
> I’m not sure I’ve heard anyone (at least on this blog) argue for people giving
> up their cars or mandating living in higher densities.
Ever heard of Smart Growth?
> Many argue for subsidies for rail and regulations that allow for higher
> densities in “urban†areas.
Anyone in the U.S. that argues for mass transit that runs on steel wheels and
rails is, by implication, arguing for large capital and operating subsidies.
Many, though not all, want rail so that high-density residential developments
can be constructed, frequently for other people to live in.
> If you think that the planner types on this blog want to mandate what you are
> implying they are, you are dead wrong.
(1) What is a “planner type?”
(2) Have you conducted a census of all “planner types” that visit this blog?
Ever heard of Smart Growth?
This is bullsh!t.
Why is it bullsh!t?
Please go to the goals of any SG development and cut-paste for us the goals that state this. Don’t mistakenly or purposely conflate TOD with SG.
We await patiently for that evidence.
DS
“Smart Growth” is by no means perfect, but remember it came into being as a response to bullshit “planning”. The same with TOD.
C. P. Zilliacus wrote:
bennett wrote:
>> I’m not sure I’ve heard anyone (at least on this blog) argue for people giving
>> up their cars or mandating living in higher densities.
>Ever heard of Smart Growth?
WTF?
>> Many argue for subsidies for rail and regulations that allow for higher
>> densities in “urban†areas.
>Anyone in the U.S. that argues for mass transit that runs on steel wheels and
>rails is, by implication, arguing for large capital and operating subsidies.
That’s bullshit.
>Many, though not all, want rail so that high-density residential developments
>can be constructed, frequently for other people to live in.
Sure dude, that’s why “Suburban Trains” are so hostile to “Suburbs.”
Google’s plan looks good, although I would try other things instead.
Diesel technology. The previous generation of diesel vehicles was crude, producing a lot of muck from the exhaust pipe, and a lot of noise, for almost no acceleration, and only a small saving. In the UK, therefore, most cars were petrol cars. With new high-pressure diesel engines, however, mpg has doubled, acceleration is amazing, and the savings significant. Some cars do 70 mpg. Existing trucks and trains can be re-engined. I think that modern diesel technology, in the USA, is a no-brainer.
People have experimented with slower road speeds. Below 20mph, lighter vehicles can be used, with obvious savings in energy. There are various types of bicycles, tricyles, and quadricycles, that can be used under these conditions. Many have some or full electrical power, for those people who don’t want to pedal. Government action, though, is required to mandate the lower speed limits, enforce the lower speed limits, and kick-start the market (most of these vehicles are currently sold to enthusiasts, often at unsustainable prices).
Wind power & solar. Renewable energy can work well. The problem with wind power is that the power generation goes as the cube of the wind speed, and the square of the rotor diameter. Hence the silly little wind turbines that people can bolt to the roofs of their houses are a waste of money. Only industrial scale turbines are worth having. The turbines need to be well situated, often at the expense of nice views. The power generation comes and goes quickly, hence the power has to be stored (pumped storage, batteries) or the turbines need to be mixed with gas turbines to provided a constant power supply to the consumer.
Solar power would be a great way of powering air conditioning. If it’s sunny, the air conditioning is powered by the solar panels. If it isn’t sunny, the load on the air-conditioning is much less. There’s other things that can be done, of course. Cars, parked in open parking lots, get very hot, requiring air conditioning. If the cars were shaded, this would reduce the energy consumption. Buildings have a lot of glass. If the glass was shaded, then less air conditioning would be needed – and if the building was carefully designed, it could be passively cooled (the Moors did this 1000 years ago).
Finally, standardisation. I know that government getting involved in the design of cars and other consumables is a dirty idea, but it makes a lot of sense. If all cars come with a standard engine bay, then the car can be up-engined periodically (instead of being sent for scrap). Every gadget comes with its own inefficient power plug. Why?
C. P. Zilliacus wrote:
“Anyone in the U.S. that argues for mass transit that runs on steel wheels and rails is, by implication, arguing for large capital and operating subsidies.”
Not necessarily. Some forms of rail transport are inexpensive, for example horse trams. Ultra-light rail can be put in quite cheaply. Some municipalities buy second-hand trams. The problem comes when the municipality wants a nice new train set, paid for with central government funding. This is why we end up paying $40-60m/km, before the tunnels and elevation are added to the project. The rails cannot be lifted once installed, so all of the utilities have to be moved. The price goes up and up.
I come from a poor family, and we had to cut our cloth to match our purse. The same needs to be done with transit.
The same can applied to doing road projects too!
(1) What is a “planner type?â€Â
A generic term I use on this blog, that catagorizes people into a group that seems to advocate for government planning.
(2) Have you conducted a census of all “planner types†that visit this blog?
Not formally, but I read this blog almost every day and am familiar with some of the stances that both Antiplanners (who I have also not conducted a Census for) ands Planner types who post comments.
“Anyone in the U.S. that argues for mass transit that runs on steel wheels and
rails is, by implication, arguing for large capital and operating subsidies.
Many, though not all, want rail so that high-density residential developments
can be constructed, frequently for other people to live in.”
Yes, but this is not the equivalent of “asking someone to live in higher densities or give up their cars for transit,” it’s about arguing for a different choice. Nobody is moving into “New Urbanist” areas with rail transit that don’t want to. If you want a single family house and a car, that is fantastic. I haven’t heard anybody ask anybody else to give that up.
Francis King —> As a cyclist who opposes bike lanes, one of the things I’ve seen as an alternative are full out near only bike streets where here and there cars enter but it’s a through street for bikes with cars being able to sneak on each block to park. Some sort of max 18 MPH street would accommodate these low-HP, light vehicles and probably still a pretty safe mix. Now how practical these are to implement is another matter.
Now I’m wondering if Mr.King starts his car by turning crank on the front of it?
“Some sort of max 18 MPH street would accommodate these low-HP, light vehicles and probably still a pretty safe mix”
Just like a century ago.
Of course that is the goal of many planners and smart growth types – to return to the lost days of 100 years ago.
Generally they are two stupid to realize that they will also re-create the standard of living of that time and get lost of people killed due to poverty.
thanks
JK,
I used to live in a small town of about 3,000 year round residents. The speed limit throughout the entire town was 15mph. Funny enough there was a relatively high proportion of millionaires that owned home in the communities. I also find your clam amusing seeing as how many here in Austin spent over an hour commuting on highways with a speed limit of 65mph but rarely are able to go over 18mph. Plus I think that prk was advocating for a minimal number of streets with such a limit.
Highwayman wrote:
“Now I’m wondering if Mr.King starts his car by turning crank on the front of it? ”
Worse that that – I don’t own a car. My mother does, though.
I walk most places when I’m in Bath, but when I visit my mother for a few weeks, we go everywhere in the car. So, I can see both sides of the debate.
bennett wrote:
“Plus I think that prk was advocating for a minimal number of streets with such a limit. ”
Even if larger areas were speed limited, it may be faster to go slower. The time taken to travel along a road is dwarfed in the urban environment by the delays at junctions. Congestion starts where there are pinch points, and most junction types – yield, roundabout, signalised – have much less capacity than the road themselves. Only free-flow grade-separated wedding-cake junctions don’t have this problem – these are expensive, ugly and noisy, and not suitable for use in urban areas.
During off-peak times, it will probably take a bit longer to get somewhere at 20mph. In the UK, the standard urban speed is 30mph, so a mile will take an extra minute. So, if someone drive three miles to work though a town or city in the UK at 20mph, it will take an extra three minutes. What else could they do with three minutes? A good guess is that they will spend time around the water cooler, or on another rest break. (Me, cynical, moi?)
During the peak times, the same journey could easily be increased by 20 minutes, due to the junctions locking up. It is only neccessary to knock about 10% off the junction delays to get the three minutes back. When cars move slowly, junctions become more efficient. Which is the result of the famous experiment in Drachten, Holland.
This is before we get onto questions of quality of life. Residential areas are for people to live, they are not provided as a short cut for fast-moving cars.
The biggest problem is to convince the person behind the steering wheel that going slower is better for everyone (which it is), when they can only see going slower as imposing a major cost on themselves. This isn’t helped by the fact that cars are designed to isolate the user from every feeling of speed. 20mph on a bicycle feels fast, whereas in a saloon car it feels very slow – even though its the same speed.
jk seems to have overlooked how commonplace 25mph speed limits are in the USA.
The approach to achieving energy independence or addressing carbon emmissions really should begin by looking at the combination of economic, technological and regulatory factors that led to recycling becoming such a major component of the steel and aluminium industries. In isolation none of those three factors would have created the situation that exists today. For those two industries serendipity produced the right combinations in the right sequences. Legislators need to look at the technology available today, it’s cost versus energy costs and then ensure that the necessary regulation and/or deregulation is put in place. Especially to ensure that energy subsidies aren’t pricing energy efficiency out of the market place. Remember that in a free market the invisible hand regards energy efficiency products as part of the energy market and guides buyers collective decisions towards the most economicly efficient means of satisfying the economy’s energy needs. Direct or indirect subsidies distort the market and prevent it functioning correctly. Unfortunately humans have a natural resistance to change and democracy has become a tool used by the masses to resist change or to ward off the threat of the unknown. When that results in subsidies to protect the “vulnerable”, be it voters or industries, the market is prevented from ushering in change in a smooth fashion.
Saving vast amounts of energy isn’t expensive as long as you take the time to go right back to the very basics when answering the question “why are we using energy to do this work?” For instance, airconditioning is needed partly because of solar gain through windows or solar absorption by carparks. That can be reduced by planting deciduous trees to provide shade in summer. Those trees will also evapotranspirate which helps cool the air in arid climates. By digging a little deeper we discover an inexpensive way to reduce a/c loads that is physicly remote from the a/c “system” simply because we expanded the definition of the system to include the heat sources as well as the physical plant.
Applying the same approach to hybrid autos has led European manufacturers to combine the alternator and starter motor then place both under the control of the engine management computer. Now when the the throttle fully closes the alternator/starter motor (ASM) can be instructed to generate at high voltage to supply a fsat cycle battery. When the car stops the engine is turned off. When the accellerator is pressed again the engine is started and when the clutch is let out the high voltage battery is powers the starter motor to provide more acceleration without using more fuel. That delivers most of the benefits of a hybrid without the need for expensive specialised batteries or extensive structural changes to existing vehicles.
Perhaps the simplest energy saving technique of all is to replace wornout black top with greytop, using cement to bind the stone chips instead of bitumen. This simple change increases the surface reflectance enough to reduce the amount of streetlighting needed. More importantly it reduces the amount of solar heat gain thus reducing a/c loads in both the cars and buses using the roads or carparks and the buildings alongside the road or carpark.
I found this, and wanted to share it with you…
http://www.bikeengines.com/
There’s a video by Chris dated May 15th, 2008.
It shows:
A gentleman using a hybrid bicycle with petrol drive.
It shows him undertaking cars in the bicycle lane (I’m not sure about the legality of undertaking on a motorised vehicle…)
The low speed of the commuting traffic
Francis King wrote:
“Worse that that – I don’t own a car. My mother does, though.
I walk most places when I’m in Bath, but when I visit my mother for a few weeks, we go everywhere in the car. So, I can see both sides of the debate.”
I can see both sides of the debate as well, but I at least try to keep things in context.