Could the US go Carbon Neutral?

[A-Wing_Slash]

Would it be technically feasible for the United States to go carbon neutral, or at least within shouting distance of that goal? Obviously, it is not a politically viable idea, but I'd like to take at least a brief break from climate cynicism. There is precedent for massive public works programs in the US after all. If we take the height of the New Deal as the upper limit of what can be accomplished within the American system, and imagine what a landslide victory for Progressive Democrats and Green Party candidates in 2016 might lead to, how much could the US actually do to fight climate change?

A significant carbon tax, or a well designed cap and trade system, would be a good place to start. Without concurrent investments in alternative energy and transportation systems though such a tax could turn out to be regressive, and a drag on the economy at large.

If there was money to spend though, it might be possible to eliminate energy production from fossil fuels. A series of TVA-style public renewable energy corporations (Wind farms on the coasts and in windy areas, huge solar plants in the sunny southwest, more hydropower if there are good locations left), tied together in shiny new national smart grid, and backed up by a dedicated nuclear power program, would take a while to build but would solve that problem. If clean coal were actually viable that might make a nice addition to the mix too.

At the same time we could start a massive public transit construction program. Very few American cities have good public transit systems, and even our best ones could use some expansion or upgrades. A program to put decent subway/light rail/tram/bus networks in every major metropolitan area would save a lot of pollution. If it went along with federal support for transit-oriented development, it would probably have a lot of additional benefits as well. Rural and suburban areas would be trickier, but I think a well designed and funded bus system could bring reliable public transportation within reach of a decent majority of non-urban America.

A full transition to electric automobiles might be an easier solution, but most likely a bit of both would probably be called for. Combining that with building a national high speed rail system should reduce demand for air travel, though planes might be one area where their utility could still outweigh their carbon cost. Lastly, if we found a good solution for stuff like cow methane, and mandated as much energy efficiency measure as we could get away with, we'd have a grand blueprint for an emission free America.

Obviously, this would require stupendous amounts of money. We dropped a cool trillion each on the stimulus and the bailouts, but I shudder to think how many trillions it would actually take to accomplish what I just laid out. However, a carbon tax would raise some money, and there is certainly room for massive potential for other revenue increases if we had the political will to raise taxes significantly. We also can still borrow massive amounts of money at pretty low rates. And if we shifted fully to clean energy, we'd then have oceans of natural gas we could export to other countries to use as bridge fuels and alternatives to oil and coal.

Such a massive construction program would also have major economic benefits. It'd provide for a shitload of jobs, particularly if much of the construction was done by some sort of neo-WPA, and an actual jobs program would offset a lot of costs from welfare and long term unemployment. If the machinery for the energy and transportation programs were sourced from within the US, that would provide a huge boost for manufacturing. This would also give us a pretext for renegotiating trade agreements in our favor, though how exactly I don't know.

In total its clearly a non-starter within the actual US political climate, and would be a tall order even if a Captain Planet/Zombie FDR ticket won the White House, and would take a long time to go from start to finish, but as a thought experiment its nice to think just how much we could get done if the US was able to address long term issues with maturity and intelligence.

Anything I've missed? Is there a better way to accomplish this same goal?

[Darth Tanner]

You would need to replace around 83% of the current US energy supply - lots of which still can't practically be done with current technology as electric vehicles simply lack the range for some Americans.

Nearly anything can be done with infinite money though, and getting the USA carbon neutral is likely to need infinite money.

Replacing your current generation of fossil fuel power stations (776GW worth) for nuclear would cost in the region of 3.3 quadrillion dollars at half the price of current build in the UK. (242 new 3.2GW power stations)

You could discount this to 2.7 quadrillion dollars using the cost of the Flamanville 1.6GW reactor - although this is an extension to an existing site.

Obviously a forced roll-out of electric cars, high speed rail and electrification of existing infrastructure is going to push this number up significantly.

[Darmalus]

From what I understand, most of the cost of nuclear is the design and approval process, since each plant is effectively a unique design. If there was a single design and you could just plonk down carbon copies all over the place, the price would come down a lot, though I'm not sure how much.

Edit: There are also carbon negative things like biochar, but I don't think you can scale those up to be significant.

[madd0ct0r]

To actually do this, you need to be thinking long term.

It's one thing to calculate the cost of replacing all power stations with nuclear, but in reality it'd be a phase-out-phase-in policy, where the nucelar power plants replace older power stations that are coming to the end of their life and need to be replaced anyway.
That massively changes the economics of it. Tanner - do you have an estimate of how much of that cost is land value?

Same with electric cars. make it policy that from 2020 only electric cars can be sold new and (apart from being lynched) by 2060 you'll have nearly 100% electric cars on the road. The only actual extra cost comes if in 2025 new electric cars cost more then new petrol cars.

Biochar is vaugley interesting - collect biomass, woody especially. Heat it under anaerobic conditions, get flammable gas, flammable oils and biochar (charcoal) out of it. Use the first two as fuels, bury the last. Carbon sequestered. The US has a large enough forestry industry to get some use out of it, but anything involving widespread biofuels is limited by water needs.

[Darth Tanner]

To actually do this, you need to be thinking long term.

Definitely, unfortunately long term thinking in terms of infrastructure seems to escape most governments these days. Even France is likely to fall out of the long term viewpoint with its investment in nuclear being atrophied by shitty politicians.

The UK seems condemned to a dash for gas policy for the short term anyway.

That massively changes the economics of it. Tanner - do you have an estimate of how much of that cost is land value?

No idea I'm afraid - both projects that I quoted are on existing nuclear sites so I'd guess land costs would be minimal... could be wrong that though, phasing construction over the next 50-100 years would definitely help lower costs but its going to be cheaper to put up a CCGT/coal for a significant amount of time compared to nuclear.

If there was a single design and you could just plonk down carbon copies all over the place, the price would come down a lot, though I'm not sure how much.

There was a recent presentation before a parliamentary committee on small scale nuclear reactors that could be manufactured from a central assembly line and distributed globally in single piece units. Their brilliant stuff but its still just on the drawing board which likely means a good 30 odd years before their ready for even live fire testing - plus smaller units will always be less efficient in terms of energy at least. Financially their considered significantly more efficient as you can start a return on capital almost immediately compared to a decade of construction risk for conventional plant.

Same with electric cars. make it policy that from 2020 only electric cars can be sold new

Although a brave policy I agree it would be suicide for any politician to propose.

The only actual extra cost comes if in 2025 new electric cars cost more then new petrol cars.

This is the case though isn't it - electric cars are significantly more expensive than comparable combustion cars? Also there would be massive cost from having to change global car production chains within a 6 year period. Although if Telsa gets its new battery mega factory going this could address that problem to some degree.

[madd0ct0r]

A 2012 article notes the electric is cheaper, but really really hates the 50mile range at the time: http://www.watchmywallet.co.uk/travel-l ... trol-cars/

A 2014 article is rather more bullish: http://cleantechnica.com/2014/04/01/ele ... untry-car/
They reckon sales are driven mostly by fuel cost differentials, not the upfront cost (which makes sense, since most people buy new cars using a loan)

US oil and gaslonie prices haven't moved much over that period: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/repor ... troleum-b1

[Darth Tanner]

Woosh! £78 monthly battery lease on top of a £18.3k car! I could buy my car after 4 years just from the battery.

An amusing story I saw in the media a while ago seems appropriate...

linky

[madd0ct0r]

An electric charging point is occupied in price gouging? What's your point?

[Darth Tanner]

Just that its strikes a serious blow against the lower operating cost of electric vehicles if this is the way things are going to go. People would have to stick to home charging to maintain their cost effectiveness if chargers at the most convenient locations are going to charge rates similar to just buying diesel.

Obviously as charging points are rolled out the opportunity for price gouging like this will be diminished.

[Me2005]

This is the case though isn't it - electric cars are significantly more expensive than comparable combustion cars? Also there would be massive cost from having to change global car production chains within a 6 year period. Although if Telsa gets its new battery mega factory going this could address that problem to some degree.

A good comparison is the Nissan Leaf to the Nissan Versa. They're (or were, anyway) essentially the same chassis. Google says the Leaf starts at $28,980 and the (new) Versa at $13,990 (difference of $14,990 - or the cost of a whole second Versa hatchback, upgraded slightly over the first one). The Versa gets 31-40 MPG, the Leaf claims 84 miles per charge with a 24 kWh battery pack.

[K. A. Pital]

Impossible. American car culture isn't just all-pervasive and full of derison towards anything non-car (rail, electromobile), it's also toxic, demanding nothing less but love towards a few tons of steel meant to move you around. Automobile is a great invention. It is also why the US won't go carbon neutral, and even if politicians were dead set on it, that would not help.

Sexiness of the electromobile is overhyped. People will enjoy riding a few as toys, but faced with the necessity to go pure electro they simply won't do it. Even 'pure hybrid' will remain a dream too distant to achieve.

Unlike Europe where Eurobureaucrats can make life intolerable for 'car enthusiasts', if they so desire, and they have a super-dense passenger rail network, or China, where the government can go ahead and burn as much cash to go 'pure electro' as they see fit, the US can't be reformed in that aspect. Just as in many others.

[Simon_Jester]

Impossible. American car culture isn't just all-pervasive and full of derison towards anything non-car (rail, electromobile), it's also toxic, demanding nothing less but love towards a few tons of steel meant to move you around. Automobile is a great invention. It is also why the US won't go carbon neutral, and even if politicians were dead set on it, that would not help.

A lot of Americans aren't really part of the car culture.

A lot are part of 'car culture' in that they value their cars... but have good reason to value it, because it cost them many thousands of dollars and they use it regularly for things that could not be easily replaced. Affection for a tool often has a lot to do with whether that tool is a necessity for life.

I mean, is it 'house culture' if people value the opportunity to own a house, and get upset if houses are damaged? Sure, lots of people all over the world do not own their homes, but having a place in the world to call one's own is a pretty common thing and a common aspiration for both individuals and peoples. And houses are valuable property, representing a great investment of labor and wealth, and one that you spend a lot of time with every day so it takes on sentimental value. So if someone vandalizes your house or tries to take it away, you have good cause to be unhappy.

If people resist being removed from houses and told they can't buy new ones except under severe conditions, do you automatically assume it's all because of an illogical "house culture?"

Unlike Europe where Eurobureaucrats can make life intolerable for 'car enthusiasts', if they so desire, and they have a super-dense passenger rail network, or China, where the government can go ahead and burn as much cash to go 'pure electro' as they see fit, the US can't be reformed in that aspect. Just as in many others.

As fuel prices escalate to where gasoline bills become a major expense for the middle class, we will see the illogical side of 'car culture' pushed into a smaller and smaller minority. There are only so many people who will willfully pursue a hobby or fixation that costs them thousands of dollars a year.

But at the same time, until that point is reached, it continues to make economic sense for the average consumer to own a gasoline-fired car. All other options are more expensive (electric cars), more restrictive (relying on sparse mass transit that can take hours to cover a distance that would take 20-30 minutes in a car), or both.

The only way to hasten the decline of 'car culture' would be to arbitrarily make the cars more expensive... which has the effect of increasing the average citizen's cost of living, because they either drive the more-expensive cars, or pursue other options that are at best only a little less costly. While this may have desirable long-term consequences, it is very punitive in the short term compared to measures like emissions control standards that work to gradually decrease emissions and improve fuel economy over time.

[K. A. Pital]

Note that the unprecended recent escalation of fuel prices did not make the US carbon neutral, and I don't hope it ever will.

Punitive effect is sometimes necessary. The closure of the paper plant on lake Baikal cost many people their very jobs, but otherwise we'd lose the largest freshwater reservoir and a unique ecosystem forever. For all of mankind.

Same applies to cars.

[madd0ct0r]

by 'recent', what time frame are you talking about?

[Me2005]

Let's take the numbers I gave above and work through the cost of owning electric cars:
Versa: $13,990, +/- 300 mile range @ 31 mpg
Leaf: $28,980, 84 mile range @ 24 Kwh
Difference: $14,990

Assuming gas costs $4/gallon ($0.30-0.40 more than it does now), the Versa will cost $1,935.48 in fuel to go 15,000 miles in a year (an average distance traveled annually). By comparison, the Leaf, at $0.15/kwh, will cost $642.86 to go the same distance.
Difference: $1,292.62/yr

Taking those, it'll take 11-1/2 years to make up the difference in cost between buying a Leaf and buying the gas-powered Versa, just based on energy costs.

But then there's also the matter of maintenance. I suspect both cars require similar amounts of maintenance, except the Versa requires oil & filter changes and the Leaf requires battery pack replacement. Oil changes should happen 4-5x per year and would cost around $200 annually. We'll call it $400 to pick up some extra stuff later in the vehicle's life.

The Leaf doesn't need that. I'm not sure what the maintenance schedule looks like but it seems like there wouldn't be much that the Versa doesn't have other than the battery. While battery capacity is a complex topic, it sounds like you could reasonably expect 7 years out of any given battery pack, as long as you don't live in AZ, TX, CA, or any other hot climate. Battery packs for the Leaf will cost $5,500 (likely at Nissan's loss) plus installation, conservatively another $150. We'll prorate that annually for comparison, which makes it $807/yr.

Adding in those costs to the original numbers, the Versa costs $2,335.48/yr and the Leaf costs $1,449.86/yr - a difference of $885.62. To make up the original sticker-price difference, it'd take 17 years - frankly, well beyond either car's life-expectancy as they'd have 255,000 miles on them.

However, most energy in the US is used by Industry, followed by transportation, household, and commercial. So the above is something of a moot point - you'd need to deal with it to reduce transportation emissions to 0 at some point, but you'd need to reduce industrial and household carbon emissions to make a significant dent in the overall.

[K. A. Pital]

One thing missing from your calculation is the pathetic range of electric vehicles. It is not an equal replacement, and until they squeeze some 500+ km from an ordinary electric car battery, it won't be.

[madd0ct0r]

why, do you drive 500km+ daily?

Most people's 'daily travel time budget' doesn't exceed 1.5 hours. (it's normally less, between 1-1.5 hrs. FIG 1 https://www.nae.edu/Publications/Bridge ... ility.aspx)

Let's pick the lower of the US speed limits, 70mph but assume you drive at that speed ALL the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limi ... ted_States

1.5 hrs at 70mph = 105 miles or ~ 170km daily. That's bigger then the leaf's 84 mile range, but a hell of a lot smaller then your ass pull of 500+km.

---

Should we be considering emissions in china when they're making stuff for americans?

[Darth Tanner]

The problem is that the Leafs 84 mile range for example would be both ways so your car can only travel 42 miles - and that's assuming you have a fully charged brand new battery and drove to the manufacturers recommendations, and were happy to be dangerously close to your car spluttering and dying from its battery dying. As you'll most likely be restricted to charging at home for some time to come you will essentially have to have a second car to drive further away which is rather a large downside considering your paying extra for the feature.

Obviously that might be ok for a two car family that has a commute to work inside that distance but a one car family it would be a massive liability. And that's without American crazy driving habits that have them do so many miles.

[Borgholio]

I personally am looking forward to the new Tesla Model 3. That will have a ~200 mile range and cost 35k...much more affordable than their higher end models and more reasonable than current EVs given the range you get out of the thing. I could easily do nearly two full daily commutes before recharging (I live about 60mi away from work).

[Me2005]

One thing missing from your calculation is the pathetic range of electric vehicles. It is not an equal replacement, and until they squeeze some 500+ km from an ordinary electric car battery, it won't be.

It's not missing, it's right at the top after the price. There's just no way to compare that numerically, except to assume that the vehicle will be used only for commuting and not for holiday trips. 84 miles per day is way more than the 15,000 miles I used for annual miles traveled, so the distance isn't unreasonable for the vehicle.

why, do you drive 500km+ daily?

Not necessarily daily, but there are several weekend holiday trips I'd make that are 200-500 miles. As a replacement car, the Leaf (or just about any electric) can't make those trips like any gas car can. I'm actually not even sure how you'd go about it- do you plug in at a gas station or restaurant and just wait? A hotel? Do you search for a dealer and hope they'll recharge you?

That plays into the immediate cost of the car - it's got to pay off to make sense and it's for daily commuting only; until they get charging stations ubiquitously installed (not far-fetched, but still some years out).

The problem is that the Leafs 84 mile range for example would be both ways so your car can only travel 42 miles...

I'd assume you could also charge while at work, so you can probably go closer to the 84 number than not. That'd cover any daily commuting I'd want to do either way though. One difficult-to-calculate benefit I just took at face value - an ICE car uses fuel while stuck in traffic, an electric does not (unless you're running all the accessories). I did use the lower MPG value for the Versa, so there's that.

[K. A. Pital]

Restricting the use of a vehicle to commuting makes it very unattractive compared to a normal car, unless we are talking about two-car households.

[Me2005]

Restricting the use of a vehicle to commuting makes it very unattractive compared to a normal car, unless we are talking about two-car households.

No disagreement there. But I've got no easy way to compare it to the opportunity cost of holiday/extended travel - that it doesn't make sense for commuting and that it can't do those extended trips should show the point well enough though.

[Borgholio]

The thing about electric cars isn't so much the range as it is the charging time. Tesla can charge in 20 - 30m with the supercharger network so having a 20m stop every 2 or 3 hours isn't so bad. Gives you time to stretch your legs and use the restroom while the battery fills up. But with the Leaf or any other "common" EV, it takes hours to charge up and there's no pre-built charging network.

[Darmalus]

How did the early car industry deal with the time before the common gas station?

Impossible. American car culture isn't just all-pervasive and full of derison towards anything non-car (rail, electromobile), it's also toxic, demanding nothing less but love towards a few tons of steel meant to move you around. Automobile is a great invention. It is also why the US won't go carbon neutral, and even if politicians were dead set on it, that would not help.

A lot of Americans aren't really part of the car culture.

I'd argue most of us are more held hostage by the car culture. I can drive to school in 15 minutes, or take mass transit for 90 minutes (assuming no delays).

[Borgholio]

How did the early car industry deal with the time before the common gas station?

They carried much of their fuel with them. Same as with water for the radiator before antifreeze / coolant was developed.

I'd argue most of us are more held hostage by the car culture. I can drive to school in 15 minutes, or take mass transit for 90 minutes (assuming no delays).

That's not so much an issue with car culture as it is with the city planning being unsuited for mass transit. When most of your population lives in single family homes or small apartments spread out over an area larger than some entire states (thinking LA County here) ...that kind of density makes mass transit more of an afterthought than a viable competitor to the car.