• With oil at $100 per barrel, foreign oil dependency is a $0.7 trillion annual drag on the economy, yet this figure—$7 trillion over ten years—is usually excluded from consideration of "cost competitive" for measures that would end it.
• Implementation of a foreign oil dependency reduction strategy will reduce world prices and sap willpower to complete the program.
• Recession depresses oil use and reduces prices. Instead of utilizing the few years of low prices to build the needed systems, American leaders are most likely to use financial hard times as an excuse for inaction.

Principles

Electricity: there is wide consenus that a 21st energy system—encompassing generation/collection, transmission/storage, and uses—must be all- or mostly-electric. Fossil fuels will become progressively more and more unaffordable due to scarcity, price, and environmental costs. Whether the light vehicle transportation fuel will be batteries or hydrogen, the energy system must be all- or mostly-electric.
• The goal of any energy plan must be
  • Permanent. Stopgap measures will be needed for transition but cannot be confused with solutions. By the same token, mitigation and elimination are different. Mitigation (of foreign oil use, of greenhouse gas emissions) is temporary. Elimination is permanent. And any solution must be nearly fully working by 2050.
  • Comprehensive. The components are obvious: management; non-emitting energy sources (wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, and other renewable energy); transmission/storage (renewables can only replace coal if integrated storage is used); and transformation of use (xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Specific and Quantitative.
• Priorities: Foreign Oil Dependency exposes America to sudden catastrophic costs, costs that can preclude countering global climate change by stealing the resources necessary to build a new energy system. Thus, when there is a choice of priorities, eliminating foreign oil dependency must come first.
• Realities
• p

End Points

Start with where America needs to go, End Points; 12 years (2020), and 40 years (2050) hence are reasonable targets.

First, how big must the system be in 2050?

Energy Requirements in 2050:

• Energy use normally tracks population. The U.S. Census Bureau forecasts a population increase from 300 million in 2008 to 439 million in 2050, a 46% gain. Even with efficiency advances due to the use of advanced electric vehicles, other new demands will require more energy simply due to population increases.
• Global climate change is forecast to cause doughts in the midwest and increased population will require more food to be farmed. These changes will likely require massive amounts of additional energy for desalination and for long-distance movement of water for irrigation.
• The fossil system—heavily stressed today—will be unlikely to come close to meeting these new demands at reasonable or predictable cost.

The End Points:

• By 2020: Energy developments under the control of a National Energy Independence Authority (NEIA); free of foreign oil dependency (28 Q-Btu of oil reductions); domestic heavy truck diesel at a predictable price of $2.00 per gallon (plus tax); light trucks and cars largely converted to advanced electric (plug-in hybrid or hydrogen); a National Grid (HVDC/CAES) built out to serve most of the nation; wind power built out; 7 Q-Btu of biofuels from biomass replacing coal to liquids; solar ready for build-out; and emissions diminished from 2008.
• By 2050: Advances from 2020 to 2050 (light vehicles fully converted to advanced electric; A 21st Century Energy System, encompassing non-emitting generation, energy storage (CAES), transport (HVDC), and use. Energy systems largely emission-free, almost infinitely expandable, domestically-sourced, cheap, and stable priced, a true 21st Century energy sytem. Emissions at 16% of 2005 levels.

Parsing the Choices

Recognize Time Frames: The return of high oil prices, even catastrophic prices, is likely as soon as the recession eases. Unless one wishes to bet the farm on plentiful world oil and low prices forever, elimination of oil dependency must take first priority.

Recognize False Choices:

• To eliminate oil dependency requires 28 Q-Btu of oil reduction (all imported oil), not 7 Q-Btu (the Middle East plus Venezuela).
• To achieve either of the End Points will require the electrification of light vehicles (13.4 Q-Btu) within about a decade. While energy savings will

Pick Something that Works. With What will work, what won't, what is proved technology.

Sequence Matters: Getting to the End Points will require selecting the best strategies in the correct sequence. For example, it is possible to concentrate so hard on eliminating coal early that the nation will be unable to achieve either energy independence or reduction of CO2 emissions to 84% of 2005 levels.

Be able to apply a time frame, using data.

"Cost efficiency"

"We need to save energy."

"Algae to oil; high efficiency solar panels; concentrated solar storage; energy from satellites to Earth; roll-top roofing solar panels..." and other wonders are all unproven choices.

"Rooftop solar; private windmills;

"Market mechanisms should lead us to energy independence."

Price volataility.

Savings, zero sum with Chinese.

Biofuel capacity for U.S. Perlack study.

The NEI Plan was developed using a few practical rules to narrow choices.

The net effect in the summer of 2008 was a world oil delivery system that could not meet demand. The result was oil peaking at $147 per barrel, then world demand collapsing along with the world economic recession.

The choices available to deal with energy threats

Practical standards—

Briefly, what are the options/alternatives available to America? What are the choices among them? They fall into a number of clusters.

Here is an overview:

• [a] America uses 40 Q-Btu of oil each year and imports 28 Q-Btu, 70%. The foreign oil dependency threats to America already exist; more can materialize in a week; a real world oil price crisis—the permanent return of oil prices above $100 or even $200-$300 per barrel is almost certain wtihin a decade. In the decade following 1998, oil prices increased more than tenfold from a low of $12.80 per barrel in March of 1998 to over $100 a decade later. Who is to say that a similar price rise is not highly likely to happen again when the worldwide recession ends?
  The response to oil dependency, construction of plants to exploit domestic fossil energy sources to provide 7 Q-Btu of liquid fuels from coal and the extraction of another 4 Q-Btu of oil from depleted wells (all at no increase of CO2), the expansion of existing infrastructure, and the development of 7 Q-Btu of biomass sources, will take about 12 years.
• [Common to both] Spanning the elimination of oil dependency and the eliminiation of America's contribution to climate change, lie two measures that are solutions to both problems.
  • The electrification of light trucks and autos (13.4 QBtu), which—if vehicle production increases from 17,000 (2007) to 30,000 for 10 years—can enable most of the transition to electric vehicles to be made in 12 years.
  • Implementation of conservation (no value given, due to the temporary nature of conservation). Every saving will buy more time before the pricing crisis, but it will only be temporary because Chinese and Indian growth will swamp any savings. In effect, they will say, "Thank you very much," and fill the void left by U.S. conservation.
• [b] Global climate change is a massive threat, and the externalities from burning fossil fuels are not yet generally recognized and funded. For example, one study from Harvard estimates that 17,000 additional early deaths result each year from the burning of coal in power plants. What are these lives worth? What will year 2080 dikes for New York and Florida cost? What would a reasonable sinking fund—taken from (supposedly cheap) coal generation income today—for these expenses be?  
  The response to global climate change—building a new energy system—takes decades of construction and costs trillions of dollars. The current system cost about $14 trillion and $5.4 trillion additional will be required to get to 2030. A new 21st Century system will cost less, will deliver more energy for less, and can be paid for off the federal budget in the same manner as any public utility—bonds paid for from a portion of energy sales.

utilizing fossil fuels for transition while building the renewable infrastructure to eliminate, not "mitigate," America's contribution to global climate change. Solutions to climate change—which will take much longer than a decade—must be integrated into any plan. However, if allowed to dominate the planning, allowing global climate change considerations to predominate choices can short-circut success in eliminating oil dependency.

How, and in what sequence, national leaders grapple with this destructive pair will determine how they will be viewed in history. While sufficient domestic transitional fuels currently exist at affordable prices.

Today, the nation faces a liquid fuels problem compounded by natural gas, coal, and biofuel limits that cannot sustain the doubling of use that would accompany a serious attempt to replace oil with domestic liquid fuels.

. Leaders who focus on the wrong threat first, or who fail to anticipate the price crisis to come are unlikely to survive their current term.

McIntosh, Alabama in 1991, Huntorf (Germany) in 1978,

Liquid fuels, gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel, come from oil. The history of oil can be interpreted as follows:

The cost of the current fossil infrastructure for the U.S. is about $14 trillion: [list]

The recent track record of private industry in the energy sector

Occidental Petroleum president and CFO, Stephen I. Chazen, noted in November 2008, that if there is no limit to what the world can pay there is no limit to the amount of oil.

"At some price, as far as we can tell, you can always extract more somehow. If you knew the price was going to be $100, you would extract more than if you knew the price was going to be $60, because you can afford to put more in the ground to do that. And I think that's the real question. Is there plenty at $30 a barrel? The answer is no, I don't think so. Is there plenty at $250 a barrel? The answer is yes, I think so."
http://online.wsj.com:80/article/SB122660974344125631.html?mod=dist_smartbrief

However, using 2007 economic numbers, $300 oil is 14.2% of the world's GDP; $250 oil is 11.8%; $21 oil is 1%. In 1998. oil was under $10 per barrel. At what point does energy stop being an accelerant for growth and start being a sea anchor for the economy? At what point do the dangers posed by oil and fossil fuels exceed their value?  Many Americans believe that the tipping point has been reached.

Reasons that discussion of reserves tend to be irrelevant. Bad data. Bias. Rutledge. Rates are verifiable. Quote from above: "World "reserves" of oil, gas, and coal are the subject of dueling experts, "peak oil" versus "cornucopia" theories. Such discussions of "reserves" tend to be irrelevant, biased, and often unverifiable."

Deffeyes at Princeton. Link.

Oil production obviously cannot consume 100 percent of the world's income. My intuitive, uninformed guess is that it cannot go above 15 percent. If we see oil at $300 per barrel, we will be looking out over the smoldering ruins of the world's economy.

Kenneth Deffeyes
Current Events
May 27th, 2008
Oil Production, Oil Price
http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/current-events-08-05.html

How big is the problem? Multiplying production (barrels per year) times the oil price (dollars per barrel) gives a total cost in dollars per year. It's an enormous number; tens of trillions of dollars per year. To put a scale on it, the three thin curves on the graph show the oil cost in contrast to the total world domestic product; the annual value the goods and services added up for all the world's countries. The three curves show the oil cost at one percent, two and a half percent, and five percent of the total world economic output. At $130 this morning, we are at six and a half percent.

Oil production obviously cannot consume 100 percent of the world's income. My intuitive, uninformed guess is that it cannot go above 15 percent. If we see oil at $300 per barrel, we will be looking out over the smoldering ruins of the world's economy.

CAES

Source: Vasilis Fthenakis, CAES for Enabling PV and Wind; opening session, 21 October 2008, Columbia University "CAES Scoping Workshop. Enabling Solar and Wind Energy Technologies on a Grand Scale."

http://www.clca.columbia.edu/papers/CAES_WorkshopReport_web.pdf

Abstract: Over the last year solar and wind have been the fastest growing segments of the U.S. and certain European energy markets. Although deployment of solar and wind in the U.S. can increase ten or twenty-fold from current levels without the need of adding storage, eventually, storage will be required for these technologies to become the major constituents of our energy mixture. Furthermore, incorporating storage in the system improves the flexibility of the grid to incorporate PV and wind generated power.

Most energy storage systems are expensive, either in capital outlays or in energy losses incurred while storing and retrieving energy. For example, batteries are costly, flywheels are suitable for short-duration storage only, pumped hydro has geographical limitations and superconducting electricity storage is experimental.

However, compressed air energy storage (CAES) is a technology that is economical for large bulk storage and can provide cycling capability, regulation and quick start for both peak and base load applications. It has been recently proposed (Solar Grand Plan) that large scale PV-CAES and wind-CAES deployment can enable these technologies to provide most of our energy needs. However, questions remain on the feasibility of such a grand plan. This workshop will focus on investigating potential technical, geographical and
economic constraints associated with large CAES deployment and on determining R&D and field testing needs at the NY state and national levels.

Summary of various plans

Oak Ridge National Labs' Oil Dependency Studies by Greene, et. al.

To capture the true cost of the "oil tax" that Americans pay each day, a series of Oak Ridge National Laboratories' studies have stated that there were not one, but four cost components to America's foreign oil dependency. Only one, (a) "wealth transfer" (the tribute), is captured by prices and volumes. The remaining three--which must be added to the tribute price are (b) the "drag" effect on GDP, (c) "macroeconomic adjustment," and (d) defense costs. Excluding defense, these three costs totaled in 2005--with prices for the Oak Ridge models held constant at $13 per barrel oil--$280 billion.

An excellent extract from the Oak Ridge analyses is at: link. http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2006/06/more_on_the_cos.html

Model: Coal-fired electrical generating plants cause 17,000 early deaths each year in the U.S.

EIA: Projection. The IEA has issued its energy report. The following is the press release (November 18, 2008): http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/11/18/iea.weo/index.html

The WEO expects China and India to account for over half the incremental energy demand, while the Middle East is predicted to become a major new demand center. Cities worldwide will increase their share of energy demand from two thirds to three quarters by 2030. Almost all of the increase in fossil-energy production will occur in non-OECD countries.

Projection: more.

The new WEO projections -- which assume no new government policies -- see energy demand increasing at the rate of 1.6 percent year on year until 2030 -- a overall increase of 45 percent. The WEO estimates this will cost $26.3 trillion, but it says the "credit squeeze" threatens to undermine investment which could create energy supply problems in the future.

Demand for coal will rise higher than any other fuel while oil demand is expected to rise from 85 million barrels per day to 106 mb/d by 2030.

Margerie:  NY Times, 18Aug08:

At a recent conference in Madrid, Christophe de Margerie, the chief executive of the French company Total, said the world would be hard-pressed to raise supplies [rate]beyond 95 million barrels a day by 2020. link

Fossil Reserves Unreliable

Water shortages and Desalination:

When asked by Rep. Waxman if his ideology pushed him to make bad decisions, Alan Greenspan said that he found a "flaw" in his governing "ideology," his world view of 40 years, that has--since the meltdown--led him to re-examine his thinking.

Links, including video:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96070766
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ6WgiHq3CE

"Why didn't the experts see the financial disaster coming?"
In retrospect, the financial micro indicators were obvious. Households and the government were borrowing too much; the administration and the federal reserve chairman believed that "markets will regulate themselves," e.g., somehow ideology trumps greed; "liars' loans" were offered on easy terms, toxic loans were bundled and sold as securities, the securities were represented to be investment grade bonds; and investment banks operated on the bigger fool theory. Yet, almost all of the experts who knew about most of the micro pieces of what was going on were blind to the macro danger. They were macro blind. In the minds of the experts, the micro indicators did not add up to risk of a macro catastrophe.

Measures available in the 1980s that are no longer available:

• The oil market is no longer a monospony, dominated by the U.S. Emerging markets, particularly China and India, are accounting for the world growth in demand.
• There was a move to natural gas, no longer available.
• Changes in industrial technology were made, and once made, cannot be made again.

1. background

2. why energy indep has appeal and

3. The motives behind

4. De-carbonization

The NEI Plan

The NEI Plan is a direct descendant of "A Solar Grand Plan," (SGP) in the January 2008 issue of Scientific American, by Zweibel, Mason, and Fthenakis. All these authors have contributed insights to the development of the NEI Plan, but particular recognition is due to James Mason, an energy economist, who contributed the models and energy insights upon which both the SGP and the NEI Plan are based.

Until publication of the NEI Plan the Solar Grand Plan was the only plan before the public that actually achieved a transition to a domestically-sourced 21st Century energy system permanently eliminating global warming emissions by the U.S. Unfortunately, it took 75 years, far in excess of the threats coming the nation's way. There are five of these energy threats, three related to oil dependence and two more.

The NEI Plan, based on quantitative models, responds to two dangers to the nation, foreign oil dependence and global climate change. It uses fossil resources, while they exist at affordable prices, in order to transition to a clean, domestically-sourced, and limitless energy system. The Plan ends oil dependency in 12 years, and, along with substatnial massive job creation, the Plan cuts national CO2 emissions permanently to 16% of 2005 levels.

Many other plans exist. Most are included within the NEI Plan. We would like to see any other plan that achieves the end states listed above within the time frames above, with self-funding.

Five Major National Threats

America's vulnerabilities have developed over half a century and the leadership from both parties. These vulnerabilities include three types of oil-related exposure, the finite nature of natural gas or coal, and global climate change.

The Foreign Oil Dependence Threat: Three Clear and Present Dangers

However, the SGP did not address the three urgent national security threats to America posed by oil dependency, each far exceeding the risks to the nation of enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

All the threats except for global climate change are based on price, and price is determined by the rate of flow of oil, gas, or coal.

• Foreign Oil Dependence. According to an Oak Ridge National Laboratories analysis of oil dependence by Greene, et.al., oil dependence is an $0.7 Trillion annual drag on the economy (based on $100 oil).
  
  
• A sudden oil shock—for example, the closing of the Hormuz Straits, or a successful attack on Ras Tanura, the major Saudi oil port, or interruption at one of many "Choke Points" around the world shown at right) can cost from $5-8 Trillion. The illustration at right comes from Senator Lugar's web site. During his term as Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he called for hearings about the effects of oil dependence on America's security.
  
  
• The "Train Wreck" scenario, an inability of rates of world supply to meet world demand, can permanently elevate oil prices above $200 per barrel.
  
  2007 World GDP was $65.61 Trillion; 2008 world demand for oil is about 85 million barrels per day. A price of $300 per barrel would be 14.2% of world GDP. One analyst noted, "If we see oil at $300 per barrel, we will be looking out over the smoldering ruins of the world's economy."
  
  It can happen. In 1998 oil was under $15 per barrel; in 2008, ten years, it was $140.
  
  2007 growth rates were led by China (11.4%), India (9.2%), and Russia (8.1%). These point to demand increasing faster than the world oil system's maximum rate, which is likely to be in the 85-95 million barrels per day range. When it does, oil prices will rise permanently higher. As soon as the effects of the world recession clear, the threat of the Train Wreck scenario will recur. There is no permanent way to avoid the threat without transforming the U.S. energy system, including transportation.

In short, America is in danger and must act quickly. Already burdened by oil dependency of $0.7 Trillion each year, the nation is exposed daily to an oil shock, and probably has less than a decade before either or both of the second and third oil-related threats: an oil shock or the Train Wreck scenario. The results would be catastrophic for the nation and the world.

Allowing these vulnerabilities to exist for four decades has been national security malpractice.

Natural Gas and Coal are Limited

First, some new facts and a refresher on some old facts:

• America burns 1 billion tons of coal annually (20 Q-Btu) to generate half of the U.S. electricity.
• The other 20 Q-Btu come from 104 nuclear plants and hydro.
• Renewables (wind and solar), can't replace base load coal, nuclear, or hydro-generated electricity because they are intermittent power and need storage to make the current steady and reliable 24/7. Without an infrastructure designed for renewables will remain a trace source. See the discussion of the NEI Plan's renewable Grid, below.
• Cars and light trucks burn 13.4 Q-Btu in the form of (mostly) gasoline.
• Heavy trucks burn 5 Q-Btu of oil in the form of diesel.
• The maximum ethanol capacity for the U.S. is about 7 Q-Btu, enough to fuel trucks (when fully scaled) but not light vehicles.
• Coal to liquids (gasoline or diesel) can temporarily replace imported oil but this path is unsustainabile and would require more than doubling the total coal mined in the U.S. See xxx
• Coal to liquids (CTL) is considerably more dirty than simply refining oil, and the the sequestration of CO2 in underground cavities has not yet been tested—and such a test will reqire 20 years to prove the sequestered CO2 will not escape into the atmosphere.
• After a resource peaks, by definition it can never again deliver the resource at the same rate as before or at the peak. Therefore, given constant or rising world demand, the time when fossil fuels start to become unaffordable is around the time of the peak for the resource. Price is the issue, not remaining reserves.

It appears America is poised to repeat history. In 19th Century Britain, the "experts" consistently forecast coal at 3 times (3x) the remaining actual value. On the graphic at right the circles show the estimates, starting with "800 years" in 1871 and diminishing until reserve collapse in about 2000. Only when coal was in collapse did the estimates become correct.

To show that America is not immune, the same pattern was repeated with United states domestic oil in the mid-20th Century. Now, the oil, gas, and coal industry spokesmen assure the public that there is "plenty" of the fossil fuel remaining. However, these are now world markets. When Britain ran out of coal, it imported coal. Today, world demand for fossil fuels is increasing due to population growth and the rise of China (7% energy use growth), India (4.5%), and other nations. So far, delivery of fuels has met demand. But when the rate of world supply is surpassed by increasing demand, there is nowhere else to go to get more of the fuel.

As with oil, "plenty" of reserves is not the issue. It's price. Once a resource cannot meet the rate of demand, the price goes up. The point of sharp price rises comes a lot sooner than reserve collapse.

For example, some plans use Coal to Liquids technology to substitute for imported oil. According to recent analysis, attempting to use coal to replace the 13.4 Q-Btu of light vehicles (trucks are another 5 Q-Btu) will drive coal to become uneconomical before mid-century.

By contrast, the NEI Plan uses a coal to liquids technique that fuels the trucks, actually slightly reduces CO2 emissions, and then—when the coal becomes too expensive—converts to biofuels. See SCTL-B, Synergistic Coal to Liquids, then Biofuels.

Another trend to examine is natural gas.

The graphic at left shows

• In pink, the production per well
• In blue, the number of wells.

While there have been new "finds" in the U.S., the uses for natural gas (an excellent fuel) will likely deplete it as shown in the next graphic, below.

The red line, below, is oil; blue is natural gas, and black is coal.

The timings of these "waves" have been incorporated in the NEI Plan so that an alternative will be in place before the resource begins to fail. The exception, as discussed above, is oil. 12 years, the shortest time to real independence, is a long time when exposed to the ongoing costs of $0.7 Trillion per year and risks of an oil shock ($5-8 Trillion), or the Oil Train Wreck Scenario.

America is not in an enviable place. Many industry experts claim, just as the British Coal experts claimed in the 19th Century, that the supply is limitless. If these predictions are wrong and the estimates in the graphic at right are correct, America has very little time to build a substitute for fossil fuels.

Accelerated use of coal accelerates climate change.

Coal to liquids for the light vehicle fleet's 13.4 Q-Btu would more that double the billion tons of coal a year America burns. Such a program of independence could well destroy the transitional fuel needed to move to a 21st Century energy system.

To be sustainable, a destination at the end of a coal to liquids (gasoline or diesel) program is necessary. Simply using coal to fuel vehicles until the coal is exhausted, along with world oil, is a path to disaster.

The nation could well find itself a modern version of the tribe on Easter Island that cut down the last tree.

The NEI Plan is based on the reasonable assumption that the risk of being wrong about "reserves" of any fossil fuel is too great to take.

The Global Warming Threat

The probability that man-made global climate change exists far exceeds the probabilities justifying America's going to war in Iraq in 2003. Global climate change demands the same attention and resources. Cited below are three examples of the evidence: a report of a team led by James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the Stern Report, and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) fourth assessment report.

Even if the probabilities are not 100%, the penalties for guessing wrong are so high that action is justified today. It is fortunate that the NEI Plan can "solve" America's contribution to global climate change by building a new energy system. This eliminates, not mitigates the sources replaced by the current fossil-intensive system.

Danger, global climate change

When a danger arrives slowly, incrementally, it is easy to ignore. Some deny the danger, some pretend it does not exist. In retrospect, perhaps some day those leaders will be viewed as the historians now view Neville Chamberlain's actions at Munich, returning with a promise of "Peace in our time."

The graphic at right spans 1959-2059. One vexing question about global climate change is "how much is too much" CO2 in the atmosphere.

The graphic shows the slow rise of atmospheric CO2 on a "business as usual schedule" (red curve), and the change if the U.S. (not the rest of the world) would adopt the NEI Plan (blue curve).

The vertical black line is 2008, and one can see that the limit of 350 parts per million, ppm, suggested by Dr James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, as the long-term maximum for world levels has already been crossed.

One observer noted,

"Acting alone, Americans cannot curb climate change. Yet unless the United States acts, the chances of effectively addressing this global threat is nil."
[Bacevich, p 180]

Following is some of the evidence, starting with an excerpt from CNN, November 26, 2008.

• "LONDON, England (CNN) — A team of international scientists led by Dr James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, say that carbon dioxide (CO2) levels are already in the danger zone.
• "Concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere currently stand at 385 parts per million (ppm) and are rising at a rate of two ppm per year. This is enough, say the scientists, to encourage dangerous changes to the Earth's climate.
  
  
• "As a result we risk expanding desertification, food shortages, increased storm intensities, loss of coral reefs and the disappearance of mountain glaciers that supply water to hundreds of millions of people.
  
  
• "The report, "Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?" appears in the latest edition of the Open Atmosphere Science Journal and brings together the expertise of ten scientists from the United States, the UK and France."
  

Emissions

Roughly, half of America's greenhouse gas emissions come from tailpipes; the other half occurs when a billion tons of coal are burned annually to produce half of America's electricity.

• Tailpipe emissions require conversion of the light vehicle fleet (13.4 Q-Btu) to advanced electric vehicles and trucks (5 Q-Btu) to biofuels.
  
  
• There are approximately 600 coal-fired electrical generating plants in the U.S. The plants represent a capital investment of around $360 billion, and their retirement is not a trivial matter.
  
  
• Any plan to eliminate America's contribution to climate change must eliminate, not mitigate, emissions from all possible sources. At right, the NEI Plan eliminates, not mitigates, all but 16% of 2005 level CO2 emissions by 2050.
  
  NB: This graph is consistent with the one above it, showing world CO2 concentrations. One nation alone cannot solve a world problem.
  
  

The Stern Report is the most authoritative assessment of the costs of global warming. It forecasts disruptions of catastrophic scale. From the extract below, the disruptions will be "on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century. And it will be difficult or impossible to reverse these changes." Following are quotations from the Executive Summary.

• "The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, the most comprehensive review ever carried out on the economics of climate change, was published on October 30 2006 and was lead by Lord Stern, the then Head of the Government Economic Service and former World Bank Chief Economist."
  
  
• "Executive Summary"
  
  "The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: climate change presents very serious global risks, and it demands an urgent global response.
  
  "This independent Review was commissioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, reporting to both the Chancellor and to the Prime Minister, as a contribution to assessing the evidence and building understanding of the economics of climate change.
  
  "The Review first examines the evidence on the economic impacts of climate change itself, and explores the economics of stabilising greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The second half of the Review considers the complex policy challenges involved in managing the transition to a low-carbon economy and in ensuring that societies can adapt to the consequences of climate change that can no longer be avoided.
  
  [The Summary continues] "...actions over the coming few decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, later in this century and in the next, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century. And it will be difficult or impossible to reverse these changes. Tackling climate change is the pro-growth strategy for the longer term, and it can be done in a way that does not cap the aspirations for growth of rich or poor countries. The earlier effective action is taken, the less costly it will be."
  
  

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), issued its fourth assessment in 2007. It stated that climate change events are developing more rapidly than projected, making forecasting difficult since the targets are continuously moving.

NEI Plan: Mandates from Threats.

	The five threats, listed above, sum up to this: America is like a surfer paddling out toward a wave that is looming to a destructive level. The only option is to paddle toward the wave, hoping that will be possible to punch through to the other side before the wave crashes on the sufer. Ignoring the wave, or pretending it's not there are foolish options.
				Likewise, the fossil energy system is becoming unusable, unaffordable, and dangerous. Three waves loom: oil first, then natural gas, and then coal. Decisions need to be made. America must end oil dependency and end fossil fuel use.

End Oil Dependency in 12 Years

End Fossil Fuel Use by 2050

===========================================

Strategies

Eliminate Oil Dependence First

Short-term must serve long-term

Eliminate, Not Mitigate Emissions

Renewables Phase Out Fossil

Electric Cars Phase Out Gasoline

Organization

Financed off the Federal Budget

Job Creation for SCTL-B Plants, Cars

Managed as a National Utility: NEIA

Military Implications

Realistic

"28 Q-Btu" to End Oil Dependency

Natural Gas and Coal are Limited

Means

Electric efficiency is essential

Electrify Light Vehicles (3x sales)

Renewable Infrastructure is essential

Generation by Wind and Solar

Heavy Trucks: SCTL to Biofuels

Fossil Is Essential for Transition

Goals or End States

End of Transition: 12 Years

21st Century Energy System

Transition Overview

Comparison with Other Plans

Documents to Download

Credits

====================Stop Here

America's Choice

The fossil system has served the nation well, but it is now obsolete and a danger to national energy security. It has become the tail that wags the dog.

Response: NEI Plan

America spends about

If it were possible to implement the NEI Plan in an instant,

30 years into the future, the results would be a new, more competitive America.

• A giant electric network, fueled by free wind and some solar (the full build-out of solar will take until 2050), with CAES, compressed air energy storage, to condition the renewable energy into steady, reliable, base load current, available 24/7.
• The combination of

The NEI Plan consists of three parts and two tracks. Transition, the most difficult part, is

Financing the grid

First, avert the three clear and present dangers from oil dependency

• There are three perils stemming from America's 70% foreign oil dependency: the annual costs, the ever-present potential for an oil shock, and the "Train Wreck" scenario.
• America uses 40 Q-Btu of oil (19 million barrels per day) per year, 70% of which is imported. Eliminating oil dependency requires the reduction of oil imports from 28 Q-Btu to zero. For example:
  • 28 Q-Btu is a high hurdle. Imports from Saudi Arabia, 1.418; Venezuela, 1.120; Nigeria, 1.028; and Iraq, .479; all these together only total 4.045 mmbbl/d (8.535 Q-Btu), and are just 30% of the needed 28 Q-Btu.
  • It is not possible to reach 28 Q-Btu without converting the light vehicle fleet (13.4 Q-Btu of oil reduction) to advanced electric drive vehicles, either hydrogen fuel cell powered cars like the Honda FCX Clarity or plug-in hybrids like the Chevy Volt. The Honda has a range of 230 miles and torque similar to a BMW; the Chevy is planned to be for sale at the end of 2010. Links to the manufacturers' web sites are between the pictures.

Links: