The Emperor Has No Clothes A Practical Guide for Environmental and Social Transformation (23 page)

94. Forested land can be used for grazing,
so an expansion of forests would provide a large carbon dioxide
offset and at the same time additional grazing area.

At the present time the impairment of forest
growth as a result of acid rain significantly diminishes the amount
of carbon being sequestered by the sick trees. Once the shift from
fossil fuels to nuclear power takes place the elimination of acid
rain will allow these plants to regain their vigor and increase the
amount of carbon sequestered in these areas.

At this point lets total up the amount of
greenhouse gas reductions:

~~~~~~~~~~

Nuclear power........................86.2
%

Agriculture.............................11.64
%

Total:......................................97.84%

Note: The amounts from transportation
mentioned earlier and dietary shifts are not included in the above
total.

~~~~~~~~~~

The remaining large contributors of
greenhouse gas emissions are from transportation 28% and industrial
consumption 20%. Transportation is an area where significant
reductions have taken place with more reductions anticipated in the
near future. When I looked into the various energy technologies
about 10 years ago the United States consumed 20.4 million barrels
of oil each day for transportation. Since then oil consumption has
dropped to 18.9 million barrels per day, a 7.4 % decline in oil
consumption which reduced our national carbon dioxide output by
about 2.1%. The recent updated mileage standards for cars have a
target of 54.5 mpg by 2025. The increase automotive mileage should
produce an anticipated reduction of about 2 million barrels per day
about 10.6% of our current consumption. This reduction of oil usage
will produce a further 3% decrease of the national carbon dioxide
output. These projections are based upon the assumption that the
car usage patterns will remain similar to the present which may not
be the case (we will return to his later).

Lets consider some applications of electric
power for transportation. When I was a child living in Chicago the
mass transit system was powered by electricity. It was comprised of
the “L” which is light passenger rail and is still in operation.
The city also operated electrically powered buses (Plate. 1) and
street cars popularly referred to as green hornets. The green
hornets were another form of light rail that utilized tracks
embedded in the streets. The electricity to power the buses and
Green Hornets were picked up from overhead electric wires which can
be clearly seen above the bus in Plate 1. Shortly before we moved
from Chicago the Green Hornets were eliminated and the buses
changed to diesel. The decline in air quality was very obvious, the
air really stunk from diesel. I recall asking my father why we
changed from the nice quiet clean electrically powered transport to
diesel? He said that the diesel buses didn't need to stay by the
wires. Of course looking back on this now his explanation wasn't
correct because public transport always follows the same route.
Some years later it turned out that the automotive industry hatched
a plan to eliminate electrically powered public transportation. The
method that was used was to acquire a controlling interest in these
transportation systems and put them out of business. This was
accomplished by setting up fronts to conceal their maneuvers to
gain control of electrically powered public transport systems. Once
the electrically powered systems were gone, the public need for
mass transportation created the conditions that enabled these
companies to replace the electrical system with their inferior
diesel powered buses. This greatly increased sales of their
products and was also found by the courts to be illegal.
[
95]

95. Another triumph of corporate greed over
public welfare. Many years after slowly wending it's way through
the courts when the litigation had become moot as far as electrical
transport was concerned they were fined $1.00.

Recently one of my friends took a trip to
Mexico and he noticed that they were operating electric buses. He
mentioned to the driver that these same types of buses had been
used in Chicago. The driver replied that they were the very same
buses we had. They had been purchased from the Chicago Transit
Authority years ago. These seem to have been good buses they were
purchased used and still in operation about 60 years later. I
wonder if any of the original diesel buses are still in operation
and still polluting the air? I suspect not.

P
late 1. Electric Bus Courtesy of Kevin Zolkiewicz.

The point of this reminiscence is that it is
a description of a well tested practical method of urban electrical
transportation. According to the information published by the
United States Department of Transportation in 2011, diesel powered
buses consumed 4.6 million barrels of diesel oil a shift back to
electrically power buses would eliminate the use of all this oil,
and if supplied by pollution free electrical nuclear power it would
reduce our carbon dioxide output by 6.6 million tonnes per year.
The conversion to electrically powered urban transportation would
also reduce large numbers of illnesses originating from the diesel
exhaust particles, thereby producing large reductions in health
care costs and improved quality of life. [
96]
If the suggested billion tonnes of long distance
truck freight could be shifted to inter-model rail, the following
benefits would occur; consumption of 29.8 million barrels of oil
and the production of 42.7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide.

96. It is estimated that if filters that
eliminated diesel exhaust particles larger than 2.5 microns, a $100
billion reduction in health care costs would be realized. The cost
to outfit the U.S. Diesel fleet with filters would be $10 billion.
The diesel powered transportation industry has vigorously resisted
the use of these filters and prevented requirements for air quality
improvements in this area. Once again corporate greed triumphs over
public benefits.

Next I would like to consider a possible
expansion of the electrical urban mass-transit system to also carry
freight. Before we start though, the following proposal would
require the development of electrically powered trucks. Therefore,
the following presentation is being included to provide planning
guidelines for an urban mass-transit system that would have the
capability for the expansion of power line capacity to accommodate
the anticipated higher demand. It is also being included to provide
an example of a simple achievable cost effective type of technical
innovation that could quickly have a large impact on our
environmental problems.

After deducting the one billion tonnes of
long distance freight we still have another 8 billion tonnes of
freight that is transported shorter distances. Most of this short
distance freight is moved around in urban areas where 80.7 % of the
U.S. Population resides. It seems that it would be feasible to
transport urban freight using electrically powered trucks. These
trucks could use overhead power lines for most of their journey to
get them close to their destination. The remaining short distance
to their delivery location could be accomplished by battery. My
recollection of traveling using the public transit system in
Chicago was that we seldom had to walk more than ¾ km (½ mile) to
our destination. So a battery that could power a truck for maybe 3
km (2 miles) or less would be required to have a practical electric
urban freight system. The electrically powered trucks could simply
be created by incorporating already existing electric traction and
control systems in a truck chassis and body, with the addition of
the new transportation batteries all of which currently exist.

Let's consider how this could effect fossil
fuel consumption. Since 80.7 % of the population lives in urban
areas I will make the assumption that these people consume 80.7 %
of the remaining 8 billion tonnes of truck freight and that 75 % of
this freight is within the delivery range of the electrically
powered trucks, which works out to 5.22 billion tonnes of freight.
According to the U.S. Department of Transportation in 2011 trucks
used 585.2 million barrels of oil to move all 9 billion tonnes of
freight, which also produced 839 million tonnes of carbon dioxide.
To move 75% of the urban freight by nuclear electric 254.6 million
barrels of oil which produces 365 million tonnes of carbon dioxide
would be eliminated. This would provide a further green house gas
reduction of 6.8 % and a 3.7% reduction in our oil consumption.
Note: since the freight system requires development it is not being
included in the cost, energy balance, and greenhouse gas tallies,
but can be kept in mind as a likely near future technical
panacea.

To sum up, the reductions of fossil fuel
usage if urban diesel buses are discontinued and a return to the
electrical bus system is implemented it would result in an
additional reduction of 4.6 million barrels of annual oil usage and
6.6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. In order to produce the
electrical power for the entire transportation proposal including
trucks, an additional 178.5 one million kWh plants containing 574
modules would be needed. The cost would be $232 billion at the one
off price, or $155.44 billion at the discounted high volume
rate.

After this point I will no longer be able to
produce further quantifiable estimates, so let's total up what has
been accomplished.

~~~~~~~~~~

Sector.....................................%
Carbon Dioxide Reduction

Agriculture.................................11.64

Nuclear
Power............................86.2

Transportation...............................3.73 (2.52 million
barrels / day = 13% reduction)

Total...........................................101.57%

~~~~~~~~~~

Batteries have four significant deficiencies
for use in battery powered vehicles. The first shortcoming is that
batteries for their size don't store a lot of energy and as a
result of their low storage capacity, they are relatively heavy.
The second shortcoming is that the amount of power that they can be
tapped for is dependent on temperature. At lower temperatures the
amount of available energy is less.[97]

97. The degree of temperature
sensitivity varies according to the type of battery.

A third problem is the amount of time that is
required to recharge them. The last major problem is that large
storage capacity batteries are expensive. If we consider the above
discussion about the use of overhead electric power lines some of
the problems just described can be reduced. The batteries carried
in freight or passenger vehicles could be undergoing recharge while
the vehicle is being used when it is tapping energy from overhead
lines as suggested for urban areas. By recharging while traveling,
alleviation of recharge down time would occur. An insulating
blanket or simple battery heater powered from the overhead energy
system could be incorporated in vehicles used in colder climates,
thereby reducing the temperature sensitivity problem. Another
approach to address the range problem would be to design the
vehicles for standardized demountable batteries. By having the
capability for rapid battery changes a great increase of vehicle
range and/or a reduction in battery size could be achieved. Another
advantage of a demountable battery system would be for use in long
distance commuting or routine delivery service where inadequate
time for recharging exists. A depleted battery simply could be left
at the destination where it could be recharged and exchanged for a
fresh battery. By using this system a doubling of the vehicles
battery powered range or a reduction in battery size could be
realized. It would also be simple to establish battery service
stations where one could simply exchange a dead battery for a fresh
one for a fee. By having a network of battery service stations a
great increase of the utility of these vehicles could be produced,
roughly on par with petroleum powered car transportation. At the
present time a few rechargeable battery powered electric commuter
cars are available and they suffer from the deficiencies described
above. The battery powered cars that are currently available have
ranges from around 98 km - 438 km (60 – 267 miles). The “gas
mileage” they get is around the equivalent of 48 km per liter (110
miles per gallon) and require 4 to 10 hours to charge. Their prices
are generally mid range. Probably the greatest deterrent to their
more widespread use is their charging time. By adopting the
overhead power and demountable battery system just described their
battery recharging deficiencies could be greatly reduced without
sacrificing or possibly even increasing their range. If the
batteries for transportation become standardized one could also
expect a reduction of their cost because of the greater scale of
production. A further advantage to using this type of system is
that the cost of nuclear generated power is lower than other
sources. By having lower transportation energy costs, further
reductions in freight costs would be expected as well as lower
personal transportation costs. These cost reductions are additive
which would significantly benefit the consumer. Using inexpensive
nuclear electricity would in effect reduce the cost for the
electric transportation by around 20 %, and be about 5 - 6 times
cheaper to operate than fossil fueled cars and trucks, wow! A final
advantage is that these systems are more durable and reliable. They
have much lower maintenance costs than internal combustion powered
transportation, no oil changes, filters, fan belts, radiator hoses,
PCV valves, etc.