The current political climate is very focused on the “single greatest existential threat to our planet” in terms of climate change, with an exhaustive debate on the science and how quickly we are poised to do irreparable harm to the earth. Having researched this to at least some extent, what we have found are widely varying views on climate change, and specifically the causes for the same. We do believe man-made emissions are contributing, but we are not convinced that reversing those emissions will change what appears to be a cyclical set of events that have been occurring since before we walked the earth. We do believe, however, that we may be able to slow the progress, although it is important to note even the science underscoring the Paris Climate Accords (including a study out of Copenhagen from 2019), stating that “all climate policies by the US, China, the EU and the rest of the world, implemented from the early 2000s to 2030 and sustained through the century will likely reduce global temperature rise about 0.17°C in 2100.”
Too many politicians are caught up in the “what would you differently” question when asked about why they disagree with a policy. In order to better prepare our chosen Moderate Majority political guinea pigs for this inevitable outcome, let’s tackle that for energy. Energy will be a 3-part discussion – here we’ll start with transportation.
Energy for Transportation
This will focus on ground-based transportation, as air transport via renewable technology is still far away in terms of conquering the enormous power-to-lift ratios needed for large transport (airlines, cargo, etc.).
The variables in ground transportation really revolve around fuel vs. transport method. In automobiles, the largest global polluters in transportation, the fuel choices today are almost entirely based on internal combustion engines fueled by gasoline. While significant inroads have been made to move larger vehicles (e.g., city buses) to propane, LNG (natural gas), and electricity via overhead supply lines, there appears to be more gravitation to battery-based Electric Vehicles in our society.
Let’s examine EVs more closely: Through our research we have discovered that production of a typical EV emits 68% (6 tons) more CO2 into the atmosphere than production of a traditional vehicle. This imbalance does favor the EV when on the road for the first 19,000 miles, however, making the EV cleaner going forward. Lithium mining, however, is an environmental challenge, using 500,000 gallons of water and many other toxic chemicals including hydrochloric acid, to generate a single ton of lithium carbonate (enough for 1 car). The cobalt and nickel needed are also difficult to mine, and larger deposits of all of these minerals are found in developing countries with little environmental controls. Recycling these batteries also poses a significant risk environmentally speaking, as a single vehicle battery package may exceed 2,000 lbs. (even more for large trucks), and industry isn’t well-prepared to manage battery recycling at this point.
Of the transportation fuel sources today, the list consists of gasoline (and its many variants), propane and LNG, electricity, and the most favored source for this transportation platform: Hydrogen and Hydrogen Fuel Cells. Hydrogen – for combustion – burns mostly clean (with the exception of a nitrous oxide emission that is still less that hydrocarbon burns) and generally emits one thing: Water. Hydrogen Fuel Cells – running in more of an EV (non-combustion) mode – are more superior at storing electricity than traditional EV batteries, and do not emit the nitrous oxide… just water. Recent improvements in hydrogen extraction, safe transport, and safe refueling (5 minutes for a typical tank), has made these technologies very attractive. This makes hydrogen the superior long-term choice for transportation energy.
Path to get there: While the current administration has embarked on an arguably drastic path that is essentially a war on fossil fuel extraction and usage, the Moderate Majority approach and position is (we believe) more thoughtful and tenable:
- Set a national (preferably global) target to have all gasoline combustion engines for ground transport off the roads by 2050.
- Invest in cleaner and more sustainable EV technologies as an interim step to achieving near zero-emissions production, operation, and end-of-life (recycling) of batteries. Over 50% of all transportation should be targeted as EV-based by 2035.
- Accelerate the research and rollout of hydrogen as a combustible fuel source and a catalyzed fuel cell source (to replace large batteries in EVs). This also has major potential implications for locomotives (rail), large air transport, and even nuclear-based rocket motors being currently developed for NASA. Combustion research will hopefully eliminate or minimize N2O emissions, while fuel cell research will continue to minimize the need for battery size and power. Over 35% of all transportation should be hydrogen-based by 2035, with 90% hydrogen-based by 2050.
Hydrogen doesn’t enjoy the large-scale charging station rollouts that EVs do today, and therefore the technology rollout has suffered and investment in infrastructure is needed. We believe this fuel source to be a solid future prospect with tremendous advantages (including conversions of former gas-combustion engines that are beginning to appear in the market).