EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- The Bill of Rights Exists: An Open Letter to Dianne Feinstein
- Major Loss to Organic Farmers as Court Rules in Favor of Monsanto
- NSA Whistleblower Revealed: Q&A with Edward Snowden
- One American Who Isn't For Sale
- 'Reprehensible, Reckless, Illegal': Washington Officials Slam Heroic NSA Surveillance Leaker
Popular content
Today's Top News
They Paved Paradise and Put Up... A Power Source
BRATTLEBORO -- The secret to saving the world could be hidden in the miles and miles of parking lot in the United States, Dr. Arjun Makhijani said Saturday.Makhijani addressed roughly 65 people at the annual membership meeting for the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution.
The author of "Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy" and a recognized authority on energy issues, Makhijani repeatedly referred to himself as a "poor Indian boy" and a "ham" during his speech Saturday.
Makhijani is also the president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research in Takoma Park, Md. He earned his Ph.D. in engineering at the University of California, Berkeley in 1972, specializing in nuclear fusion.
Makhijani spoke about a number of energy alternatives to nuclear power. One of what he calls the "bumper stickers" in his book is that "parking lots are the answer."
By this he meant that, given the sheer mass of parking lot space in the U.S., it would be an ideal situation to put canopies with solar paneling over as many as possible, providing a lot of energy as well as shade for motorists. "They like it in Texas, it's hot there," he Advertisement said.
Makhijani told story after story Saturday, most of which caused nods and murmurs of assent from the audience, which was made up of a number of people who were by no means new to the discussion of nuclear power. One woman sat quietly in her seat, wearing a hand-colored shirt demanding the close of Vermont Yankee.
Makhijani believes the nation can eliminate its carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 and can do it without relying on nuclear power.
One argument in favor of nuclear power is its ability to provide baseload capacity --power 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. But Makhijani said power coming from biomass and geothermal resources and solar thermal power plants with heat storage complemented by battery storage can provide that baseload.
It won't be an easy transition, he said, but with a little bit of planning, the United States can do it in less than 50 years.
He has set out six steps the United States needs to take to make carbon-free energy a reality:
* Enact a physical limit on carbon dioxide emissions (also called a hard cap) for large users of fossil fuels that steadily declines to zero.
* Eliminate all subsidies and tax breaks for fossil fuels, nuclear power and biofuels from food crops.
* Build demonstration energy supply plants including solar thermal, solar photovoltaic and carbon dioxide capture in microalgae for liquid fuel production.
* Leverage government purchasing power to create markets for advanced technologies such as plug-in hybrid vehicles.
* Ban new coal-fired plants unless they include reliable carbon capture and storage.
* Create and enforce stringent efficiency standards for appliances, transportation and buildings.
"If we do everything right," he said Saturday, "we can get rid of carbon dioxide in 30 to 50 years."
While he was preaching to the choir somewhat, Makhijani presented a number of ideas he admitted they may not all agree with.
"We are in deep trouble," he said, if we don't cut down our carbon dioxide emissions. "The planet is in intensive care. What do you do when you're in intensive care with cancer? You do toxic things to your body to get rid of it. If you want to survive, you have to do some nasty things."
This related to many people's concerns about the aesthetics of wind turbines, he said. "If you want to look at electricity, do that. Don't worry about the view. This argument needs to be settled. We have to get tough. We don't have a lot of time."
Makhijani said he did not agree with alternative fuel sources such as wheat or corn. "By turning food to fuel and fuel into food ... how stupid are we?"
He worried that the world has not yet weighed the effect of these sources. "We don't know the net of Brazilian ethanol, poor residents getting pushed out."
Another bumper sticker, he said, is that "Weeds are the answer."
"Microalgae have been demonstrated to capture over 80 percent of the daytime carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and can be used to produce up to 10,000 gallons of liquid fuel per acre per year," wrote Makhijani.
He also disagreed with the idea of carbon offsets. "I'm against you salving your conscience by paying somebody to plant a tree," he said. "I was surprised to come to the conclusion that we can actually get rid of it all without all this funny money."
The idea of virtue played a big role in his discussion Saturday. "I assume that the number of virtuous people in the United States will not change. We don't have time to convince everyone to be virtuous. If you want to do that, we're going to fail."
He told the group that the public needed to lead this movement. "We need the leadership of the people. The wind is you, just remember that. You have to create that political wind so politicians feel it."
Nicole Orne can be reached at norne@reformer.com
© 2008 The Reformer
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


19 Comments so far
Show AllThere is a real push to revitalize nuclear (nook you lar) power. The usual phrase is something like, "global warming isn't a problem, but that problem (that doesn't exist) can be solved with nuclear power."
Dr. Bill Watenburg, a disgusting shill and pathological liar who has a talk show on KGO San Francisco, and has appeared on Bob Brinker's "Money Talk", is promoting it like crazy. They both refer to how it is so cheap and safe as well.
Obviously this is not true. Well partly true, due to taxpayers picking up the liability with Price Anderson, and subsidizing the removal of wastes and decommissioning costs, it is cheap for the utilities. Socialize costs, privatize profits.
We have a tendency to have to fight the same fights over and over until they finally win. Lets beat them good on this insane fraud.
The US could have all of the energy it needs while spending less than it currently spends keeping the oil supply flowing, if it adopted Dr. Makhijani's proposals. Unfortunately, the proposals are 180 degrees from the Bush regime's energy policy.
The most recent "bi-partisan energy bill" ignored renewables and provides obscene tax payer funded corporate welfare for new nuclear power plant construction and ethanol production and is being touted as a means of reducing imported oil and air pollution. The bill will do neither.
Makhijani is spot on! We need more people like him and we all need to push for a bridge to a post-carbon world. The dual crisis of peak oil and global warming demands a Marshall Plan and all the money that's been wasted on the illegal war in Iraq needs to be redirected in ways Makhijani has listed. The war in the Middle East and the pilfering of oil is a losing and criminal strategy. This is a national emergency and it is also an economic opportunity to create a viable alternative to economic collapse and war.
With just the amount of the Iraq budget of 2007, $138 billion, the government could instead have provided Medicaid-level health insurance for all 45 million Americans who are uninsured. What's more, we could have added 30,000 elementary and secondary schoolteachers and built 400 schools in which they could teach. And we could have provided basic home weatherization for about 1.6 million existing homes, reducing energy consumption in these homes by 30 percent.
But the economic consequences of Iraq run even deeper than the squandered opportunities for vital public investments. Spending on Iraq is also a job killer. Every $1 billion spent on a combination of education, healthcare, energy conservation and infrastructure investments creates between 50 and 100 percent more jobs than the same money going to Iraq. Taking the 2007 Iraq budget of $138 billion, this means that upward of 1 million jobs were lost because the Bush Administration chose the Iraq sinkhole over public investment.
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/79988/
The Iraq War Is Killing Our Economy
We need more engineers focussing on developing solutions and fewer economist (Chicago-school style) preaching about free markets.
The solutions are out there, its just all the preachers are in the way. The preachers, the politicians, the lobbyist, the corporations, the fundamentalist, and the american myth believers. Wow. Whats it gonna take?
This ain't just about putting solar panels in parking lots. Maybe if the solar panels are manufactured in the same communities with the parking lots, that would be part of the solution, but it runs deep. Don't you think? We have to take care of each other -- locally. We have to be self-sufficient -- locally. America has to look homeward instead of being so over-extended and in everyone else's business. How ridiculous.
People have to have energy, but they also need a home to live in, food to eat, and health care. There is plenty to go around, but we have to share. The hoarders need to be relieved of what they have been hoarding. It is not fair for them to have so much and for so many to have so little. Simple, but true.
The solutions are out there. I'm not sure about the will.
Peace,
Ken
I should add that the type of economist I'm talking about are those Chicago school Friedman style who think the "free market" is some sort of panacea....who think everything can be captured in equations....
If you want to learn about real and humane economics, then I recommend the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_is_Beautiful
To paraphrase, this is economics "as if People mattered". I think People matter.
I also applaud Dr. Makhijani and hope that his ideas will resonate.
Great solutions from a progressive Indian. I would add, use the remaining oil to build photovoltaics and bird friendly windchargers to also place on thousands of square miles of empty rooftops. Remaining fossil is too precious and polluting to burn. Connect these green energy sources to the existing power grid and regulate their loads by computer.
Insist that politicians give green energy issues top priority.
Listen to Ralph Nader. He has had these answers years before anyone else.
This article produced an actual "happy moment" for me. I'm sending copies of it to my legislators.
I applaud any attempt to harness renewable energy, and I think Dr. Makhijani deserves a big round of applause.
The one thing I hope to see is more distributed/independent power production. Photovoltaic and battery storage technologies are advancing and making it more cost effective for individuals to install PV on their rooftops as well as smaller, more efficient wind turbines.
The best way for this country to be energy independent, is for Americans to be energy independent. That's the direction many are heading, as am I.
" buffalo_ken March 18th, 2008 2:30 pm
...
People have to have energy, but they also need a home to live in, food to eat, and health care. There is plenty to go around, but we have to share. The hoarders need to be relieved of what they have been hoarding. ..."
AND WHAT HAVE THEY BEEN HOARDING? LIFE, LIBERTY, JUSTICE, ....
Yes, it'd be great to relieve them of these things they've been hoarding; to 'liberate' them, as they like to use the term. "Bring it on", as they also like to say.
Okay, fun, dreaming over, now I'll just say, "great article", or news anyway. I definitely like the idea proposed, and it's definitely refreshing to read about [intelligent] people presenting [intelligent] solutions.
Whether or not the parking lot idea would be suitable for winterland north, I don't know; but I guess it could be worked out, just needing some extra reinforcement for supporting the weight of additional snows the north has, perhaps. Or else snow wouldn't accumulate because the solar panels would be warm or heated enough that snow would melt and the water would run off, especially if the panels were slightly slanted; maybe. And maybe there are other answers to this sort of potential problem, but professor Makhijani certainly seems capable of saying, or else determining and then saying, what the possible solutions would be for the north.
And given that many rooftops of buildings are FLAT, I wonder about extending the idea of solar panels over parking lots to include these rooftops, too; in addition, or as a substitute when there isn't enough parking lot space.
Well, for rooftops not being used for growing food, anyway.
Whatever, he sure seems like a person who'd be able to answer all possibly relevant questions and to propose solutions or answers for each.
We just have the screaming question left, about how to get govt to do what's right and needs to be done. Like I said, 'screaming'.
" buffalo_ken March 18th, 2008 3:31 pm
I should add that the type of economist I'm talking about are those Chicago school Friedman style who think the "free market" is some sort of panacea….who think everything can be captured in equations…."
I DO NOT THINK THAT it is that they think they can capture everything in equations, but that they think that they can invalidly use equations for suiting only themselves, which might mean that they eliminate variables, therefore parameters, that are inherently necessary for the equations to be complete.
And you refer to a wikipedia page on small being beautiful, which I'm a believer of, but it also relates to "equational" thinking. Whether the equations are explicitly used, or not, they're still used; just that they'll then be implicit, when not explicit.
They invalidly employ equations and/or corrupted equations, probably deliberately corrupted too, when corrupt; deliberate in some cases anyway. You can employ a wholly valid equation-based process to prove that they are wrong, including [very].
I wish had stayed in theoretical and applied mathematics, mostly applied I believe it would've been, instead of having switched to computer science, for I believe that it'd be possible to develop a mathematically based simulation sort of presentation which would illustrate, among other things, that these schmucks are all and extremely wrong; and that they're deliberately applying gansters' "math", likely enough anyway. But I'm lacking the courses that would permit me to develop such modeling, which could be on computer, or simply on paper, whiteboard, ....
After all, they refuse to listen to humane sense, so developing mathematically based modeling that would strongly debunk the bs "math" of f*cked up economists shouldn't hurt our cause. It'd preferably help, but certainly wouldn't hurt, so it'd be either beneficial or else benign.
Yet, even if everything was just, then we'd still want valid economics, so math, to be used to ensure that the justice is first properly defined and established, and then maintained. That's for as long as societies are based on economics, for there is a bottom to the related "well"; there's only x amount of gold. Etcetera.
If bartering was sufficient, then this is the way I'd prefer to live; it'd mean no need of money at all. Only, it's not sufficient; sometimes it is, but often not. And the pigs tax us even on barter trade; using their f*cked up "math".
Although I strongly agree with Dr. Makhijani's rationale for greater efficiency of energy usage, the unvarnished truth is that it won't fly with energy addicted, protoprimitive, porker U.S. gawd fearin' Americans.
The only time such a message will be heard is when the electric grid system has utterly failed (kaput!). By then it won't matter anyway because desertification will be compleate, and famine and dehydration will have overwhelmed the survivors.
This will never happen. The big energy corporations own the politicos and they don't want to change. They are making big money with things just the way they are. It will be another case of too little too late.
If we do everything right," he said Saturday, "we can get rid of carbon dioxide in 30 to 50 years."
If they get rid of carbon dioxide in 50 years, there will be no plant life on the planet in 51 years...duh!
Perhaps he meant reduce man-made contibution to carbon dioxide?
This is the link to a summary of Makhijani's findings. He posted it on CommonDreams about 6 months ago in a discussion on nuclear power.
http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/summary.pdf