AHC: "Energy Independence" in US by 2010

Heres a link to an article, it appears that I've been a bit hazy on the details. The issue is that if one company wants to sell recycled power to another it must go through the utilities, who take a big cut for the use of the transmission lines.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=158820&page=5

Your link brings you back here.

Of course the power companies take a cut. How else are they going to make money? In the future it may be more about providing the means to transmit the power to the grid than actually produce the power.

Torqumada
 
Nope, have to disagree. There is nothing preventing the US from developing an energy self-sufficient culture with a POD of October 1973 with the right impetus and public/political will. The US is still produces 5.3 million barrels per day of oil and lease condensate. With a POD more than 35 years in the past and the kind of changes I and others here (especially TheMann) have laid out, it's entirely possible.

We'll have to disagree then. While I think the US could be far more energy self-sufficient, I don't believe it could be 100% self sufficient.

That STILL uses half the per capita energy as the United States. The source doesn't really matter.
Yes, Europe uses far less energy per capita then the US, has far more nuclear generation capacity, and, thanks to population densities, has a more robust public transportation network. Europe still isn't energy self sufficient though and, with her major pipelines in Russian hands, the source of her oil and gas matters a great deal.

And every climate zone benefits from superinsulation to either heat or cool a structure. That's construction technology 101.

It's also Construction Technology 101 to recognize that they types of insulation used will vary by climate as will the need for air exchange between the building's interior and the outside.

One size it not going to fit all.

Perhaps in your state under your Public Utilities Commission rules, but certainly not everywhere, especially in the 1970s and 1980s. Electric utilities in many states, including here in the Northeast, did not like the idea of being forced to buy power from non-utility generating sources that were not under their control.

I'll explain this one more time. The electrical generation industry has been a huge part of my career for over thirty years now so I'm bringing a certain perspective to your proposals.

You could always sell excess electricity back to the grid. What some utilities did however was purchase it at a punitive rate. Niagara Mohawk was an example of that. The utilities deliberately offered less for each kwh offered, and then replaced those kwhs by purchasing more expensive kwhs from other sources at a loss, in order to maintain their generation monopolies.

The big break in co-gen in the 1980s occurred when legislation forbid this underpricing strategy and made the utilities purchased co-gen produced kwhs at a premium. While that made co-gen processes somewhat more attractive, the final piece that sparked the co-gen boom were partnership efforts like those begun by Duke Power.

Industries are naturally loathe to invest huge capital sums in equipment and processes with which they have no experience and running turbo-generator sets falls into that category. Partnerships between businesses already producing electricity and those interested in producing electricity removed the the equally troublesome "skill set" hurdle.

If the federal government can make states pass speed limit laws...

The feds bribed/bullied those speed limit laws by tying them to highway funds and even then there were allowed exceptions in the western states. One size is not going to fit all.

... just as my state forced all local towns to draw up comprehensive development plans.

The fed's authority over states is far less than a state's authority over the cities and towns within it. There is no "Home Rule" statute on the federal level so, unlike as with states and cities/towns, the feds don't grant the right of self governance to the states. Instead the states already have it and it cannot be removed.

Any expansion of federal authority over the states is going to run into a great deal of resistance no matter what the alleged benefits of that expansion.

As for the FAA having more power, yes, there was idle talk regarding your minimum trip radius during the second oil shock. Nothing came of it however because it was idle talk. Nothing came of it because that's how things work in the real world and an appreciation how things work in the real world is sorely lacking both in this thread and in many others at this site.

Too many posters here assume life is a video game. Someone posts a question like this one and the answers appear as if a game of Civilization were being discussed. Huge changes, wrenching changes, all are made as if they only required a mouse click or two to impose. In thread dealing with military issues, this disconnect between fantasy and reality is even worse. Units are shuffled, attacks made, campaigns launched as if the world was nothing but a game of Risk.

Simply stating that such fundamental changes as discussed here to the economic, political, and cultural structures of the US can be imposed by fiat and occur rapidly if only there is "enough" political will betrays a rather limited understanding of human nature.

May I suggest that you check out Rogue Beaver's many excellent time lines to see just how politics and humans actually work? He makes huge changes too, but he makes in a manner and on a time scale that are far more plausible than the Civilization play hints being presented here.
 
We'll have to disagree then. While I think the US could be far more energy self-sufficient, I don't believe it could be 100% self sufficient.

Yes, Europe uses far less energy per capita then the US, has far more nuclear generation capacity, and, thanks to population densities, has a more robust public transportation network. Europe still isn't energy self sufficient though and, with her major pipelines in Russian hands, the source of her oil and gas matters a great deal.

I'm sorry, but in the context of this thread, you're quite wrong. The source of Europe's energy matters only in that it illustrates the fact that the US has much larger energy resources within its borders than Europe does. The fact at issue is that Europe uses half the per capita energy of the United States and still manages a thriving, comfortable culture. It serves as an excellent example of what the U.S. could do with the proper encouragement.
It's also Construction Technology 101 to recognize that they types of insulation used will vary by climate as will the need for air exchange between the building's interior and the outside.

One size it not going to fit all.

I don't believe I argued that it did. Superinsulation almost always requires air exchange provisions. That's part of the process.
I'll explain this one more time. The electrical generation industry has been a huge part of my career for over thirty years now so I'm bringing a certain perspective to your proposals.

You could always sell excess electricity back to the grid. What some utilities did however was purchase it at a punitive rate. Niagara Mohawk was an example of that. The utilities deliberately offered less for each kwh offered, and then replaced those kwhs by purchasing more expensive kwhs from other sources at a loss, in order to maintain their generation monopolies.

That's what Niagara Mohawk did, and I respect your experience in that area. That is not what Central Maine Power, for example, did until the Maine PUC required it. Nor did other utilities. Covering utility issues in New England was part of my life for thirty years, so I have some small experience in the area. Since the details are really immaterial to the larger discussion, I suggest we pass them by.
The feds bribed/bullied those speed limit laws by tying them to highway funds and even then there were allowed exceptions in the western states. One size is not going to fit all.

I lived out West during the 1970s. Offhand I can recall only one exception, and it wasn't "allowed" so much as tolerated. Call it bullying or "forceful persuasion" or bribery. But the fact is, the feds did it and still do it -- in transportation, education, law enforcement, and myriad other areas. During the twin energy crises of the 1970s, they did it a lot. Extending that concept to zoning is not a large stretch.
As for the FAA having more power, yes, there was idle talk regarding your minimum trip radius during the second oil shock. Nothing came of it however because it was idle talk. Nothing came of it because that's how things work in the real world and an appreciation how things work in the real world is sorely lacking both in this thread and in many others at this site.

Too many posters here assume life is a video game. Someone posts a question like this one and the answers appear as if a game of Civilization were being discussed. Huge changes, wrenching changes, all are made as if they only required a mouse click or two to impose. In thread dealing with military issues, this disconnect between fantasy and reality is even worse. Units are shuffled, attacks made, campaigns launched as if the world was nothing but a game of Risk.

Simply stating that such fundamental changes as discussed here to the economic, political, and cultural structures of the US can be imposed by fiat and occur rapidly if only there is "enough" political will betrays a rather limited understanding of human nature.

May I suggest that you check out Rogue Beaver's many excellent time lines to see just how politics and humans actually work? He makes huge changes too, but he makes in a manner and on a time scale that are far more plausible than the Civilization play hints being presented here.

As a general rant against the theory behind AH brainstorming, I'll give you props. I don't agree with you. Your comment about how things work "in the real world" only reflects how things work in this world. The whole point of AH is to posit worlds that aren't this one, and the goal of this thread is to figure out a way to make the U.S. energy independent, if possible, by 2010. All of this is a process, nothing is set in concrete. If you don't like the way AH is presented here, well, what can I say?
 
Oops, tabbed browsing.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0915/054.html

The point is that one company which makes excess power could supply their next door nieghbour with a single, short power line in a cosy arrangement. But legislation favours utilities and their current practices although to be fair combined cycle power plants are squeezing more work per unit of input.
 
I'd like to bring attention to the comments about population density in the US. The thing Europe, Japan and Asia have that the US doesn't outside the North East Corridor is high speed (125mph+) intercity rail. This intercity rail, which in most cases is electric and therefore relevent to energy independence, has a niche for travel between 200 and 500 miles between city pairs in excess of 1 million people each.

The US has some 52 'greater' cities which have more than 1 million people and pairs which are 200-500 miles apart are not difficult to find. Therefore the US has a lot of regions where the population is plenty dense enough to sustain intercity HSR, after all they manage to sustain airlines and road travel.
 
Top