Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have shown how vulnerable the U.S. is to any disruption of its energy supply. More than that, they've shown how bankrupt U.S. energy policy is under the Bush administration. It basically consists of more tax breaks for the energy industry, fewer regulations of any kind, drilling ANWAR and federal land everywhere, ignoring global warming, and trusting Saudi Arabia to take care of us.
It's also a tremendous opportunity for the Democrats if only they will seize it.
The reflex Republican response to any Democratic `viewing with alarm' and `expressions of concern' is to charge them with negativism and failing to have anything positive to offer. Well, that doesn't have to be the case here. As Americans (and the world) suffer at the gas pump and choose between eating or staying warm this winter, chances are they'll be ready to listen to anyone with an energy policy that makes sense.
Well, I've got a starting point. (More below the fold)
I think I've come up with a comprehensive strategy to do something about energy policy in a way that has not been brought up before. Be warned; this is lengthy - but not too technical. Please bear with me and hold your reservations till the end.
One of the critical things Democrats need is issues that can engage voters. Republicans have been masterful at creating issues out of things that arouse people, while distracting them from the real challenges this country faces such as the current energy mess. The President refuses to call for sacrifice, but offers no meaningful plans. This proposal does call for some effort, but does so in a way that promises clear gains to all Americans - and in a way that Republicans will find hard to counter. Here it is.
The Wedge
The difficulty with doing anything about U.S. energy policy is that it is a huge problem with no easy answers. The American way of life is inextricably bound to lavish energy consumption and that can't be changed quickly or easily. Further, "Things As They Are" have vast amounts of money to use to keep them that way and legions of politicians feeding at their trough. And yet if we do nothing, sooner or later we will be faced with an energy crisis we won't be able to ignore. What to do? The trick is to find a point of attack to start changing the way America uses energy, and I think I've found one: Agriculture.
American agriculture is energy-intensive. It's ripe for anything that can reduce or eliminate its dependence on oil. There is an answer which builds on the unique characteristics of agriculture; it can be realized incrementally, doesn't require any great technological breakthroughs, and it offers energy independence to farmers. It's hydrogen.
Why It Can Work
Let's start by looking at some of the characteristics of farming that apply. Farms typically take up a lot of space - hundreds, even thousands of acres in some cases. Farms often have large, specialized structures. Farmers are used to working with complex and demanding equipment, large animals, and hazardous chemicals. Most important, farmers operate on a very thin profit margin in a very uncertain environment. They'll be very receptive to anything which promises to make farming less of a calculated risk. Here's how.
Agriculture is the logical place to begin shifting to a hydrogen economy. Consider the average barn; the roof has lots of square footage. Imagine that roof covered with solar panels. Picture the classic wind mill pumping water. Add a few wind turbines. With electricity from panels and/or turbines, water can be broken down into hydrogen and oxygen. Store the hydrogen; the oxygen can be released, or used for other things to be described below.
Being able to produce and store hydrogen onsite is what makes the transition to a hydrogen economy feasible for agriculture. Farmers already routinely store feed, chemicals, seed, waste, etc. in large quantities and in specialized structures. Adding a hydrogen storage farm to the mix is no great stretch. At the moment, solar and wind systems typically are used to charge batteries to store power. Storing it as hydrogen is simpler than maintaining a battery farm.
Production can go year round. Peak solar panel power production will coincide with peak growing months. Wind turbines can operate day or night - and winter gales will be something besides an inconvenience. Further, once they have produced enough hydrogen to maintain working reserves, any excess electricity can be fed into the power grid, generating income directly.
There are two primary ways hydrogen can be put to work. One is to generate electricity - onsite and as needed using fuel cells. Why not burn it in a conventional internal combustion engine powered generator? Well, that can be done and probably will, but fuel cells are cleaner, quieter, potentially more reliable and more efficient. Commercial models are now becoming available and a farm is exactly the kind of place where they would make a good fit.
To get a handle on this and find out more information, check out Plug Power's web site at:
http://www.plugpower.com/technology/overview.cfm?vid=669496&liak=57449059
(Disclaimer: I am not connected to Plug Power in any way - they just happen to be near the area in which I live so I'm aware of their efforts. There are doubtless other such companies coming on line.)
Also check out:
http://www.hydrogenus.com/
The potentially large market for fuel cells on farms could help jump-start the industry and make the technology more acceptable as numbers of working fuel cells reach a critical mass in public perception. Further, fuel cell can operate on other fuels, as for example methane produced by biomass conversion from organic wastes. Farms produce lots of those.
The second way to use hydrogen is to power vehicles/machinery on the farm. There has been a fair amount of attention paid to putting hydrogen powered vehicles on the roads - but the big stumbling block has been providing a hydrogen infrastructure to fuel them. Going the farm route avoids that altogether. The hydrogen will be generated onsite - and most farm vehicles don't get far from the property. So, along with hydrogen production and storage, add in hydrogen fueling facilities. Again no big deal. Many farmers already have onsite storage for gas and diesel. This is just another way of doing something they're already familiar with.
Adapting farm vehicles to run on hydrogen is not rocket science. Retrofitting current internal combustion powered vehicles to run on hydrogen already has some solid engineering behind it. The chief drawback to using hydrogen on vehicles is that a fuel tank can be bulky; but again going the farm route is an advantage. Few farm vehicles can be described as diminutive.
Eventually conversion won't be a problem. As hydrogen becomes increasingly available, hydrogen fuel will become just another factory option - and eventually internal combustion engines may be supplanted by fuel cell powered vehicles with the additional bonus of making them a lot quieter. Will there be added cost to buying and operating hydrogen fueled vehicles? Probably initially - but it will be offset by the savings in not having to buy petroleum based fuels. In any case, farm machinery is not cheap. Hydrogen as a fuel option would only be a small part of the overall cost of purchase.
Think of it this way. Farmers are in the business of harvesting solar energy in the form of food crops and livestock. Capturing and storing it as hydrogen is just another side to that activity.
Showstoppers?
Granted there are several big unknowns here. How much energy does it take to operate a farm over a year? How much in the way of solar panels, wind turbines and hydrogen storage would it take to capture enough energy to meet that need - and at what price? How receptive will farmers be to this idea, and how hard will it be to get started?
Those answers will vary from farm to farm, from primary crop to crop, with technological considerations, with sales volume/prices of the individual components, and so on.
Against that, contrast rising energy prices, increasing instability in the energy industry, potential subsidies and other incentives. Clearly working it all out will not be easy, but the benefits can be considered now. Anything that cuts fossil fuel use is a worth looking at; more important is that this proposal could get people to look at the energy situation with new intent. There is enough promise in this that running some pilot projects and putting some actual hardware together is worth doing. As hard numbers become available, plans can be modified.
Benefits/Talking Points
Shifting agriculture to a hydrogen base has many advantages. Here are some off the top of my head in no particular order:
- As pointed out above, farms are a good place to start the transition to a hydrogen economy because of all the factors that apply. They have space, already work with large structures, complex machinery and hazardous chemicals. Hydrogen would be relatively easy to introduce into that mix.
- Farmers operate in a precarious economic environment. Weather or market vicissitudes can render an entire year's effort unprofitable. Giving farmers independence from a volatile energy market will remove a fair amount of uncertainty from their finances.
- Having a base food production capability not vulnerable to oil industry disruption is good for National Security! It's hard to picture terrorists going farm to farm to blow up solar panels.....
- It makes environmental sense. Hydrogen use will lower greenhouse gas production, and may even make farms quieter. Plus, the oxygen generated as a byproduct of hydrogen production can be used in other ways, ie: accelerate bacterial break down of organic wastes, as in sludge lagoons, etc.; in fish-farming; ie oxygenating the water. Plus, no one ever worried about a hydrogen spill polluting soil or water.
- It will set an example for the rest of the world. If we can start to untie food production from petroleum consumption, we can avoid the nightmare of having to fight for oil to keep from starving - or forcing others to starve so that we may eat. Call it a moral imperative if you like.
- The technology developments that will come out of this will generate both jobs and exports, something the U.S. economy needs. Plus, it will help us remain competitive.
- Agriculture can be used as a testing ground to develop, prove and extend the use of hydrogen as a fuel. The potential base of users in agriculture should be large enough to support developments for uses outside of agriculture. As the size of the market increases, the costs of the technology should come down. Further, a substantial functioning hydrogen economy should do much to counter the "Hindenberg" factor.
- It can be done incrementally, farm by farm, component by component. Farmers have to budget energy use among all their other costs and plan for large expenditures over the long term. Just installing solar panels or wind turbines would have an immediate impact by itself. Given the right incentives (more on that below) the process could become self-sustaining.
- Freeing farmers from dependence on the power grid is another consideration. As recent large scale blackouts have shown us, the electric power industry has not exactly been doing a lot to make the national power grid reliable. Enron manipulations of the California electricity market have shown deregulation has not exactly been a thundering success nor driven down electricity costs. Weather and other natural disasters can interrupt power for days or even weeks. Having farms able to keep operating despite all of these seems like a Good Thing to work for. Again, something that strengthens National Security!
Getting There From Here
All right, I realize I've glossed over a number of difficulties here. I don't have the hard numbers to make a solid economic case, or actual case studies to point to in order to prove my arguments. In the face of that I can only say I am confident that the pieces are already there to start; all we need is to take the initiative. There are too many opportunities here to ignore, and a perfect opening for Democrats to lead on this. What we are doing now is not sustainable over the long term and the sooner we get started on alternatives, the less painful the transition will be.
The Republicans claim the Democrats have no ideas, that all they can do is point fingers. Well, this is a Big Idea and it has aspects that should resonate with the American soul - and traditional strengths of the Democratic Party. For some reason, Agriculture's intersection with Energy Policy has been largely ignored. Addressing this is a chance to show leadership on something that matters.
It's obvious this is not going to happen without government action. Transition to a hydrogen economy is not something that will happen quickly or easily if it is left to the `sacred' Market Forces the Right worships. Oh, the consumers of energy may have a lot of incentive to look for alternatives, but the energy industry has much more incentive to keep things just as they are - and the money and lawmakers to make it so. Republicans won't and can't fight the status quo on this: Democrats can, and they can win big by so doing.
In the first place, it plays right to the heart of the Red States: something to bolster the struggling family farmer. Government programs to shift agriculture to a hydrogen base can offer some real political traction for Democrats traditionally charged with being subservient to minorities, unions, and urban centers. Simply point out that in effect these programs are aimed at getting farmers off welfare.
Welfare? Yes, the welfare Republicans have been pushing on agriculture for years in the form of subsidies and price supports in exchange for votes. (Not that they are the only guilty ones on that score...) They've created dependency on the government; transitioning to hydrogen will foster independence - and it's something that will help the small farmer as much or more than the big corporate agribusinesses. Enabling farmers to become energy independent - and breaking the grip of Big Oil on them -should resonate big time in the heartland where they still remember their struggles against the big railroads.
As for traditional blue state interests, this idea plays to them as well. Reducing demand for oil based energy will help keep prices down elsewhere. Assuring the sustainability of the food supply should appeal to everyone. The manufacturing jobs that should result from this program ought to translate into employment and exports. The environmental benefits should be obvious.
How to do it? Why all the classic ways. Tax credits. Interest free loans. Grants. There's already a government network in place at all levels. County extension agents. Land grant colleges. State agriculture departments. The U.S.D.A. And so on. There is a decades long tradition of government help aimed at making farmers more productive, more innovative, and better educated.
As pointed out, subsidies and price supports are little more than agri-welfare. While they may keep farmers from going out of business, they do little beyond that. In contrast promoting a shift to a hydrogen based agriculture is something that should help farmers stand on their own feet, breaking the cycle of dependency. Once a farmer is on the way to energy independence, his need for further funding should decrease. By mitigating the initial startup investment costs, government can break the traditional chicken or egg logjam on getting a transition to hydrogen started. Who can fight that?
Other areas where government involvement is critical and irreplaceable abound. Funding for research programs and contracts to develop the technology and turn it into prototypes is one such. The emphasis should be on systems that are simple to operate, reliable, safe, robust, and scaleable. Funding pilot programs to demonstrate the technology are another. Education outreach; making information and training available is another component.
Even more critical is the regulatory environment. To adopt hydrogen technology on the scale envisioned will require modifying local building codes, land use regulations, occupational and health regulations, safety and liability concerns, and so on. It will be necessary to set standards for things like hydrogen plumbing connections, storage facilities and the like. This is not something that can be left to market forces alone. It is an area where government involvement can be critical.
At the present time, Republicans have pretty convincingly demonstrated they don't do government well. They don't do science or technology well. They don't do national security all that well either. This is an opportunity for Democrats to step up and say that it's not about size of government, it's about effectiveness - and show WE CAN DO IT!
This is all about making the country stronger, empowering individuals, and setting the country on the right path. It's about once again setting a standard for the rest of the world, and making us less dependent on the good will of either foreign powers or multinational corporations. Who can argue with that?
Best of all, it doesn't call for sudden disruption in the American Way of Life. It can be done incrementally, it can be done fairly, and we can start now. (Okay, it may be disruptive for farmers - but not if accompanied by sufficient financial incentives, support, and just plain smarts.)
Selling the public on investing in this should not be a problem. Point out that subsidies and price supports for agriculture do nothing for the long term health of agriculture. This program will remake it, better than it was. Point out the cost of the programs is nothing compared to the revenue lost to repealing the `Death Tax' - and that these programs will do a lot more to save the family farm. Float the idea of windfall profit taxes on oil to help fund this - anyone standing at a gas pump right now has got to love that idea.
As for the rebuilding following Katrina and Rita, finding ways to fit these programs into the effort makes sense. It's going to take years, so it's an opportunity to start right there. Hey, as long as there are so many places that need new roofs, why not put some solar panels up there too?
Why Now, Why Here?
What I've done here is sketch out the broad outlines of the basic idea: start transitioning agriculture to a hydrogen economy as a first step on reforming U.S. energy policy. I know it will take a lot of development work and attention to detail. It will have to be done right and be seen to have been done right to take off - but I think it can happen if we get the right people working on it. (Chances are if you are reading this here, you may be one of those people - or know how to get their attention.)
I'm laying this idea out now so that people interested in making policy and actually getting this country headed in the right direction can look at it, do some digging, think about it, talk about it, and run with it if they like it. The same old - same old talking points haven't been getting us anywhere; this might be one way. Unlike Bush's Mars program, this is something people can grasp as affecting them directly; it should get their attention and fire their imaginations if presented in the right way.
Mid-term elections are coming up in 2006. We have a winter to get through with unstable energy prices. We'll have months of Republican corruption and bungling along the Gulf Coast. We'll have presidential elections in 2008, if the country makes it that far.
This program is not something that will ever come out of the Republican Party as it is now - but it plays to values the Republicans claim to honor and can draw voters away from them. It builds on American strengths - independence instead of obliviousness, techno-competence instead of tech no-competence, and leadership in place of empty showmanship. It offers a way to make good policy as well as good politics - and God knows we could use a lot more of both right now.
So, may I make a request? Don't discount this as just a utopian fantasy right away. It's nowhere near as crazy as the fantasy ideas Republican think tanks have been shoving down our throats.
I may not have all of the details down, but I believe the broad outlines are correct. Think about it, put it on the back burner, and watch what happens to the economy over the next few months and years. Refer this to other people, recommend it - or not, but talk about it and think hard.
And then act.